The view from across the pondProfessor David Lewis recently asserted that he would “welcome criminal charges against companies that victimised whistleblowers” and voiced his support for rewarding whistleblowers for exposing wrongdoing, stating that this could help dissipate the feelings of isolation and trepidation felt by those contemplating blowing the whistle. This would put the UK whistleblowing policy further in line with that of the US. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed into US law in 2010 and features an incentivised whistleblowing procedure. Following its inception, several high profile cases such as Sherry Hunt of Citibank caused a rush of blood to the head and scramble of keys to the vault for businesses keen to protect profits and reputation and a raft of critics too to the internet, and to congress. Whistleblowing in the US is increasingly viewed as an extension of the ambulance-chasing culture that had further tarnished the insurance industry and become part of a litigation-happy culture across the pond. Critics also fear that the SEC’s whistleblowing site that was launched in 2011 and provides a convenient mechanism with handy navigation for “submitting a tip” and “claiming an award”, further diminishes the altruistic possibilities of reporting genuine misconduct for the protection of others. Concerned parties worry the advent of such mechanisms will encourage whistleblowers to bypass internal reporting processes, as outlined in IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice. The SEC has, of course, conceded such a possibility and asserts that they will consider accepting a claim that has already been reported internally if the report is submitted within 120 days.
These observations are not meant to trivialise the process that such whistleblowers go through, and even a cursory glance into Ms. Hunt’s case shows that there were significant grounds for investigation, incrimination and compensation. In many cases whistleblowing requires a high degree of tenacity and stamina in what can be an enduring and challenging process. Under Dodd Frank the amount paid to the whistleblower is in direct correlation with the sanctions ultimately imposed by the Commissions (SEC and Commodities Futures Trading Commission), providing they exceed $1,000,000 (between 10 and 30%). Clearly this is not a route that any chancer with a petty grievance would go down for an extra buck. In addition, it should be noted that Dodd Frank affords the whistleblower considerably more protection than the SEC. They are protected from employer counteraction and are able to bypass the traditional administrative process with the Department of Labour and bring action directly with the Federal District Court.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not offer financial rewards to whistleblowers, although this is not to say the UK is fundamentally against incentivising reporting of wrongdoing; the Office of Fair Trading offers rewards of up to £100,000 for companies or individuals who report illegal activity that leads to prosecution or fines. An added bonus is the possibility of immunity from prosecution; something not offered by the SFO’s own whistleblowing procedure. The Ministry of Justice is in the process of developing deferred prosecution agreements which some commentators feel could see a rise in companies self-reporting to negotiate a more favourable settlement, and therefore an opportune time to review incentivised reporting. Aside from corporate misdemeanours there are a number of other situations where a more open, accepted and incentivised culture of whistleblowing would be helpful; consider issues of national security, benefit fraud (if memory serves there used to be a £50 prize for ‘beating a cheat’ back in the 90s…) and considering the recent healthcare scandals a reward process could certainly find a useful home at the NHS.
In a utopic ideal we would not only have a world devoid of incentivised whistleblowing but we would not have the crime that warrants hotlines in the first place. One of the most clear-cut ways of letting someone know that they are being rewarded, or have done the right thing, is to give them money. Assuming that a financial reward will colour the motivations of whistleblowers overseas, or perhaps in the future, on these shores, shows little understanding of the tribulations surrounding the process. The benefits from encouraging personal ethics in the workplace or society and considering rewarding those for taking a stand should be up for discussion. Consider the possible ramifications a whistleblower might be subjected to; loss of earnings, promotion delay, sanctions, harassment and other moral and material damage. Organisations that foster whistleblowing as an integral part of their corporate governance strategy help protect themselves against fraud, bribery, corruption, malpractice and much more. Not to mention the highly embarrassing and costly media and public exposure such disclosures can result in. And let’s not forget protecting those who have blown the whistle and put others security and wellbeing above their own; who have risked career, associations and safety.
