A new global corruption index released by Transparency International shows the United Kingdom and the United States have each recorded their lowest scores to date under the index’s current methodology. The 2026 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) rates perceived levels of public sector corruption across 182 countries and territories. It places Denmark at the top and South Sudan at the bottom. The latest results point to continued governance pressures in established democracies, with concerns linked to political finance, lobbying oversight, and protections for civic space and independent media. Transparency International compiles the CPI from expert and business surveys and assigns countries a score from 0 to 100, where a higher score indicates a cleaner public sector.
The findings highlight a broad pattern of stagnation and decline in several advanced economies over the past decade. They also show consistently low scores for conflict-affected and authoritarian states. The new rankings add weight to ongoing debates about standards in public life, transparency in public procurement, and the effectiveness of anti-corruption enforcement in high-income democracies.
UK registers a new low amid debates on standards and oversight
The UK recorded a fresh low on the CPI following a year of scrutiny over rules on political finance, lobbying, and public appointments. The index aggregates data from multiple independent sources to assess how experts and business leaders view the integrity of public institutions. While the CPI does not measure specific cases, it tracks perceptions of risks such as undue influence, conflicts of interest, and the strength of integrity checks.
The result places the UK below its position a decade ago, reflecting a downward drift that has emerged across several recent editions of the index. Governance analysts have pointed to persistent gaps in lobbying transparency, revolving-door movements between public office and the private sector, and variability in procurement disclosure as areas that shape lower perceptions of integrity. The new score reinforces wider calls for clearer rules, stronger enforcement, and more timely publication of data on political donations and contract awards.
US declines to its lowest CPI score under current methodology
The United States also fell to a new low on the CPI, continuing a pattern of uneven performance over recent years. The index captures views on federal and state-level integrity frameworks, ethics enforcement, campaign finance controls, and protections for watchdogs and journalists. The composite nature of the CPI means that a range of inputs, including risk assessments and expert analyses, drive the final score.
Governance researchers have long debated the influence of money in politics, the scope of lobbying, and the fragmentation of oversight across jurisdictions in the US system. The latest ranking reflects those concerns and underscores ongoing challenges for consistent enforcement and transparency at different levels of government. The score arrives as public agencies, lawmakers, and civil society groups continue to debate reforms to disclosure rules and ethics standards.
How the Corruption Perceptions Index works
Transparency International builds the CPI from a set of data sources that include assessments by risk consultancies, development banks, and research institutes. Each source scores countries on perceived public sector corruption and institutional integrity. The CPI then standardises and averages those assessments to assign a final 0–100 score and rank. The organisation has used this consolidated approach since 2012, which allows year-on-year comparisons for most countries.
The CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector, not on private sector misconduct alone. It tracks indicators such as bribery risks, diversion of public funds, undue influence over policy, misuse of public office, and the strength of anti-corruption agencies and courts. Transparency International advises users to treat the CPI as a perceptions-based benchmark and to read it alongside national data on enforcement, procurement, political finance, and public integrity.
Global rankings show familiar leaders and persistent strugglers
Denmark led the new index, maintaining a position near the top across many years. Strong public administration standards, broad access to information, and consistent enforcement have historically supported perceptions of low public sector corruption in the Nordic region. Other high-scoring countries typically include those with long-running rule-of-law traditions, comprehensive financial disclosure regimes, and open contracting practices.
At the lower end, South Sudan ranked last again, reflecting the severe governance pressures that conflict and institutional fragility create. Countries facing protracted crises, weak rule of law, or limited civic space tend to score poorly due to systemic risks of embezzlement, bribery, and political interference in institutions. While the index does not catalogue specific cases, it signals where sustained structural reforms and institution-building may take longer to gain traction.
Europe and the Americas: mixed performance and gradual erosion
Across Europe, several established democracies either slipped or stagnated. The latest results mirror earlier years in which debates over political finance, revolving doors, and procurement oversight shaped perceptions in higher-income states. Some European Union members continued to show strong performance due to comprehensive integrity frameworks and active oversight bodies. Others declined amid rule-of-law disputes, concerns over media independence, and limited checks on executive power.
In the Americas, the US decline sets the tone for a mixed regional picture. A number of countries in Latin America showed gradual improvements in public procurement tools and beneficial ownership transparency. Others struggled due to persistent grand corruption cases, institutional instability, or pressures on independent judiciaries. Civil society organisations across the region continue to push for stronger whistleblower protections, open data on contracts, and tighter controls on political donations.
Business risk, compliance, and civil society protections
Businesses and investors use CPI scores as part of risk assessments, especially when they plan cross-border operations or manage third-party relationships. Lower scores can signal higher due diligence needs, more robust compliance controls, and added monitoring of politically exposed persons and public contracting. Many firms integrate CPI results with sector risk data, sanctions lists, and procurement disclosures to calibrate internal controls and supplier oversight.
Civil society groups track CPI trends to support advocacy for transparency laws and accountability mechanisms. Where scores decline, watchdogs often call for reforms in asset disclosure, conflict-of-interest rules, and beneficial ownership registers. Journalists and researchers also use the CPI to identify areas where gaps in enforcement or policy may allow undue influence or misuse of public funds. The index’s broad coverage helps standardise benchmarks across different legal systems and governance models.
What this means
- Public bodies in countries with declining scores may face greater scrutiny over political finance rules, lobbying registers, and procurement transparency.
- Companies operating in lower-scoring jurisdictions may increase anti-bribery controls, third-party screening, and contract monitoring to meet compliance standards.
- Development partners and lenders may consider CPI trends when they design governance support, integrity safeguards, and audit requirements for funded projects.
- Civil society and media organisations may use the findings to request better access to information, stronger whistleblower protections, and more open contracting data.
- Lawmakers and oversight agencies may review asset disclosure regimes, enforcement capacity, and sanctions for breaches of public integrity rules.
As this year’s CPI lands, it underscores a broader challenge: many countries have not reversed earlier declines in perceived public sector integrity. The UK and the US now sit at new lows under the index’s current scale, while Denmark retains its position at the top and South Sudan remains last. The composite data, drawn from expert and business assessments, points to steady pressure on safeguards that limit undue influence, protect civic space, and ensure transparent decision-making. Policymakers, businesses, and civil society groups will likely align their next steps with these benchmarks, focusing on practical measures such as stronger disclosure, timely enforcement, and open data. The index does not predict outcomes, but it frames the integrity landscape that will shape governance debates in the year ahead.
When and where
Transparency International published the 2026 Corruption Perceptions Index online from Berlin on 10 February 2026.
