The report finds that TI is advancing a left-liberal ideological agenda while disguising its findings as neutral data.
At the heart of the criticism is the CPI’s methodology. Despite being widely cited by media and international institutions, the index is not based on original field research. Instead, it compiles opinion-based scores from other sources—many of them ideologically aligned think tanks, NGOs, and consultancy firms. These opinions are then merged using a non-transparent process to produce country rankings. According to the Nézőpont Institute, the methodology lacks scientific rigor and is structurally biased: some countries are assessed using data from as few as three sources, while others are measured using ten or more, often from different years and definitions of “corruption”.
The study also highlights that the same liberal-leaning institutions that produce the component indexes often cite each other or TI itself, creating a closed ecosystem of mutual reinforcement. Furthermore, several of the best-rated countries in the CPI are also among TI’s main financial backers, raising concerns about political favoritism and selective silence on major corruption cases in the West.
The report specifically notes that TI promotes gender ideology, LGBTQ+ rights, and other liberal worldviews not typically linked to corruption issues, reinforcing the claim that the organization serves a broader political agenda.
According to the analysis, the CPI lacks objective data, is non-replicable, and would not meet the minimum standards of credibility in legal or academic settings. It’s not possible to know how individual components are weighted or who contributes the input. This means the CPI cannot be verified, audited, or validated independently.
The study found that Hungary's drop in CPI rankings correlates more with political tensions with Brussels than with actual corruption developments, further illustrating how the CPI is used to serve political narratives rather than reflect real conditions.
The organization is a key actor in a foreign-funded influence network operating in Hungary. This includes participation in coordinated campaigns with Brussels-based NGOs, foreign embassies, and EU officials—thus eroding Hungarian sovereignty and democratic legitimacy.
According to Nézőpont, the CPI has become a tool for international pressure. It has been referenced in European Parliament resolutions and used to justify punitive measures, including the suspension of EU funds to Hungary. This has given it far-reaching political impact, despite its reliance on selective, opinion-based data. TI’s Hungarian branch, meanwhile, has shifted from policy critique to political activism, increasingly aligning itself with international networks opposed to the current Hungarian government.
While Transparency International presents itself as an impartial watchdog, its funding sources suggest otherwise. In addition to backing from the George Soros-linked Open Society network, Transparency International Hungary received HUF 193,420,815 from Brussels specifically for activities critical of Hungary. This direct financial link to EU institutions and foreign donors undermines the organization’s claim of independence and neutrality.
The Nézőpont Institute concludes that the CPI is a “political product”—one that distorts the corruption debate to serve ideological goals. It calls for the index to be removed from serious policymaking and replaced with transparent, fact-based assessments that genuinely reflect the realities in each country.