Supposed financial motivations aside, what does motivate people to blow the whistle? Wanting to do the right thing, a desire to see accountability and justice, a sense of responsibility, protecting colleagues, protecting revenue of employer (and therefore one’s own job) are all valid, prevalent and positive reasons for whistleblowing. Some individuals may balk at disclosing wrongdoing in larger organisations as they perceive their ability to influence change as limited at best. But history has shown on plentiful occasions that these heroic people can become a David that beats Goliath, whilst the latter was too busy polishing his armour. Clearly bad pennies do turn up; those who are blinded by the possibilities of media attention or focussed solely on retaliation for, perhaps, dismissal or the perception of unfair treatment. But submitting to such scepticism is reductive and unhelpful to whistleblowing as a process and area of study.
The vast majority of us hope to live in a society of fairness and accountability, and ultimately perceive ourselves as moral agents promoting these values. This idea of the individual as the driving ethical force is referred to as ‘virtue ethics’. Academics such as Thomas Alured Faunce see virtue ethics as a more appropriate and progressive framework for whistleblowing; that disclosure is more a reflection of one’s own moral character and actions, rather than those of society at large or that we are just passive beings, blindly adhering to prescriptive rules. When it comes to negotiating ethical quandaries, looking to ourselves to honestly gauge how we would handle situations affords a more productive perspective than judging others on our assumptions of their motivations.
In 2010 The National Whistleblowers Centre (NWC) submitted a report to the SEC entitled “Impact of Qui Tam Laws on Internal Compliance.” The report was in response to concerns voiced by SEC commissioners and corporations regarding Dodd Frank’s potential impact on existing corporate compliance programs. The study analysed cases filed under the False Claims Act from January 1, 2007 to present and found that whistleblower rewards have “no impact whatsoever on the viability of internal corporate compliance programs or the willingness of employees to report suspected violations to their employers.” 87% of these filed cases initially reported their concerns internally, either to supervisors or compliance departments. Just 0.9% of employees who would eventually file a qui tam case worked in compliance and did not initially contact their supervision prior to contacting the government.
David Harris has been the Head of Business Conduct at BAE systems since 2009 and is a Chartered Member of the CIPD. Prior to BAE he worked at Lockheed Martin for 12 years in a variety of roles including, most recently, Director of Corporate Responsibility & Ethics, Ethics Officer and HR Operations Manager. David’s specialities include business ethics, ethics and business conduct, HR management, people management, coaching and mentoring and programme management.
How has the culture of ethical business changed in the last 25 years?
I’m not sure it’s been a culture change per say, more a need to clean up some ways of “accepted” business and make them “acceptable”. Stakeholder expectations have increased dramatically. The speed and detail that business-related information is now available would have been unthinkable a lot less than even 25 years ago. This increased information and knowledge has enabled us to challenge the way that people act and business is done. It’s no longer about what we do; it’s how we do it. Another change has been the clear demonstration of how irresponsible business can so negatively affect the lives of individuals, with no direct connection between the two.
What are the greatest challenges ethical businesses face?
For me it’s creating and sustaining the right culture and knowing that you have it. For all the effort and creativity we put into codes of conduct, policies, compliance training et al, everything hinges on our employees acting as we want and expect them to act, including how they deal with dilemmas. Another challenge is satisfying the need for and variance of relevant and engaging information that stakeholder groups seek. Providing the right types of evidence to support your statements and for that evidence to enable others to trust the same statements is wholly necessary, if a bit tricky!
If you could set one piece of global legislation to make businesses work more ethically what would it be?
I’m not sure that more legislation is what we need because we are talking about behaviours of people and organisations (collections of people). Legislation, like policies and processes, has its place, but what determines how a business works and how its people respond to situations is culture – ethical culture built in an ethical environment on ethical values and principles. Rather than more legislation, how about effective enforcement of that which we already have? Perhaps then we would see any gaps.
In terms of ethics, what are your greatest fears for the UK business community?
I’m not sure I have too many fears other than perhaps a creeping complacency from watching the financial and media sectors taking a beating. Complacency based on a [mistaken] belief that it “could never happen” to them. I think the UK Bribery Act forced the debate around, and understanding of business ethics and how it differs to compliance. In recent years I have seen a dramatic increase in the breadth of industry sectors and businesses I come into contact with at conferences and network-events, and the discussions are very different now. The openness amongst those working in this area is both refreshing and encouraging; it’s almost camaraderie and one I rarely felt outside of my own organisation when in HR or engineering. What also allays my fears is that, across the UK business community, this area of work is attracting very talented individuals with broad expertise, skills and knowledge, me not included of course! People who have the courage and conviction to drive the changes where they are needed in their organisations.
