Ethical Conduct & Corruption Risk Framework 

Why this exists

Restore the Legacy operates in environments where corruption risk can be elevated, and informal practices may be common. Indonesia scores 37/100 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2024), reflecting a meaningful governance and integrity risk context.  

Our mission depends on trust, with communities, donors, regulators, and the ecosystems we protect. This framework ensures we take ethical decisions deliberately, consistently, and transparently.

What we mean by “corruption”

There is no single universal definition in international law, but widely used institutional definitions converge on the same idea:

• World Bank (widely cited): corruption is the abuse of public office for private gain.  

• International anti-bribery standard (OECD): bribery involves offering, promising, or giving an undue advantage to a public official so they act (or don’t act) in their official duties, to obtain an improper advantage. 

• UNCAC approach: rather than defining one term, it specifies corruption offences such as bribery, embezzlement, trading in influence, abuse of functions, etc.  

Our stance:

Corruption is not only about whether something is “formally standardized.” It typically hinges on undue advantage, improper influence, abuse of entrusted power, and/or personal benefit tied to an official decision.  

Our non-negotiable ethical boundary

Regardless of local norms or pressure Restore the Legacy will never knowingly take actions that can contribute to harm, directly or indirectly, to:

• People (safety, dignity, rights, livelihoods)

• Nature (ecosystems, biodiversity, water, soil, forest integrity)

• Animals (wildlife and domesticated animals)

When there is credible risk of harm, we do not proceed, or we redesign the approach.

How we make decisions in complex situations

We don’t pretend ethical decisions are always simple. We treat them as governance.

When any team member doubts the ethical effect of an action (or when leadership deems it necessary), we hold an Ethical Review Meeting. The purpose is to evaluate consequences before acting.

Ethical Review Meetings assess*:

1. Potential harm (people / nature / animals)

2. Legality and compliance risk (local + relevant international expectations)

3. Integrity risk (undue influence, conflicts of interest, personal benefit)

4. Reputational and donor risk (could we defend this transparently?)

5. Alternatives (different pathways with less ethical risk)

6. Decision & documentation (what we decided, why, and who approved)
    

*Outcomes are recorded internally (date, decision owner, rationale, mitigation steps).

​

Accountability culture

• Anyone can raise a concern without retaliation.

• If uncertainty is high, we pause and escalate to leadership.

• We prioritize traceability and transparency in our reporting and internal controls.

Commitment

Working in a high-risk context is not an excuse for careless decisions. It is exactly why we use a structured ethical process. We take corruption risk seriously, we consider consequences seriously, and we protect people, nature, and animals as our first principle.