In short 

• Corruption is widely experienced and increasingly normalised in South Africa. 

• Many citizens encounter bribery, nepotism and workplace misconduct, especially in disadvantaged communities. 

• Fear of retaliation and limited trust in authorities discourage reporting. 

• Strengthening whistleblower protection, accountability and trusted reporting channels is critical to curb corruption. 

South Africans often see corruption reported in news headlines, and many experience it in everyday interactions with the state and at their workplaces. A new report from the HSRC’s analysis of the 2024/25 South African Social Attitudes Survey shows how corruption is being normalised, who is most exposed and why so few people feel safe reporting it.  

AI-generated image by Freepik

According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), South Africa sits in the middle globally on perceived public-sector corruption. News headlines are frequently dominated by stories of corruption and governance failures. A recent example is the Transnet corruption case, which returned to the headlines in January 2026 when former Cabinet Minister Malusi Gigaba appeared in the Palm Ridge Specialised Commercial Crime Court facing charges that he accepted undisclosed cash from members of the Gupta family in connection with irregular locomotive contracts worth billions of rand. 

In a recent report, the HSRC used results from the 2024/25 South African Social Attitudes Survey to provide reliable, evidence-based insights into the factors driving and enabling corruption, as well as efforts to combat it. The survey included face-to-face interviews with a nationally representative sample of 3 095 South Africans over the age of 16. The survey questions on corruption were designed with input from a range of external experts.  

Experiences of corruption 

According to the report, most South Africans are directly or indirectly exposed to public sector corruption in their local communities. A majority of adults reported living in areas with public sector bribery (52%) and where officials hired unqualified friends and family (58%). Sextortion, where a person in an authority position demands sexual favours from an individual in exchange for providing or withholding services or benefits, was also common.  

Approximately half (53%) of the participants reported living in a community where this type of crime occurred, and 43% said that this crime had happened to someone they knew in the five years before the survey. When compared to their more advantaged counterparts, those who were economically disadvantaged were more likely to live in a community where public sector corruption was common. 

Occupational corruption 

The report looked at the perceived normality of corrupt practices in the workplace, for example, abuse of authority and exchanging favours to gain money, promotion, access or other advantages. Many workers in the country thought that corruption was quite common in their occupation.   

Only about two-fifths (39%) of workers indicated that their occupation was without corruption. More than a tenth (11%) of working adults experienced workplaces where corruption felt routine, and public-sector workers reported higher levels of occupational corruption than private-sector workers. 

Corruption impact awareness 

The negative impact of corruption on economic development is widely recognised by scholars, who have argued that it undermines fair competition, discourages investment and increases the cost of doing business. According to the report, 82% of the general public said that corruption among government officials had had a large impact on the national economy. For most South African adults, corruption wasn’t an abstract idea or distant problem: 61% said that it has a strong, direct negative effect on their own lives and their families. 

Pathways to success 

Some people see corruption as a pathway for success; a way to climb the ladder. When fieldworkers asked how important paying bribes was for getting ahead in South Africa, 42% of the general population replied that it was important. Public opinion on this issue was shaped by experiences of bureaucratic corruption. The more recent experience a person had had with bureaucratic corruption, the more likely they were to see paying bribes as instrumental to success. In addition, people in public sector employment were somewhat more likely to view corrupt practices as important for success than those who were not working or those employed in the private sector.   

Tolerance for corruption 

The study measured public tolerance for corruption, looking at whether people believed different corrupt behaviours were justifiable or not. Public tolerance of seven diverse corrupt behaviours (ranging from workplace nepotism to sexual bribery) was assessed. Results showed that only 27% of adults expressed zero tolerance and rejected corruption entirely. Less than a tenth (8%) displayed a high level of tolerance.  

Most displayed low levels of tolerance, with certain behaviours (e.g., nepotism in hiring) more tolerated than others (e.g., sexual corruption). The economically disadvantaged were, on average, more tolerant of corrupt behaviour than their more affluent counterparts.  

Role models 

Role models play a crucial part in shaping social norms and values by providing real-life examples of integrity and honesty. The report explored who people in South Africa identified as role models for good ethical conduct. Family played the strongest role here, with 44% of adults identifying family members as their main role models for integrity and honesty.  

When faced with corruption-related ethical dilemmas, a majority (55%) of adults would seek advice from their family. Religious leaders did not feature prominently when people were asked about their role models. Only a small percentage (4%) named them as role models, and 14% said that they would seek their advice when encountering an ethical dilemma.   

Fighting corruption 

Many participants refrained from reporting corruption to the authorities. About three-fifths (59%) of the population said they would report corruption if they witnessed or experienced it. The public was less likely to be willing to testify in court. Less than half (48%) of all adults said that they would be willing to provide evidence in court against a person accused of corruption.  

The study investigated why people were so hesitant to report corrupt behaviour to the authorities. One important reason was fear of retaliation. This kind of fear was widespread, and 62% of the public believed that speaking out against corruption in their communities could lead to revenge (including job loss, social exclusion or violence). Another reason was unresponsiveness from state authorities. Only around half (52%) of the adult population said that it was likely that the authorities would take action if they reported corrupt behaviour.  

Who to call?  

Anti-corruption hotlines play a crucial role by offering safe, anonymous or confidential reporting channels that can help overcome the fear of making reports to the authorities. The report investigated public awareness of nine such hotlines. More than half of the participants said that they could identify at least one anti-corruption hotline, but awareness of individual anti-corruption hotlines was, overall, quite low. Those hotlines linked to constitutional bodies (e.g., South African Human Rights Commission) were more well known than others. Awareness was higher among educated and working adults and lowest among rural populations.   

Lessons 

According to the report, a lack of awareness of corruption and its harms was not the main challenge in combatting corruption. Rather, focus needs to be placed on changing incentives, reducing risk and making accountability real. Researchers highlighted the importance of strengthening whistleblower protections (legal, practical safety and support) and expanding low-risk, genuinely anonymous reporting channels that people trust and can access easily.  

In addition, there was also a need to improve consequence management so that reporting leads to visible action. This should be part of the general professionalising of the public sector (merit-based hiring, stronger ethics management, tighter procurement controls, and real penalties for nepotism and bribery).  

Researchers also called for targeted, context-specific interventions in high-risk provinces, rural settings and workplaces where corruption was seen as “normal”, as well as sustained public communication of successful investigations and sanctions to rebuild confidence. Finally, the report recommended embedding regular monitoring into the state’s anti-corruption strategies, so progress is measured, compared over time, and programmes are adjusted based on what actually shifts behaviour. 

Research contacts and acknowledgements 

This Review article was based on the report Tracking Social Norms and Behaviour Change in South Africa: Measuring Attitudes to Corruption, and was written by HSRC science writer Jessie-Lee Smith and Dr Steven Gordon (chief research specialist) from the HSRC’s Developmental, Capable and Ethical State Division. 

For more information about this work, please contact Dr Steven Gordon at sgordon@hsrc.ac.za 

The survey/project/research team included those who worked on the 2024/25 South African Social Attitudes Survey.