Geographically, what are the most predominant areas for risk at present? And what is the nature of those risks?
I don’t feel too qualified to comment in detail or to single out any region or country. But what I do think is that it doesn’t really matter where you are or intend going – robust and effective risk management through your planning as well as execution phases is critical. Having a long-range risk radar that prevents you making assumptions against limited pieces of information or intelligence is a great help. Being able to collate often disparate pieces of data to build a picture that then informs and promotes the discussions amongst and challenges from senior leaders. If you can do this then it doesn’t matter if it’s a new joint venture in the EU or a new plant in Asia, the risks will be identified, qualified, quantified and managed.
The response to the Bribery Act from the business world has been well documented; but from your own point of view, what have been the most significant contentions and concerns with adhering to the legislation?
We welcomed the Act all along because we saw the need for something that helped create a level playing field for certain business activities and transactions around the world. I think what gave most people concern was the idea of needing “adequate procedures” without being told what they should look like. For us we continue to devise better ways of measuring and monitoring various processes and procedures to increase our confidence of “adequacy”. I’m not a lawyer, but personally I get a sense that the idea of self-disclosure is something that many are at best unsure of, at worst completely distrusting.
What are the aspects you most enjoy/like about working in business ethics?
I absolutely love the fact that everything we do has to be the result of data and information gathering; some process of analysis and synthesis to understand what is actually going on; the design, development and deployment of improvement interventions and then monitoring those to see if they had the impact you set out for. Through networking and benchmarking I see lots of companies and talented individuals doing great things and many new ideas emerging all of the time. But no-one can tell us what we need to do for BAE Systems, or how to do it – though some do try! It’s for us to decide and explain and although we find ways to test things out there is little if any room for failure.
And least enjoy?
Ironic – but not having a book that now again I could turn to that says “here’s the solution to your problem”! Not that I would want this often, but I do get a bit put off by the amount of academic research, opinion and direction out there that is almost impossible to translate into the workplace.
What has been the toughest challenge of your career? Moving from a career in engineering into HR management was a massive eye-opener for me. Until then I thought I knew people as well as a bit about the business. I wasn’t even close! So much change for me personally, at a time that the company I worked for was changing significantly too, meant that the first year remains the most sustained period of intense pressure I have faced. Having said that it is probably the most enjoyable because I learnt so much about myself, and it wasn’t all good either!
What do you consider to be your greatest achievement?
I don’t do questions like this very well as there is very little I have achieved without the help and support of others. From the workplace the thing I am most proud of is helping some of those I have been lucky to manage realise their own potential. To see people grow in capability and confidence to move on to and be successful in roles way beyond their early ambition gives me real satisfaction. Maybe one or two of my early managers feel that about me? Or maybe not!
As Europe and the world becomes more integrated, working practices change fast and often affect more than one country at a time how to you keep abreast of what affects you and your company?
Sometimes the amount of information and the volume of opinion can be overwhelming to the point where it would be easy to switch it all off. But it is essential to keep abreast and so I rely on one or two good sources of “summarised” reporting (I can go to the detail if I wish) and networking. I find that regular contact with well-chosen groups and trusted, like-minded individuals help in sharing ideas and practice and keeping me sane (being in an ethics role can become lonely!). We may be dealing with things differently, but most of us are struggling with exactly the same source-problems and I find that sense check really valuable. One of the things I would recommend anyone does is develop some effective filters for things you pick up. If it sounds like waffle or narrow opinion, drop it and leave it dropped. If it sounds like a real nugget you may want to refer back to, put it somewhere you will easily find it. But don’t become a squirrel, like cupboards even IT systems have their capacity limits!
How do you encourage best ethical business practice internationally?
