Enhancing Whistleblowing Competencies: Internal vs External Channels
How to enhance whistleblowing competencies, both for external and internal channels, was the focus of Panel IV: Enhancing Whistleblowing Competencies of the European Whistleblowing Conference, moderated by Dr. Simon Gerdemann, Head of Chair at the University of Göttingen and EWI Fellow.
“There is a lot of work to do before we can confidently say that the directive is a net positive and it has achieved its excellent objectives”, said Tom Devine, Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project. Among them, Devine, who has worked in the field of whistleblowing for almost five decades, mentioned the lack of choice for whistleblowers between internal and external channels for their initial disclosure. This is a problem because, according to him, if the internal channel does not work effectively and the institution is acting in bad faith, a disclosure can amount to “obstruction of justice” where the whistleblower is handing evidence to the same people who want to see it destroyed before it gets into the right hands.
“For sure, the Whistleblowing Directive is the most significant development for our movement since 1978 when the first national law was passed. [However], passing a law is only the first step in a multi-generational, almost timeless marathon.”
The Lowlights Report
As a case in point of internal channels not working as they should, Wim Vandekerckhove, Professor of Business Ethics at EDHEC Business School and a partner in Project BRIGHT, presented the results from the SUSA (Speak-Up Self-Assessment) Tool. This is a free online tool that integrity professionals running internal channels can use to self-check how their systems align with EU requirements and ISO standards, with the former being the minimum requirements and the latter representing best practices.
Titled “The Lowlights Report” because of the poor quality of the answers received, this report analyzed the 219 responses received since the launch of the tool in September and January. To be clear, the answers are completely anonymous and cannot be traced back to the respondents since the tool does not collect any personal information. These were some key findings:
· Only 60% of organizations said that they always acknowledge receiving the disclosure within seven days of receiving it.
· 33% of organizations said that they only give feedback once the case is closed, when the EU requirement is within three months.
· 19% of organizations said they do not provide feedback.
· 69% of organizations said that their policies mention where workers can seek support and advice.
· 61% of organizations said that their policies mention where workers can go to report externally.
· 57% of organizations sought feedback from the whistleblower.
· 43% of organizations have a documented process to evaluate their systems.
“SUSA is anonymous. We do not collect any identifiable data, IP, or geolocation. We will know what the scores are but there is no way for us to know whose score that is. Maybe that is why they come out lower because otherwise people would be answering in a socially desirable way.”
Zooming in on Lithuania
In Lithuania, whistleblowers can choose whether to report internally or externally and, because in that country the General Prosecutor’s Office is the only external reporting channel, it receives more whistleblowers’ reports than internal channels. This was explained by Monika Kalinauskiene, Assistant Chief Prosecutor at Lithuania’s General Prosecutor’s Office, who considers that, “until internal channels are created in the right manner everywhere, it is better to have the opportunity to address externally right away”.
“The process of implementation [of the Directive] is now over, however, it is just the first step. Legal frameworks are basically just words if we do not apply them correctly. This is the stage we are now and it is very hard and very challenging because whistleblowers put their own lives at risk.”
The role of NGOs
When it comes to enhancing whistleblower protection, especially in countries “experiencing dark governmental situations”, Angelos Kaskanis, Executive Director of Transparency International Greece, argues that the best way forward is the traditional ways, such as promoting success stories which “puts a face on combating corruption”. “Because let’s admit that whistleblowing is still the most effective way of combating corruption.”
“There’s got to be a high level of collaboration if we want to ensure that the regulation is being enforced and that everyone is safeguarded. The question is: What happens when the environment is so hostile for whistleblowers that we have to talk about survival?”
This event, led by the European Whistleblowing Institute, took place in Brussels, on 4 April, and was a collaboration with the Network of European Integrity and Whistleblowing Authorities (NEIWA), Transparency International (TI), Transparency International Greece, Whistleblowing International Network (WIN), EDHEC Business School, University of Galway, and Georg-August-University Göttingen. This event is part of Project BRIGHT 101143234, which is co-funded by the European Commission.
