Bias toward large works/projects to maximise opportunities for illicit gains
Resources are steered toward large capital projects and major works that offer greater opportunities for rent‑seeking, rather than the most cost‑effective solutions, increasing the risk of so-called 'white elephants'.
Red Flags & Indicators
- Major works options are favoured over maintenance and rehabilitation options without a robust alternative comparison.
- Project scope is inflated to increase contract value and discretionary decisions
- Project benefits are inflated to provide justification for project selection
- Projects are repeatedly oversized relative to demand and capacity constraints
- Packaging/specifications and business cases favour large solutions over credible lower‑cost alternatives.
Stakeholder Guidance
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes reputational risk; pressure to participate in inflated scopes; and increased compliance risk in high‑value works.
Decision Point
Before early engagement and bid/no‑bid decision, assess whether project scope and pipeline choices are evidence‑based and transparent.
Mitigation Actions
• Document all engagement and decisions
• Request disclosure of scope rationale and alternative analysis and make engagement conditional on receipt of a core evidence pack (needs and demand basis, options comparison, value-for-money rationale)
• Produce an options appraisal and retain assumptions, source data, and calculation files for comparison purposes
• Apply enhanced due diligence for intermediaries and local partners in high‑value, high-impact projects
• Use internal compliance escalation processes and whistleblower channels, where available, to flag internally unrealistic scaling or scope inflation
• Use internal compliance escalation processes and whistleblower channels, where available, to flag where the business case is repeatedly rewritten to “fit” a larger option (e.g., shifting assumptions and thresholds without evidence)
• Use formal public administrative mechanisms to flag externally unrealistic scaling or scope inflation
Mitigation Resources
Review the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios used to justify larger-scale options; benchmark the project proposal against disclosed needs, options analysis, and value-for-money evidence, and escalate or decline engagement where the proposal is not supported.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Identify corruption risks in project identification decisions that favour larger works; assign internal review and escalation responsibilities, define follow-up actions, and track whether concerns over scope inflation or unsupported scaling are resolved before early engagement.
Project integrity planning and action tracking — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/project-integrity-planning-and-action-tracking/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes capital allocation to oversized projects; weaker value-for-money; higher capex and overrun risk; higher renegotiation risk; ESG and reputational exposure connected to white‑elephant risk.
Decision Point
Before financing major works, confirm that the project option choice reflects lifecycle value and credible alternatives. Proceed only if there is a credible demand/service-need case, an options comparison (including maintenance and rehabilitation).
Mitigation Actions
• Use independent technical review for scope and key assumptions (demand, capex/opex, schedule, scope/standards) and document the decision rationale of any approved exceptions
• Include conditions related to the disclosure of project selection rationale and alignment with borrower long-term infrastructure policies and plans
• Include staged financing provisions linked to appraisal milestones and disclosure obligations
• Include re-appraisal triggers for material scope and cost growth
• Include verification/audit rights and step-in, holdback, or exit rights if integrity or feasibility risks escalate
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning the investment case; benchmark and challenge cases where larger-scale options, cost estimates, or appraisals are not supported by reliable analysis.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Conduct integrity due diligence on sponsors, investees, and key counterparties linked to the investment case; use conditions, covenants, monitoring, and escalation rights where governance or integrity weaknesses could distort project selection, scope, or appraisal.
Investor integrity due diligence and monitoring — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/investor-integrity-due-diligence-and-monitoring/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes underfunded maintenance; higher lifecycle costs and fiscal stress; increased audit and legal exposure; public backlash; and poor value-for-money.
Decision Point
Before prioritisation decisions, compare project options using consistent criteria and document trade‑offs. Approve only when alternative and needs analysis, and value-for-money are evidenced; otherwise require rework.
Mitigation Actions
• Apply a transparent prioritisation method and publish the rationale, particularly in the case of major allocations, with only lawful and justified redactions
• Require a documented appraisal comparing alternative options (demand/service need, lifecycle cost, risk, deliverability), including new major works vs maintenance and rehabitation options
• Use independent appraisal and external peer review for high-value, high impact works
• Maintain an auditable record of internal conversations, responses and decisions taken (including criteria, scoring, approvals, changes, and dissenting views)
• Commission independent review when appraisal documentation is weak or contested
• Track and justify scope changes through formal contractual and project change control systems
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning proposed major works; benchmark and challenge cases where larger-scale options are not supported by reliable analysis, lifecycle costing, or comparison with maintenance and rehabilitation alternatives.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Apply stage-gate reviews, readiness checks, and documented approval logs before approving major works options or pipeline inclusion; return proposals for further appraisal where alternative analysis, justification, or value-for-money is weak.
Stage-gate governance and independent assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/stage-gate-governance-and-independent-assurance/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes underinvestment in basic services; reduced accountability; and large capital projects that do not align with social needs.
Decision Point
During budget cycle allocation, monitor patterns in favor of large and megaprojects. Decide whether to challenge and request justifications or hold while building evidence. During project implementation, request information on cost and scope variations.
Mitigation Actions
• Track allocations to maintenance works and compare these with allocations to large projects to identify inconsistencies (major works vs maintenance)
• Engage oversight bodies when allocations appear inconsistent with needs (use safe, confidential reporting and anonymisation where retaliation risk is material)
• Mobilise communities affected by inadequate basic services to raise concerns about inconsistent investment and budget priorities
• Advocate for participatory budgeting mechanisms
• Advocate for disclosure of project information based on recognised infrastructure data standards such as the OC4IDS
• Use access to information to request disclosure of cost and scope variations in large and megaprojects
Mitigation Resources
Request access to non-public decision records on option analysis, appraisal, lifecycle costs, and budget prioritisation for major works, such as business case notes, comparisons of alternatives, or records explaining scope or budget changes, so hidden preferences for larger works can be examined and raised through oversight channels.
Access-to-information and demand-side transparency — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/access-to-information-and-demand-side-transparency/Review publicly disclosed option analysis, business cases, and cost estimates at an early stage; identify omitted lower-cost alternatives, weak justifications for larger works, or unexplained scope changes, and raise concerns about non-disclosure with an oversight body.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/