The “must do” and “must not do” items of policy are simple, but they cover just a small percentage of what our employees are likely to face. One of my favourite quotes is “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”. Almost everyone has intuition for when something isn’t right – that is the time to seek advice. If it does not fit with our values and expectations then it isn’t right, for us at least. And of course, having access to a confidential helpline that they can trust will encourage them to seek advice in difficult circumstances.
See David’s LinkedIn profile.
View BAE’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pages.
Read our interview with Philippa Foster Back Back, Director of the Institute of Business Ethics.
David Lewis is Professor of Employment Law at Middlesex University and convenor of the International Whistleblowing Research Network. He has published articles on whistleblowing in both law and management journals in several countries and has contributed to and edited three books on this subject.
In this fascinating Q and A he discusses whistleblowing policy, the future of whistleblowing, domestic and international legislation and more.
What’s your opinion of the state of play of whistleblowing in the UK?
Whistleblowing procedures are now very common in the public sector but less so in the private sector. However, this may change rapidly as a result of the Bribery Act 2010 which provides a complete defence to the charge of failing to prevent bribery if an organisation can prove that it had “adequate procedures”.
Research conducted by Public Concern at Work shows that many people are unaware that there is some employment protection for whistleblowers so greater efforts are needed to publicise and explain the legislation. Despite the fact that the relevant statute has been in force since 1999, I suspect that many potential whistleblowers are still choosing to remain silent about serious wrongdoing. This cannot be in the public interest.
And overseas?
Other countries are increasingly introducing legislation. Some of this is modelled on the UK but quite a few statutes are more sophisticated. For example, the UK only aims to protect whistleblowers whereas elsewhere there are attempts to encourage disclosures and to ensure that concerns are properly investigated. A statutory obligation on employers to maintain whistleblowing procedures is becoming more common. Research in the US demonstrates that in practice rewards promote whistleblowing so some Governments have started to make provision for them.
Do you think whistleblowing works?
Although the process of whistleblowing is often seen as problematic, we should bear in mind that there is evidence from a large scale research project in Australia that whistleblowing can be successful. The main reasons people give for being unwilling to report wrongdoing are fear of retaliation and a belief that raising a concern will make no difference. If employers can create a positive culture by committing to a confidential reporting procedure which complies with good practice and can demonstrate that they value disclosures and will protect disclosers, there is no reason why internal whistleblowing should not work. Inevitably, things will go wrong occasionally so employers need to contemplate external disclosures. Again, if this is managed properly, for example by suggesting appropriate recipients of information, it should be possible to avoid destructive media or internet disclosures.
Do you think the legislation in place (Public Interest Disclosure Act) is robust enough to encourage and protect whistleblowers?
As previously mentioned, the legislation in this country only seeks to protect workers who choose to blow the whistle. It does not require employers to have a whistleblowing procedure and does not normally oblige workers to raise concerns. If we want to encourage disclosures about wrongdoing there needs to be more emphasis on the message rather than the messenger. At present the “good faith” requirement may deter some important disclosures because potential whistleblowers may be uncertain about whether or not they will be protected. The legislation also contains other expressions that are undefined and problematic, for example, “substantial truth” and “exceptionally serious failures”.
What advice do you have for organisations that have adopted a whistleblowing policy?
In my opinion top management needs to demonstrate a commitment to a culture of openness and should ensure that their organisation has a procedure that complies with good practice as set out in the 2008 BSI Code. For example, it should indicate what concerns should be raised, how and with whom; it should guarantee confidentiality as far as possible and give undertakings about retaliation; it should provide for investigations where appropriate and for a discloser to receive feedback about the outcome. Procedures should be introduced after consultation with union or other worker representatives, be well publicised and regularly reviewed.
What problems are caused by the portrayal of whistleblowers in the media?
We need to bear in mind that successful whistleblowing is rarely newsworthy, except perhaps when an individual receives a large reward. A particular problem so far as I am concerned is that the media have failed to convey the fact that some external whistleblowing is protected by UK legislation whereas it is highly unlikely that internet disclosures will be covered.
What changes do you see happening in the next 12-18 months?
As a result of the changes in the unfair dismissal provisions, many commentators are expecting that more whistleblowing claims will be brought. Apart from discrimination complaints, workers who lack two years’ service will have no other mechanism of having their dismissal case heard. Because it is an issue of enlightened self interest, I anticipate that more employers will introduce whistleblowing procedures and ‘hotlines’ and will publicise their arrangements on websites.
