HeadHunter revealed the most corrupt sector of the economy

26% of employees agree that in their companies there is a practice of kickbacks, found in the research service HeadHunter. This practice is present at all levels of the organization, noted by 6% of respondents, 11% stated that talking about corruption at the highest level, a further 9% admit the existence of isolated cases of bribery, but I believe that the problem is not systemic. Sure the lack of corruption in their organization, 31% of respondents. Others simply say that if it exists, they do not know about it.

Research service HeadHunter interviewed in April, 6.6 thousand people, of which 4.7 thousand currently employed.

Leader in kickbacks is the housing sector, according to the survey. According to 12% of the surveyed workers in this sector, such a practice exists in the sector at all levels. Another 18% believe that it is ingrained at the highest level. Second place went to the energy sector: 9% of employees in the sector are confident that the kickbacks are practiced at all levels (13% — at the highest level). Closes the three “leaders” of the civil service and the field of art and culture: according to 8% of workers in these areas, corruption is widespread at all levels.

On the second place on corruption at the level of top management settled the oil and gas sector: there is a practice common in the perception of the 17% of employees.

Overall, 70% of respondents noted their negative attitude towards setbacks and believe that they need to fight. Another 27% think that “nothing can be done”, and the remaining 3% at all convinced that this is the only way to make money in this sector.

“A couple of times”

5% of respondents admitted that they themselves took kickbacks: 1% regularly, and the remaining 4% said that they did it “a couple of times”. Among the latter, almost half (44%) had decided to take this step only when the same provider would be chosen for objective reasons, that is, the pullback did not affect the choice of supplier. Fifth of taking bribes several times (19%) after felt remorse, so I decided “not to do”. Another 14% said that they were offered too small amounts for which it is not worth the risk.

Almost half of those who never took kickbacks, had the opportunity. Their refusal, they often argued that it is wrong (31%), the fact that it would be detrimental to the company (14%), and the fact that it is not accepted in the team (7%). Less than 4% are simply afraid that they will be caught for violations.

As previously reported , according to the EY study, devoted to the risks of fraud in the corporate sector in 2016, the last year the situation has improved: last year 48% of respondents in Russia believed corruption and bribery in the corporate sector widespread, this year the percentage declined to 34% against the world average of 39%. Three times decreased the proportion of those who reported use of bribes to obtain contracts in the sector, from 24% to 8%. However, more than half of respondents believe that the fight against corruption in Russia is not efficient enough.

In last year’s edition of the corruption perceptions Index of Transparency International, reflecting the perception of corruption in the public sector, Russia ranked 119-th place out of 168 submitted in the ranking of countries, with 29 points. The index varies from 0 to 100, where a higher index value means lower level of corruption.

The same result, as in Russia, the annual study, Transparency showed Azerbaijan, Guyana and Sierra Leone. The higher the points scored, e.g., Honduras, Egypt and Senegal. A year earlier Russia was in the 136th place. Vice-President of Transparency International Elena Panfilova explained the improvement of Russia’s positions in the rating of “compressing” corruption “prey base” due to the current economic situation, as well as restrictions regarding the Declaration of incomes and property of civil servants. The best performance in the ranking is traditionally among the Scandinavian countries: Denmark, Finland and Sweden (91, 90 and 89 points, respectively, in last year’s index).