In the ever-expanding universe of international soft power, one institution claims the moral high ground: the United Nations. With ambitious frameworks like the U.N. Global Compact and the U.N. Convention Against Corruption, the U.N. purports to lead the charge for transparency, sustainability and corporate ethics.

While these are commendable practices in theory, the reality is often different. When multinational firms with histories of bribery, opacity and political capture are allowed to not only join these initiatives, but to actually lead them, there is no accountability. In fact, the opposite – impunity – is conferred.

The U.N. Global Compact, the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative, counts over 20,000 companies among its signatories. Yet, unlike binding treaties or regulatory frameworks, the compact is non-enforceable. There is no independent oversight and signatory companies are only required to submit an annual “Communication on Progress,” often written by their own PR firms. In effect, the U.N.’s most visible anti-corruption mechanism is a voluntary PR tool! Obviously, an oversight body with rights and powers is required for proper oversight and accountability.

Simultaneously, being part of the U.N. Compact gives these companies significant credibility and open doors for large contracts. Sadly, many of these companies that are part of the U.N.’s elite corporate accountability club are known to engage in corrupt practices. Take SICPA, a Swiss family-run multinational that manufactures security inks and digital tax systems used for passports, currency and excisable goods in over 180 countries including the United States.

Despite being fined over $90 million by Swiss authorities in 2023 for failing to prevent corruption in Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela, SICPA was publicly celebrated by the U.N. Global Compact just months later as a partner in combating illicit trade in Southeast Asia. SICPA signed the Global Compact in December 2023, affirming its commitment to anti-corruption and governance standards. Meanwhile, its CEO, Philippe Amon, has been linked to undue advantage cases involving the Swiss police and was even listed in Jeffrey Epstein’s “Black Book.”

This is not an isolated case. Several other corporations with troubled ethical histories have joined the U.N. Global Compact in a bid to restore or reinforce their international credibility. Brazil’s Petrobras joined the U.N. Global Compact in 2003 and remained a member even during the Lava Jato (Car Wash) scandal – one of the largest corruption investigations in Latin American history. These investigations led to hundreds of convictions including top executives and politicians.

Similarly, France’s Bolloré Group remains a U.N. Global Compact signatory while its CEO, Vincent Bolloré, faced corruption charges in African port concessions and money-laundering. Another known case is that of Airbus that remains an active participant in the U.N.’s Global Compact, despite having to pay $3.9 billion in fines to resolve corruption investigations by authorities in France, the U.K. and the United States. These investigations revealed that Airbus had engaged in a systematic practice of bribing officials to secure contracts in multiple countries.

However, none of these companies were removed from the Global Compact as there is no enforcement mechanism. Its reporting requirements are self-regulated and no third-party audit is required to remain in good standing. But the danger goes beyond the hypocrisy. It is the real-world consequences when institutions like SICPA — operating in sensitive areas like currency security, national tax systems and digital identity infrastructure — are granted public contracts based on their U.N.-aligned image rather than their compliance history.

In Africa alone, SICPA has been the subject of contract cancellations, procurement lawsuits and price-fixing scandals in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda – often accused of inflating costs on excise stamps or circumventing competitive tenders. In Kosovo, its deal to manage fuel labeling led to legal indictments of senior government officials and cost the public over 11 million euros. Despite all this, SICPA has continued to secure deals by positioning itself as a U.N.-aligned thought leader in security and transparency.

This is what some analysts now call “bluewashing”— when companies use the U.N.’s blue logo to polish their reputations (much like greenwashing obscures environmental harm behind eco-friendly branding). To be clear, not all public-private partnerships are inherently flawed. But when institutions as powerful and far-reaching as the U.N. offer bad actors legitimacy with no accountability, it invites corruption — not curbs it.

Reform is overdue and the U.N. should introduce independent vetting and periodic audits for Compact signatories. It should also create an expulsion mechanism for companies fined or convicted of corruption. Following the example of OECD’s gray lists, the U.N. should establish a watchlist of high-risk members to enforce accountability.

Y­­­et, in the meantime, policymakers in the United States must not rely on U.N. certifications to assess the risk profile of government contractors. Congress should mandate the Government Accountability Office or Department of Defense Inspector General review any foreign vendor involved in critical infrastructure — including identity, tax systems or digital authentication — to determine whether that vendor has been fined for corruption or under international investigation.

It is time we stop confusing participation with performance and prestige with integrity.

Mike Flanagan, a Republican, represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the House Government Reform Committee and the subcommittee for Government Management, Information and Technology. He is a former captain in the U.S. Army and a practicing attorney.