Research Symposium Synthesis Report: Evidence and impact of beneficial ownership transparency
Policy implementation and legal frameworks
While data use is increasing, implementation effectiveness varies widely and, despite the existence of international norms, lacks standardisation. Despite the proliferation of BO registers globally, the international norms and laws around BOT are not yet fully institutionalised. Significant variance persists between the legal frameworks different jurisdictions use as the basis of their implementation. Based on a comparative analysis of BO regulations and enforcement mechanisms in six European countries, research-in-progress presented at the Symposium argued that even in contexts which share the major features of a legal framework, there can be wide disparities in data quality. These differences are likely to be compounded where countries introduce exemptions and local regulatory changes which undermine effectiveness.
Such changes and local adaptations are arguably more likely in the absence of settled norms for all aspects of BOT. One presentation highlighted the September 2025 exemption from BO disclosure to all government entities in Kuwait, which crucially means that its large and influential sovereign wealth fund now continues to operate outside of transparency frameworks. Another highlighted shortcomings in legal frameworks in several African jurisdictions with regard to data verification processes. South African legislation, for example, puts the onus for verification on companies themselves, while Ghana’s system does not explicitly include provisions for third-party verification. Issues in how BOT legislation is formulated will clearly have significant ramifications on the level, quality, and usefulness of the data that is produced.
For researchers, BO data access conditions continue to be a significant preoccupation, given their use for evaluating the overall impact and effectiveness of BOT. During the Symposium, a notable focus for many researchers was the ongoing impact of the EU’s Sovim SA ruling, which reversed rights of public access to BO information in the EU and called instead for access based on the demonstration of a legitimate interest. Since the ruling and the initial changes to countries’ access conditions, various attendees reported difficulties in conducting or completing planned research due to problems accessing data. This difficulty exists even for groups that would theoretically fall within the legitimate interest definition, as illustrated by Hungary and Ireland’s rejection of requests from Transparency International for one of its recent research projects.
Where access to data is granted, it is often for narrow purposes and to a restricted number of records and fields, which limits the possibility for discovering unexpected conclusions and insights that can emerge from free academic inquiry. Several attendees reported that these obstacles have variously meant that they: had not been able to complete the research as originally envisioned; would not now embark on previously planned research; or had to purchase third-party data in order to complete their work. These barriers to research can limit the extent of scholarly examination into how BO disclosure regimes are operating and the impacts they are having. This, in turn, reduces the scope for producing evidenced-based recommendations on how implementation, legal, and institutional frameworks can best be organised or reformed to maximise impact.
One proposal was to reframe the access debate as one about transparency versus secrecy, rather than transparency versus privacy.
Researchers continue to consider alternative ways of engaging in the data access debate as it evolves. A key determinant of future data access in the EU for journalists, CSO actors, and academic researchers will be how the various countries choose to interpret and implement the EU’s 6th AML Directive. This may also continue to have knock-on effects in other jurisdictions that, following the EU’s lead, choose to adopt a legitimate interest access approach. Symposium discussions reflected a desire to move beyond conceiving of the debate as a direct trade-off between privacy and transparency, or a false trilemma between public, closed, and legitimate interest access. Research-in-progress presented at the Symposium argues instead that financial transparency can be seen as a constitutional value under EU law, given the inclusion of requirements to disclose financial information across multiple legislative measures to ensure the functioning of a democratic society. In light of this, one proposal was to reframe the access debate as one about transparency versus secrecy, rather than transparency versus privacy.
Another presentation of work-in-progress discussed imperfections in the current data access schemes in Europe where, it was argued, some jurisdictions are too restrictive with information-sharing, while others have insufficient personal data protections, and still others lack government accountability for the accuracy of information on their register. To navigate these various challenges, the researchers propose a three-tier calibrated access system in which authorities and regulated entities have immediate and full access; researchers, journalists, and CSOs have verified access on the condition of legitimate interest; and the general public can access only basic information. Such a system, they argue, would strike a better balance between privacy, proportionality, transparency, and security.
Building and sustaining momentum for beneficial ownership transparency reforms
A recurrent theme throughout the Symposium discussions was how to create and maintain the kind of pro-transparency coalitions that drive forward BOT in a given country. Below are some reflections on these questions from the attendees:
- Moments of political crisis can play an important role in galvanising momentum for change. Much of the earlier work on BOT was driven forward in the aftermath of the Panama Papers and all that this scandal revealed about opaque ownership structures and links to financial crime. Other important moments for driving towards increased financial transparency in some contexts include the emergence of contracting scandals related to COVID-19-era equipment purchases, or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resultant desire to reduce the role of Russian finance in the economy. Another key moment of crisis that can drive domestic BOT reforms is the (threatened) inclusion of a given jurisdiction into the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey- or blacklist. After these moments, there may be a narrow window to advance reforms, and pro-transparency actors should stand ready to make the most of these opportunities.
- There is a persistent risk of back sliding on reforms, especially after the immediate impetus for register creation passes. Creating the first iteration of a BO register is an important milestone, but it will not generate impact unless the data is frequently used and the register is properly maintained. Such work may cease to be a government’s priority after the conditions that prompted the register’s creation change. A common example is how political will can drop after a FATF evaluation visit or once a country has been removed from its greylist. In addition, opposition to corporate transparency measures may reassert itself precisely in response to impactful data use; politicians might fear being looked into following high-profile investigations into their colleagues. Registers are not often abandoned entirely, but their effectiveness can be significantly undermined by subtle and apparently technical changes to regulations, access conditions, or disclosure requirements.
- Shared ownership of BOT reforms across the public sector can support better access to information and garner interest from a broader range of agencies. The BOT agenda is broad, and when implemented domestically, it does not need to be tied to a single policy area such as AML, tax, or anti-corruption. Therefore, sole responsibility for reforms should not fall to a single agency. Coalitions across multiple stakeholders can support the sustainability of reforms.
- To sustain momentum, pro-transparency actors need to build durable coalitions of groups with an ongoing interest in BO data use. Building the business case for BOT across intelligence, investigative, and regulatory use cases is key to maintaining reform efforts over the longer-term. Doing so may require transparency organisations to switch their messaging away from anti-corruption and AML themes, which often predominate discussions. For their part, politicians may be more likely to support initiatives perceived as “good for business” than those aimed at fighting corruption, which may also appeal less to voters. Similarly, private sector actors are greater advocates for BOT where they perceive its value in terms of helping with due diligence and removing the need for third-party data purchases. Rather than targeting “enablers of corruption”, civil society groups could seek the active support of private sector actors who want to comply with regulations and dislike being undercut by noncompliant competitors.