Transparency International Latvia's study,
Internal whistleblowing systems in regions: private and public sector examines the experience, development and maintenance of whistleblowing systems within eight municipalities and three companies. The study analysed several issues within the operation of the systems, below are the main issues viewed.
- The role of the organisation's management in promoting whistleblowing
- The role and choice of the whistleblower's contact person
- Awareness of employees regarding the internal whistleblowing system
- Handling whistleblower reports
- Review and updating of whistleblowing systems.
The study showed low activity of whistleblowing, this produces the question on whether these internal systems are good or is this a red flag that whistleblowers aren't being supported. TI Lativa explores this within it's article Low Number of Whistleblowers - an Indicator of a Successful Internal System or a Red Flag, below is a translation of the investigation to the question raised.
This could be explained by the fact that the organization has high-quality internal whistleblowing systems in place and there are no violations in them. However, the study reveals a number of problematic aspects in intra-regional whistleblowing systems that are likely to result in low whistleblower activity. In this article, Delna presents the main conclusions of the questions analyzed in the study.
The role of management in facilitating whistleblowing
The study shows a different approach and attitude of management to whistleblowing issues. Representatives of individual municipalities emphasized that there was initially resistance from the municipal leadership to the introduction of a whistleblowing system in general, justifying it on the grounds of disbelief in such a mechanism and its effectiveness. At the same time, however, there are municipalities and companies that are aware of and emphasise the role of the whistleblowing system in promoting organisational ethics, anti-corruption and good governance.
In the implementation of the system, it is the management of the municipality and the company that plays a decisive role, which by its actions demonstrates the internal culture of the organization and attitude to whistleblowing. We cannot expect the perception and understanding of whistleblowing to change until the internal culture and attitudes of municipalities and businesses on these issues change. And the management of the organization is directly responsible for this. Therefore, it is especially important that the management of municipalities and enterprises is aware of its role and task in supporting the implementation of whistleblowing mechanisms. It requires delving into and understanding the system, defending its importance and role in the internal culture of the organization.
Contact person for whistleblowers
Working on whistleblowing issues, Delna has observed that the duties of a contact person for whistleblowers are not only formal compliance with the requirements of the law, but also contact persons play an extremely important role in shaping a whistleblowing culture in the organization. Therefore, it is especially important that the choice of these individuals is carried out thoughtfully and with the aim of promoting whistleblowing. The experience of the regions shows that the practices of municipalities and enterprises in this matter are diverse. The number of contacts, their qualifications and positions vary.
The good practice of appointing employees to the audit department as contact points for whistleblowers is to be welcomed. Such an approach has been established with the aim of separating the whistleblowing system from the local government management as clearly as possible in order to reduce the insecurity of employees to report and fear of possible retaliation. At the same time, there are municipalities where the duties of a contact person for whistleblowers are performed by the Executive Director, which, in Delna's opinion, is not good practice, as it can contribute to the opposite reaction – unwillingness of employees to report, fear of retaliation and distrust of the whistleblowing system as a whole.
Awareness of the internal whistleblowing system
The information from the study shows that employees lack understanding of the whistleblowing system. The law provides for the obligation to inform employees about the whistleblowing system when starting employment relations. However, such an obligation alone does not ensure the introduction of high-quality and effective internal whistleblowing systems.
One solution for the effective implementation of the system could be regular training of employees and assessment of the level of knowledge in order to obtain data on the actual level of knowledge on whistleblowing issues. Without knowing the level of knowledge, it is difficult to assess whether employees are open to raising the alarm. There are individual municipalities that indicate that certain questions and comments from employees have shown that employees' awareness of the topic is low.
It is also important to point out that the understanding of employees is not just a matter of raising the alarm. It is understanding and practical skills that shape the internal organizational culture. First of all, it is essential to build a unified value system in an organization, understand ethical norms and reduce tolerance of corruption and bad faith behavior, so that it is then easier to see the role of whistleblowing in safeguarding these values.
Handling whistleblower reports
The handling of whistleblower reports is regulated by the Whistleblowing Law (2022). The State Chancellery also provides explanations and guidelines for dealing with whistleblower reports. However, the information obtained from the study shows that here, too, there are quite different approaches to the interpretation of the process and to issues that are not directly regulated by law.
The obligation to pseudonymise the whistleblower's information, which, according to Delna, is one of the most important guarantees of the protection of the whistleblower's identity, takes place at different stages in the examination of the report. In particular, there are organisations that have clearly dissuaded pseudonymisation once a submission in the form of a whistleblower's report has been received, however, other municipalities and companies carry out pseudonymisation only after the submission has been recognised as a whistleblower's report. Admittedly, the law marks the second as the moment when pseudonymisation of the report is mandatory, but the fact that, until then, the circulation of the document within the organisation takes place in a non-pseudonymised manner poses a serious threat to the identity of whistleblowers. This issue should, however, be further analysed and addressed in the development of the regulatory framework and guidelines.
There is also a difference in the attitude of organisations towards anonymous reports: while one part clearly stipulates that anonymous reports are not accepted and considered, there is a part of local governments that accept and deal with anonymous reports, stipulating only that in such a case it is not possible to provide the whistleblower with guarantees of protection.
Review and updating of whistleblowing systems
The whistleblowing system in Latvia was introduced in 2019, when the first Whistleblowing Law came into force. Subsequently, Latvia introduced the European Union Whistleblowing Directive and the law was revised and adopted anew in 2022. The study demonstrates the different practices in compliance with the regulatory framework – there are organizations that introduced the original whistleblowing system already before 2019, as well as those that updated the whistleblowing procedure after the last changes in the regulatory framework. There are also such organizations in which the whistleblowing system is not implemented at all, despite the fact that the law establishes such an obligation. Compliance with that obligation is necessarily hampered by the fact that the law does not provide for any penalties or other sanctions for failure to implement internal whistleblowing systems. In the case of local governments, the study did not observe any violations in the non-implementation of the systems, which is probably explained by the fact that the State Chancellery, as the institution responsible for whistleblowing in Latvia, follows the introduction of whistleblowing in the public sector by communicating with institutions and local governments. At the same time, at the state level, there is no institution or organization that follows the implementation of the requirements of the Whistleblowing Law in the private sector, and it is in the private sector that non-compliance with the Whistleblowing Law and the non-implementation of systems are very characteristic.
Delna points to the risk that, even if whistleblowing systems are formally in place, they are often just another document to sign when entering into employment. Many organisations lack both the understanding and the willingness to update their internal whistleblowing systems, as well as to ensure that they serve potential whistleblowers and are viable.
In general, it can be concluded that the process of introducing internal whistleblowing systems in Latvia is still taking place gradually or not at all. There is a real risk that such stagnation in the field of whistleblowing in municipalities and companies in the regions will continue unless active and targeted efforts are made to implement the changes.
It is also important to stress that authorities, municipalities or companies do not need to wait for the improvement of the whistleblowing framework – they always have the opportunity to introduce new whistleblower support mechanisms to promote whistleblowing at the organisational level. - TI Latvia