All the candidates currently running for the job of United Nations secretary-general were asked to declare who is paying for their campaigns. None of the responses from the eight candidates provide names and numbers. The submitted campaign-financing notices of all the candidates come from a nominating government or mission; none bears the candidate’s own signature or certification.

As the organization pursues reform through the UN80 initiative, the selection process so far aims to offer a practical opportunity to double down on transparency and accountability for public officers, namely the world’s top diplomat. Public disclosure would be an act of leadership as well as an internal control.

The arguments are straightforward: An accountable UN is better placed to be an effective UN. A leader asking governments to support reform needs their confidence that decisions will serve the organization’s mandate. Clear disclosure of campaign support and relevant financial interests would help establish that confidence before the next secretary-general takes office. This is a chance for the candidates to strengthen a common standard.

Asking for full records does not imply that anyone has acted improperly. It gives everyone the same chance to demonstrate the independence that the office demands.

How disclosure came about

Historically, the UN’s financial-disclosure practices developed around officials already in office. Under Kofi Annan, a General Assembly decision in 1998 led to confidential declarations for senior officials. Annan later established the Ethics Office and expanded the program. Its purpose was to identify and manage conflicts between private interests and UN responsibilities.

As the next secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon continued to advance transparency, albeit gradually. On his first working day as UN boss in January 2007, he submitted a confidential declaration, arranged for it to be reviewed independently and encouraged other senior officials to follow. The UN later published officials’ voluntary financial-disclosure information through its Public Disclosure Program.

António Guterres, the current UN leader, participated in that initiative previously as high commissioner for refugees and continued publishing summaries as UN secretary-general. Those records concerned personal financial interests. However, they did not account for the financing of his 2016 candidacy, which no UN rule then asked him to disclose.

The General Assembly first invited candidates to disclose campaign-funding sources in Resolution 77/335, in 2023, prompted by advocacy from civil society and supportive member states. Resolution 79/327, adopted in 2025, goes further, saying each candidate “should disclose her or his sources of funding at the time of the nomination” and provides for a public list that includes the disclosures.

That prompting establishes an expectation but leaves much of the reporting practice undefined. There is no common questionnaire, prescribed accounting period or valuation rule for in-kind support in any of the disclosures from the candidates. Nomination is the stated reporting point; a fixed schedule for subsequent filings is missing.

What the disclosures say

The filings of the current candidates describe broad categories of support. The declarations cite public funding for Michelle Bachelet and Olara Otunnu; public and personal funds for Ivonne A-Baki, Macky Sall and Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett; public and private sources for Rebeca Grynspan; and personal funds and voluntary contributions for María Fernanda Espinosa. Rafael Grossi is the only candidate who says he is fully financing his campaign himself.

The descriptions leave basic questions unanswered. Which government body or private contributor is paying and how much? Does support include staff, travel, receptions or professional services? What has been spent? Self-financing also requires an amount, while public financing requires an account of the resources used.

Rodrigues Birkett’s campaign subsequently told 1 for 8 Billion that its financing came exclusively from her government (Guyana) and her personal finances. That clarification names the public source more precisely, but still gives no amounts or division of costs. A-Baki’s nominating mission (Tonga) promised an update if her financing arrangements change. Both disclosures illustrate steps that a common reporting standard could build on.

For candidates holding international office, a statement separating campaign activity from official duties would also be useful. It should explain how travel, staff time and other institutional resources are treated. Asking for that explanation is a governance question; silence in a filing is not evidence of misuse.

Campaign accounts and personal financial interests answer different questions. The first shows who supported a bid for office and what that support paid for. The second identifies interests that could affect decisions once elected. A tax return can supply additional information but cannot replace either record.

Setting up a standard

There is a relevant international precedent. The World Health Organization’s code of conduct for electing its director-general expects disclosure of campaign activities and the amount and source of funding. It also addresses campaign travel and the separation of official duties from campaigning. Although it is a political understanding, it demonstrates that international selection procedures can ask for more than broad funding categories.

The UN secretary-general selection process could enhance that approach without requiring candidates to publish every detail of their private lives. A useful standard would have these elements:

First, keep the records distinct. Candidates should provide campaign accounts, a declaration of relevant financial interests and a statement of public or institutional resources used. This would make clear what each disclosure covers and where further information is needed.

Second, identify contributors and amounts, including the fair value of in-kind support. Reports should distinguish money from services and explain what the support paid for. Where an intermediary provides funds, the ultimate source should be identified.

Third, update the record at fixed intervals, report material changes promptly and publish a final account after the selection. Earlier versions should remain accessible so readers can see what has changed.

Fourth, candidates should attest to the completeness of their filings, alongside nominating states accounting for their own support. Independent reviews should check back-up records and help to resolve possible conflicts through appropriate measures, including recusal or separation of official and campaign activity.

Fifth, use one public format with privacy safeguards. Relevant interests should be visible; account numbers, home addresses and security-sensitive details should remain private. A common format would make comparisons fairer and reduce uncertainty about what candidates are expected to provide.

Accountability in UN reform

UN80 aims to make the organization more effective. Leadership accountability belongs in that discussion. Disclosure allows possible conflicts to be identified early and managed openly, reducing the scope for later disputes to distract from the UN’s work. It also gives member states a firmer basis for judging the independence of those entrusted with reform.

The approach could inform standards for those leading other principal organs, particularly the presidents of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Requirements should reflect each office’s responsibilities and arrangements for support, including relevant financial interests and resources provided to the presidency. The principle of accountability can be shared without imposing an identical procedure on different offices.

Candidates for secretary-general don’t need to wait for another resolution to take the initiative. They can publish fuller accounts now and help establish a practice that member states can formalize for future selections.

Article 100 of the UN Charter requires the secretary-general and his or her staff to remain independent of governments and outside authorities. A transparent route into office would reinforce that obligation. The next UN leader will be asking others to accept difficult changes. Demonstrating accountability before taking office would strengthen the authority to make that request.