UK public attitudes to whistleblowing

This reports on the findings from a public survey (n=2,000 cross-section of UK adult population) on their attitudes towards whistleblowing. 8 questions were inserted in a public omnibus carried out by ComRes. These questions can be regarded as measures for whistleblowing propensity

Whistleblowing and information ethics: Facilitation, entropy, and ecopoeisis

This paper analyses whistleblowing from the perspective of Floridi's information ethics (IE). Although there is a vast literature on whistleblowing using micro-ethical (egopoietic) or meso-ethical (sociopoietic) frameworks, whistleblowing has previously not been researched using a macro-ethical or ecopoietic framework. This paper is the first to explicitly do so. Empirical research suggests whistleblowing is a process rather than a single decision and action. I argue this process evolves depending on how whistleblowing is facilitated (positively or negatively) throughout that process, i.e. responding to whistleblowers and providing information about whistleblowing activity. The paper develops a typology of whistleblowing facilitation to complement Floridi's IE. The findings suggest that for whistleblowing to be beneficial to the informational environment, facilitation must filter out untrue whistleblowing, and achieve closure with the whistleblower, especially when whistleblowing is mistaken or deliberately false. I also find that publishing information about whistleblowing activity can be beneficial for the informational environment, but only if all organizations or all regulators do so

Antwoorden is belangrijker dan melden

Deze bijdrage handelt over de rol die de interacties tussen melder en interne ontvanger spelen in de beslissing om al dan niet over te gaan tot extern klokkenluiden. Het artikel argumenteert dat klokkenluiden een proces is van meermaals melden en beantwoorden. Klokkenluiden kan een intern proces blijven afhankelijk van hoe de melding beantwoord wordt. Dit impliceert dat managers zich moeten beraden over hoe ze meldingen beter kunnen beantwoorden zodat het proces ook daadwerkelijk afgerond geraakt. In dit artikel wordt aangegeven dat zowel de kwaliteit van procedures als de managementhouding daarbij belangrijk zijn. Het artikel is hoofdzakelijk gebaseerd op bevindingen uit twee empirische onderzoeken. Een eerste omvat een analyse van 1000 cases van de Public Concern at Work (PCaW) advieslijn in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Het tweede onderzoek betrof de manier waarop interne klokkenluidersystemen geïmplementeerd zijn in Engelse NHS ziekenhuizen en omvat een documentenanalyse en semi-gestructureerde interviews

Freedom to Speak Up - Qualitative Research Report

This is the report from a qualitative research study commissioned by The Freedom to Speak Up Review, which set out to be an independent review into creating an open and honest reporting culture in the NHS. This qualitative study aimed to: • gain an understanding of views and attitudes to whistleblowing in the NHS held by those in various roles in the whistleblowing process - i.e. whistleblowers, frontline staff, managers, directors, regulators, unions, and whistleblowing support groups. • identify strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of whistleblowing policies in the NHS. The research consisted of two parts: a desk based analysis of whistleblowing policies, and an interview based analysis of how whistleblowing policies are implemented in the NHS. This research is qualitative. Sampling techniques were designed to ensure validity of the research. We strived for validity that would allow our qualitative research findings to represent as much as possible the variety of views and approaches to, and perceptions of whistleblowing in the NHS. Our research design does allow any conclusions as to what extent any particular view, approach, or perception is representative for the whole of NHS organisations. The report is structured as follows. In section two we present the methodology and findings of the desk based analysis of whistleblowing policies. We then present in section three the methodology and findings of the interview based research. We present our conclusions from these two research parts in section four. Finally, based on these conclusions we formulate considerations for the Review team in section five

Expert opinion on the draft law on protection of whistleblowers

In a letter addressed to the joint Council of Europe/European Union project “Strengthening the Capacities of Law Enforcement and Judiciary in the Fight against Corruption in Serbia” (PACS), the Minister of Justice and Public Administration of Serbia has asked the Council of Europe for expert opinion on draft Law on Protection of Whistleblowers. The draft law has been recently approved by the Working Group set by the Ministry. This opinion focuses on the compatibility of the draft law with Council of Europe standards and good practice of different European jurisdictions. In view of that the draft law was assessed against the only detailed international measure on this subject - draft Council of Europe Recommendation on Whistleblowing (hereinafter ‘the CoE Recommendation’). It shows the draft law achieves a high degree of convergence, although a few issues remain. The draft law is skilfully drafted but like all laws seeking to regulate such a complex field, it is open to improvement. Therefore experts team raised several issues in this paper in the expectation that this law may also become a template for other countries, so it is worth going the extra mile to get it as right as it can be. Nevertheless, it is known that ‘the best is the enemy of the good,’ that compromises may have to be made in the Parliamentary process, and that it may not be possible at present to adopt a law that addresses all of the issues. The priority issues are identified in bold. The longest experience of a specific law on whistleblowing is to be found in the UK, (the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998). The operation of that law was recently reviewed by an independent commission and that report had been taken into account when comments in this paper were made (‘the 2013 Report’)1. Given that the opinion was prepared on English translation of the draft law, several of the comments below may relate to simple translation issues which can be easily resolved