If you would like to find out more about how confidential whistleblowing hotlines can help your business please contact scott.bridgen@expolink.co.uk
As recently highlighted in Chanel 4’s Dispatches: Richard Wilson on Hold, if there’s one sure way to alienate your customers it’s by installing a fully automated telephone system where a person could clearly do a much better job. We’re not talking about “on hold messages” here but a system where you are actually expected to have achieved something by the end of the call without actually having spoken to a living breathing person.
Once hailed as the answer to spiralling contact centre costs, automated telephone systems are now widely blamed for a large proportion of revenue loss. So, if it’s the telephone you use to sell your product or service, make sure it’s manned by a real person – one who will answer your customers’ questions and not drive them to the brink of taking a hammer to the telephone handset. The backlash against automated phone systems has begun!
Arm your Customer Service Agents with all the goodies they need to do a great job
Whilst it true that you may occasionally receive a call from someone who‘s just phoned for a chat, on the whole your customers want their query answered quickly and accurately with the minimum amount of fuss and time spent on the phone.
In order to provide such a service, it is essential that customer service agents have better tools to do their jobs. Systems should put all the relevant information about a customer right in front of their eyes. Irrelevant and unnecessary information should be kept to a minimum to cut back on the amount of reading (and erring) involved, and all this information should be displayed in an intuitive, efficient and organised way for at- a-glance reference.
Check your priorities – your customers’ needs must come before your own
Companies are slowly learning that, while customers appreciate self-serve options that provide a genuine benefit to them (e.g. ATMs, on-line shopping, etc.), they’re not so impressed when a company is just trying to dump the work back on the customer (e.g. Self-serve checkouts). Mums with kids in tow for example, probably aren’t going to have their hands free to operate the self-service checkout whilst trying to restrain a couple of wilful toddlers… So why on earth would a large well known chemist (and notorious haunt of the busy mum) do away with the majority of their manned service tills in favour of the somewhat less dextrous self-service checkouts? Lunacy! Thankfully though, a number of large grocery store chains have seen the light and are in the process of removing their self-service checkouts.
Keeping mums happy isn’t the only very strong argument for doing away with self-serve checkouts though. In reality, how much money do they actually save the retailer? Surely the money saved needs to be weighed against the amount of shrinkage caused by certain celebrity chefs taking advantage of the lack of personnel by pinching “low value goods”. Ready Steady RUN Anthony Worrall-Thompson! In all seriousness though, it’s well documented that the very solution designed to save the retailer oodles in salaries is now costing them an arm and a leg in retail fraud and theft.
Quality control
This should arguably be at the top of this list- surely, the first defence against customers complaints is to minimise what they have to complain about in the first place i.e. make sure that the quality of your product or service meets (or preferably exceeds) the expectations of your customers.
Customer service training is back
More and more companies are re-investing in employee training when it comes to the treatment of their customers – mainly due to the fact that customer service has become the most utilised form of brand differentiation (see added value below). Expolink Europe Ltd, providers of contact centre services to over 130 household names, currently offers NVQ qualifications to its entire contact centre staff and David Crook, CEO believes it has “paid dividends in terms of client retention.”
Added Value
Marketing professionals have long advised clients to provide their customers with a “value added proposition”. It’s nothing new but in an environment where price no longer differentiates competitors (because everyone is charging the same minimum rate just to get a sale) it really is giving that little bit extra that gets you noticed.
So what is it? Well, in a marketing nutshell “added value” is simply something you can give to your customers that is of high value to them, but of low cost to you.
It can be as simple as offering advice on how to make the most of the product or service they have bought from you, complimentary accessories they cannot do without, or discounts for return custom or referral to another customer. It can even take the form of quality assurance or a guarantee.
The idea is that the customer perceives the increased worth of what you are offering them, in the guise of excellent customer service or quality of your product’s features, all of which goes towards gaining customer loyalty and repeated business. Of course this all depends greatly on undertaking relevant and effective marketing research to find out what your customers really want – which is a time consuming process, but the rewards could be well worth the effort.
