They Didn’t Get The Memo In Mozambique

“Corruption is, in Mozambique, as in most developing countries one of society’s major issues. On the last report from Transparency International, Mozambique occupies an unfortunate place, 111th amongst 197 countries. The study refers to last year.

It is expected that the situation may get worse. The emphasis is normally on poorly paid public servants with decisions on contracts and amounts that usually involve many times their wages. The story I am telling you, has another view, the active corrupter that provokes these unethical and illegal situations.

Some years ago, in Mozambique, an international accounting firm tried to mobilize donors and some public entities about the unlawful practices of another international firm in the market. KPMG summoned all other international accounting firms to raise serious corruption accusations on its rival Ernst & Young.”

This story, told by Bosse Hammarström in his blog is one of many from the less publicized parts of the world. The ability of the firms to police their “affiliates” or subcontractors is severely limited, at best. But this assumes that the global firm or its US or UK arm has any interest in maintaining a global level reputation or only in maintaining a network to facilitate the charade that is their purported “global network.”

And in the far reaches of the world, like Mozambique, Hanoi, Albania, the UAE, the Philippines, and Nigeria they aren’t participating in the lobbying efforts that they are in the US and UK to reduce auditor liability. That’s because no one sues the firms in these places. Everyone participates in the corrupt process so no one wants to stop the self-serving wheels from turning.

Mr. Hammarström goes on to say that instead of stopping what KPMG considered corrupt behavior on the part of other firms, they decided, “If you can’t beat them, you might as well join them.”

“The “business” has reached such proportions that KPMG is now able to go over the Public Sector and Donors Agencies rules of procurement and win tenders where they have classified in second or third place.

This situation is even more serious due to the fact that most of the services rendered by this company have the objective of finding and communicating corruption acts. Obviously the company’s opinion is limited by the fact that they are themselves corrupt. If one analyses the last years’ newspapers it is frequent to see corruption situations found by the auditors (almost monthly). Which of these news had a KPMG reports as a basis? None…”