Zero Corruption: Institutional Trust as a Strategic Goal

Corruption does not stem from a single cause, nor does it lend itself to universal solutions. It adapts to context, incentives, and the strength — or weakness — of institutions. For this reason, no country has managed to eradicate it entirely. What countries have achieved, however, is to contain it, reduce it, and make it increasingly costly. Ignoring this premise leads to oversimplified diagnoses and policies with limited results.

In Mexico, this complexity is reflected in a high and persistent incidence. According to data from INEGI, during the first half of 2025, 45.2% of adults who interacted with police officers or other public security authorities were victims of at least one act of corruption. The problem is not confined to that sphere. An additional 8.9% of individuals who carried out procedures, payments, or service requests before public officials in urban areas also faced improper practices. In the productive environment, more than 169,000 companies reported being affected by corruption, with a higher prevalence among medium-sized firms. The data is clear: Corruption does not manifest as an isolated or exceptional phenomenon, but as a persistent problem that cuts across sectors and levels.

This persistence has direct economic consequences. It introduces additional operational costs, delays investment decisions, distorts competition, and undermines the effectiveness of public spending. When access to services, permits, or contracts depends on improper practices, the level playing field is broken and trust in the rules erodes. This often translates into lower productivity, projects that become more expensive or fail to materialize, and infrastructure that does not always fulfill its purpose. In this sense, corruption ceases to be merely a legal issue and becomes a concrete obstacle to an industrial policy capable of generating value and attracting long-term investment.

Against this backdrop, a shift in approach is beginning to take shape: moving from reaction to prevention. This logic underpins initiatives promoted by the Ministry of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance, such as the Zero Corruption framework and the Data Buen Gobierno platform. Their objective is clear and operational: to make the problem visible, measure it more precisely, and reduce the spaces where discretion thrives. By placing public, comparable, and accessible information on the table, these tools help identify risks and assess institutional performance with greater objectivity. They do not promise total eradication; instead, they pursue a more realistic and effective goal: preventing abuses and reducing uncertainty.

The business sector is not a neutral actor in this discussion. Its economic weight and capacity to influence markets and public decisions raise social expectations regarding its conduct. In Mexico, a significant share of public opinion associates corruption not only with the public sector, but also with certain business practices that distort competition, even if these do not represent the productive sector as a whole.

That perception, regardless of whether it accurately reflects the entire business ecosystem, creates a differentiated expectation. The greater the scale and international presence, the greater the capacity — and the demand — to raise integrity standards. Ignoring this expectation carries not only reputational costs, it weakens trust in the economic system as a whole.

Responding to it goes beyond formal legal compliance. It is reflected in how companies operate, make decisions, and manage risks. Effective controls, traceability in sensitive processes, functional whistleblowing mechanisms, and an internal culture that rejects discretion are not optional; they are basic conditions for competitiveness. But the role of the productive sector does not end there. When companies demand clear public processes, transparent procurement, and consistent enforcement of the rules, they help rebuild a level playing field that benefits the entire economy. In a context of production relocation and increasingly demanding value chains, corporate integrity ceases to be merely a reputational issue and becomes an operational advantage.

From this same preventive logic, the Zero Corruption framework outlines a concrete agenda aimed at closing spaces for discretion and strengthening institutional trust. Its central pillars include:

• Digitalization and simplification of processes to reduce unnecessary contact and discretionary margins in public procedures and decisions.
• Proactive transparency and the use of open data as a basis for evaluation, correction, and oversight grounded in evidence.
• Clearer and more traceable public procurement processes that promote fair pricing and effective competition.
• Strengthening the public service career through integrity training and a preventive focus in higher-risk areas.
• Participation by the private sector and civil society, alongside a culture of reporting that makes violating the law more costly than complying with it.

Taken together, these measures do more than strengthen public integrity. They reduce transaction costs, limit risks, and make interactions between companies and government more efficient. The objective is ambitious but clear: to reduce discretion that increases economic costs and erodes trust.

Treating integrity as a priority is neither a moral gesture nor a political slogan. It is a strategic decision. Countries that build predictable environments, with clear rules and verifiable processes, are the ones capable of turning growth into development.

For Mexico, advancing in this direction means recognizing that institutional trust is as relevant as physical infrastructure or human capital. Integrity, when translated into rules that are enforced and processes that work, becomes a real competitive advantage. On that foundation, the conditions emerge for a more productive, more reliable, and fairer Mexico.