The Gripevine
it’s amazing how much bolder people feel about complaining when they do it online. More and more people are using social media to shout out when they have customer service beef. The advent of social media has been likened to a tidal wave – and you can see why, it’s a force of nature and if you don’t master it, it has the potential to destroy you.
Australian clothing giant Gasp fell right off the crest when one of their sales people was quoted on Facebook and Twitter as saying “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in” after bride-to-be Keira O’Neill declined to buy the (considerably more expensive) pink wedding dress the sales person “recommended” she buy. As if this tale weren’t damning enough, Gasp then proceeded to complete their social suicide mission by publicly defending their salesperson, saying he was “good at what he does… and doesn’t like his time being wasted”; you can imagine the ensuing social uproar.
As a result of stories like this, and the tools that people now have at their disposal to make a public complaint, we are starting to see a re-awakening of consumers. People are far less inclined to accept second best in the way they once were, taking direct, and sometimes devastating, action.
On the up side
It’s not all doom and gloom, owing to its power, there’s an awful lot social media can do for your business if you play it right. Companies that are prepared to put their customers first now have the opportunity to reap the rewards. So make sure your customers have plenty of good things to tweet about.
But even if you do get a bit of bad press… lap it up! It’s the way you deal with this (ideally well and publicly) that can completely turn around the public perception of your company.
Social media sites are also an infinite source of management information. Actively encourage your customers’ natural urge to vent their spleen and use it to make them feel listened to! Where practical, you could even make the suggested changes and advertise the fact that, thanks to Mrs Jones from Dorchester, everyone can now benefit from better customer service. Power to the people!
The awards season is nearly upon us and with it the thrill and promise of those deserving, or otherwise, being recognised for outstanding contributions and $600k dresses. Never to be ones to miss out on a good party, we at Expolink have compiled our own whistleblowing awards.
While by no means an exhaustible list we have gone some way to honouring (and dishonouring) some of the folks who make the world of whistleblowing a more interesting place.
At 15, Enron was just a teenager when, as US’s seventh largest company, it employed 21,000 staff in 40 countries. This success, it transpired, was based on a premise of false accounting and fraud. Sherron Watkins, VP of Corporate Development at Enron was the first on the scene, alerting CEO Kenneth Lay to other whistleblowers and the seismic holes in the company reports. Critics say that Watkins’ actions don’t necessarily constitute whistleblowing as she simply gave her boss a nifty escape route from the impending meltdown – either way, she went on to become one of Times People of the Year, 2002, alongside two other whistleblowers Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom and Coleen Rowley of the FBI.
Among Enron’s dubious accolades of largest audit failure and bankruptcy re-organisation in US history at that time, the play by Lucy Prebble, based on the scandal won a plethora of international awards – so, worked out well for some.
Manning was arrested in May 2010 and charged two months later for supplying an estimated 250,000 diplomatic cables to Wikileaks which were duly republished by several left-leaning papers and on the Wikileaks website. An acquaintance, Adrian Lano, subsequently blew the whistle on Manning, proving that one good turn deserves another. It is unclear whether Manning had any kind of personal relationship with Wikileaks high priest Julian Assange, but his organisation has been vocal in support of Manning’s actions saying he has “single-handedly changed hundreds of thousands of people’s lives for the better.” Conversely, the White House branded his actions as “terrorism”. Assange for his part is embroiled in a legal battle of his own for alleged sexual assault -
Manning’s trial continues…
It seems a little unfair to award one of these prized trinkets to an established actor, but back in July 2011 we were thrilled to discover that Grant had enjoyed a chance encounter with News of the World reporter Paul McMullan and secretly taped admissions of wide-spread phone hacking at the paper. Grant went on to charm all at the Levenson Enquiry and despite being branded as a “screechy, sanctimonious little (bleep)” by the not-at-all screechy Piers Morgan, seems to be enjoying some nice, credible PR and perhaps a little more peace from the press.
