Denmark’s GI ranking in Band B places it in the low category for corruption in the defence and security sector. Denmark scored higher for Political, Financial, Personnel and Procurement risk, which scores in Band B (low risk of corruption). The highest risk area is Operations, which fell in Band D (high risk of corruption).

Whistle-Blower Protection

There have been a number of cases over the last decade in which whistle-blowers have not received any protection from reprisals after whistle-blowing within the defence sector. The case of Anders Kærgaard is particularly noteworthy, as he faced prosecution after releasing evidence that linked the defence force to human rights abuses in Iraq. We found no evidence of legislation or whistleblowing mechanisms applicable to military and official personnel. A whistleblowing mechanism was proposed by one of the parties in parliament earlier this year but was not adopted. Whistleblowing is an effective mechanism to raise incidences of corruption or bribery to the relevant authorities, and we recommend that whistleblowing be actively encouraged by the government. We suggest a legislative review to ensure that clear provisions regarding who can request information and when information can be classified be established. Mechanisms should be in place to ensure that these legal requirements are upheld in practice, are subject to scrutiny, and effectively protect whistle-blowers.

Anti-collusion Controls and Scrutiny over Defence Contractors

While no evidence was found specific to defence sector procurement, a survey of Danish companies showed that 43% believed collusion has occurred in their industry, and there has also been media coverage of collusion in other sectors. While DALO Corporate Social Responsibility requirements - used for all contracts - have an anti-corruption clause that also applies to subcontractors. There is no evidence that these are enforced in practice.

Insufficient information is published on current offset contracts, beyond the size of the investment and the names of the companies. No information could be found on planned offset contracts. Denmark could be more transparency and publish a list of all contracts, details of offset investments and the supplying companies, with more detail on the current performance of offset programmes, and copies of the contracts to allow for greater public scrutiny.

Transparency on Secret Spending and Classification Controls

There was no information available on the percentage of defence and security expenditure in the budget year that is dedicated to spending on secret items. There was no information available as to whether the legislature is provided with information on the spending on secret items. We further recommend that Denmark makes clear what percentage of defence and security expenditure in the budget year is dedicated to spending on secret items.

A former senior officer has indicated that the Defence Ministry has instructed the Defence Command to not communicate to the ministry on controversial topics in writing, as the Danish Public Information Act would allow the public access to such briefs. This suggests that information that is not of significant importance to national security is being improperly classified by the defence sector. The Defence Ministry has declined to comment on the issue. It is unclear what mechanisms the government uses for classifying information. These could be openly published, and include provisions for who can request information to be classified on the grounds of protecting national security, and how. With clear provisions to declassify information, including an automatic review beyond an appropriate period.