An Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy is a formal written document that sets out an organisation's commitment to preventing bribery and corruption, defines what constitutes a bribe, and establishes the procedures and controls that employees and associated persons must follow. In the United Kingdom, such a policy is a central component of the "adequate procedures" defence under section 7(2) of the Bribery Act 2010.

The Bribery Act 2010, which came into force on 1 July 2011, is widely recognised as one of the most stringent anti-bribery statutes in the world. It creates a number of individual offences (sections 1, 2, and 6) as well as the corporate offence under section 7, which makes commercial organisations criminally liable for failing to prevent bribery by a person associated with them. Unlike the predecessor legislation under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916, the Bribery Act applies to conduct occurring entirely outside the United Kingdom where the relevant commercial organisation was incorporated in, or carries on business from, the UK.

Section 7 is a strict liability offence: the prosecution does not need to prove that senior management knew about or consented to the bribery. The only defence available is for the organisation to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with it from undertaking such conduct. This makes an Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy not merely good practice but a legal necessity for any commercial organisation subject to the Act.

The Ministry of Justice published guidance in March 2011, as required by section 9 of the Act, setting out six principles for adequate procedures: proportionate procedures; top-level commitment; risk assessment; due diligence; communication including training; and monitoring and review. A well-drafted Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy addresses all six principles and is supported by supplementary procedures such as a gifts and hospitality register, a third party due diligence process, and a whistleblowing mechanism.

The Companies Act 2006 section 172 also requires directors to act in the way most likely to promote the success of the company. A bribery or corruption scandal can cause catastrophic reputational and financial harm, making robust anti-bribery controls a matter of good governance as well as legal compliance.

An Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy is required by any commercial organisation that carries on business in the United Kingdom or is incorporated in the United Kingdom, regardless of size or sector. The Bribery Act 2010 applies to limited companies, limited liability partnerships, sole traders, and partnerships that carry on business in the UK. There is no minimum turnover threshold or employee headcount below which the Act does not apply.

The policy is particularly important in the following circumstances. First, where the organisation uses agents, intermediaries, or distributors to access markets or win contracts — especially in sectors or countries where corruption risk is elevated. The Corruption Perceptions Index published annually by Transparency International identifies countries where bribery risk is high. The Serious Fraud Office has indicated that it scrutinises closely the controls applied to relationships with agents operating in high-risk jurisdictions.

Second, where the organisation operates in sectors with elevated bribery risk. These include construction and engineering, defence and aerospace, extractive industries (oil, gas, and mining), pharmaceuticals and healthcare, financial services (particularly where public sector entities are involved), and public procurement generally.

Third, where the organisation employs individuals who interact with government officials, public sector employees, or state-owned enterprises. Section 6 of the Bribery Act 2010 creates a specific offence of bribery of foreign public officials, and section 7 applies equally to conduct intended to influence such officials through associated persons.

Fourth, where the organisation is a supplier to the public sector. Many government contracting authorities require tenderers to demonstrate that they have adequate anti-bribery procedures in place as a condition of qualification. Conviction under the Bribery Act 2010 may result in mandatory debarment from public procurement under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

Fifth, where the organisation has international operations or is expanding into new markets. Bribery risk is not limited to developing economies — the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency both investigate domestic as well as international bribery. However, the risk is typically higher where employees or agents interact with foreign government officials.

Even where the assessed risk is low, having a written policy demonstrates top-level commitment (Ministry of Justice Guidance Principle 2) and is a prerequisite for all other adequate procedures. It is also expected by institutional investors, major customers, and supply chain partners, many of whom conduct anti-bribery due diligence on their counterparties as standard practice.

A legally effective Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy for England and Wales must address the six principles set out in the Ministry of Justice Guidance on adequate procedures under the Bribery Act 2010.

A clear policy statement sets out the organisation's zero-tolerance commitment to bribery and corruption and establishes the legal framework — the Bribery Act 2010, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and related legislation. It should be signed or endorsed by the most senior individual in the organisation (the Chief Executive or equivalent) to satisfy the top-level commitment principle.

Scope and application confirms who the policy applies to, including not just employees and directors but also agents, consultants, contractors, joint venture partners, and supply chain participants who fall within the definition of associated persons under section 8 of the Act.

Definitions of bribery and corruption should be clear and include examples relevant to the organisation's business, such as gifts and hospitality, facilitation payments, kickbacks, and political or charitable donations used as cover for bribes.

Gifts and hospitality procedures should specify the threshold above which gifts must be reported and approved, the requirement to maintain a gifts and hospitality register, and the prohibition on gifts of cash or cash equivalents. A proportionate threshold (for example £50) is commonly adopted in practice, though the appropriate level will depend on the organisation's size and sector.

Facilitation payments must be expressly prohibited. Unlike US law, there is no facilitation payments exception under the Bribery Act 2010, and the policy must make this absolutely clear to employees and associated persons.

Third party due diligence procedures set out how the organisation assesses the bribery risk presented by agents, distributors, and other associated persons, and the contractual protections it requires (including anti-bribery representations and audit rights).

Whistleblowing and reporting mechanisms provide accessible channels for employees and associated persons to raise concerns, including anonymous reporting where practicable. Protections against retaliation for good-faith reporters align with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Training and communication requirements specify how frequently training is provided, how policy awareness is maintained, and how the policy is communicated to third parties. The Ministry of Justice Guidance requires training to be proportionate to the risk and role of the individual.

Record keeping specifies the minimum retention period for the gifts register, due diligence records, training records, and investigation records. Six years is commonly adopted to align with the Limitation Act 1980 and HMRC record-keeping requirements.

Sanctions and consequences confirm that breach of the policy will be treated as a disciplinary offence and may result in dismissal and criminal referral, providing meaningful deterrence alongside the positive procedures.