Policy OLAF BT

46 / 69

The preventive role of the judiciary in protecting the financial interest of the European Union.
A comparative analysis for improved performance
44
7. APPLICATION OF BANS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
PROCEDURES
7.1. Existing databases of legal persons banned from public procurement processes
There is no unified opinion on the benefits and utility of databases on legal persons banned form public
procurements, i.e. blacklists for public procurement. A research conducted in 2012 shows the opinion of
companies, or more exactly businessmen, 32% of the respondent agreed that the reputational risk of
appearing on a blacklist is a key motivation for businesses to engage in fighting corruption, while 60%
thought negative publicity, such as “naming and shaming” approaches, offers a strong incentive for
compliance programmes. Therefore, restrictions on business operations and opportunities and other
effects of blacklisting are among the most effective incentives for businesses to fight corruption both
within their very organisation and in the business environment in general.69
Moreover, according to the same research, 88% of the respondents considered that business
representatives with a history of corruption should be excluded from contracting with the public
administration, expressing thus the agreement of the business environment for the existence and utility
of blacklists.70
On the other hand, there is not enough information and research done in countries where debarment
form public procurement is applied and databases are built on their effects and specifically on their
effects in changing corporate behaviour and culture towards a more compliant one, based on integrity71.
Experts’ opinion also varies according to the legal culture of their country of origin. In Germany72, in
Romania, Lithuania and Greece (according to interviews conducted during the data collection phase for
this research), practitioners in the fields of the judiciary, public administration and public procurement
generally agree that debarment form public procurement, accompanied by a national electronic list of
debarred economic operators, represents an instrumental tool for information-sharing and for a uniform
and coherent application of existing rules. The mechanism is a real support for the contracting authorities,
ensuring transparency and building trust in the efficiency of the procurement procedures, at national and
international level (ensuring the possibility to check foreign suppliers as well).
However, in Italy, experts do not favour a blacklist, stressing the importance to ensure privacy for
companies that have been subject to sanctions or exclusion from public tenders because the publicity of
such measures would be a real accessory penalty to the one imposed by the judge. Italian practitioners
show that the prosecution office already has all the necessary information and tools to inform the
contracting authorities when they need to check a bidder. As a third way, academics suggest the
implementation of the National Anticorruption Authority (ANAC) Observatory, allowing the publication
69 SCHÖBERLEIN, J., BIERMANN, S. and WEGNER, S. 2012. Motivating Business to Counter Corruption: A Global
Survey on Anti-Corruption Incentives and Sanctions. Berlin, Germany: Humboldt-Viadrina School of Governance.
70 Ibidem .
71 Maíra MARTINI, 2013. Blacklisting in Public Procurement. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre Expert Answer.
Berlin, Germany: Transparency International. Available online at:
(last
accessed: 30/10/2017).
72 Ibidem .