Jeffrey Wigand’s whistleblowing endeavours were immortalised in the Russell Crowe vehicle, The Insider. Whilst working at a large tobacco manufacturer Wigand discovered his bosses were manipulating their product blend to increase its addictive capacity. Wigand told all on the US TV show, 60 Minutes, and his employers responded with a law suit to prevent him testifying in open court. The company and others of its ilk were left fuming (ahem) when various states began their own litigations to recoup losses to public health initiatives caused by tobacco-related illness.
See also: Linda Tripp of Clinton/Lewinsky fame. More of a sticky beak than a whistleblower, but makes this list for inciting a hugely divisive argument regarding her motivations for revealing details about the affair. The movie deal it is claimed she was anticipating for her part in the scandal is yet to materialise…
Mark Felt, the whistleblower and former FBI agent was the infamous informant of Washington Post journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, whom together brought down the Nixon administration. Bernstein and Woodward published a series of articles on the Watergate scandal revealing corrupt activity in the Nixon stable, later a book and inevitably a film, All The President’s Men. Felt’s disclosures lead to Nixon’s resignation and jail sentences for a number of senior White House employees. Felt went by the codename ‘Deep Throat’ and enjoyed anonymity until 2005 when he confessed all in an interview with Vanity Fair, 31 years after Nixon’s resignation.
It is not always the high profile cases that have, or should have, the most enduring legacy. ‘Though Leslie Chapman was well known throughout Britain in the ‘70s, regrettably he is little remembered to this day. As a government employee he took the exceptional step of breaking Civil Service convention, if not the Official Secrets Act, and speaking out through a series of books about waste and extravagance in the British Civil Service. He then broadened his area of concern to local government and nationalised industry and, despite undoubtedly, putting a few noses out of joint along the way, he was deliberately placed on the board of London Transport as a result of his first book of revelation, tasked with rooting out abuses there. The recent raft of MP expenses scandals shows that such activities are still rife, making it all the more unfortunate that Chapman’s legacy is not secured in our national and political psyche and that decent governance systems have not always prevailed.
How has the culture of ethical business changed in the last 25 years?
I am not sure it has actually changed. Companies have simply recognised the need to be more explicit about doing business ethically.
Major developments have been that companies now, in the main, provide guidance to staff about expected behaviours, ways of handling certain situations and so forth, usually in the form of a code of ethics/business practice. This has happened because the ‘job for life’ syndrome where one would learn alongside another employee about how the company worked no longer is the case. People switch careers or companies more frequently and have more diverse backgrounds than 25 years ago, so they need to understand more quickly how the company operates.
What has been the toughest challenge of your career?
The toughest challenge has been to do the right thing even if it meant I went out on a limb! It is rewarding though when doing so is recognised subsequently as having been the right thing to do.
What do you consider your career high points and/or your greatest achievements?
Finding myself at the Institute of Business Ethics which combines my interest in business, seeing it run successfully with education and encouraging people to share best practice – all within a charitable not-for-profit organisation.
If you could set one piece of global legislation to make businesses work more ethically what would it be?
I think if companies had to state in their memorandum and articles of association when they set themselves up how they are going to conduct their business (not just what the company is going to do), a benchmark would be set to measure that company’s performance.
What are the main factors that attract people to working with the IBE?
We are a small, friendly team who work closely with our subscriber base and others who share an interest and passion for the subject. Every day is different so there is no time to get stale!
In terms of ethics, what are your greatest fears for the UK business community?
I fear that cynics will never acknowledge the good that business does and the way, in the majority of cases, that businesses behave. Businesses and companies are human societies in themselves, with well and poorer behaved individuals making up the whole. Sadly, there are some rotten apples but to judge all by the few is unfair.
And your greatest hopes?
My hope is to prove the cynics wrong through businesses providing goods and services and conducting themselves in an open and fair manner that earns the respect and trust of the wider community.
How has the IBE utilised new technologies to progress its work and message?
We have Twitter and Facebook pages and regularly update and review our website; always looking for new ways to improve communication with our subscribers and others interested in the subject. During 2012 we will be introducing webinar events to reach out to those unable to attend our events in person.
The response to the Bribery Act from the business world has been well documented; but from your own point of view, what have been the most significant contentions and concerns with adhering to the legislation?
The legislation, for the most part, is common sense if you wish to stamp out bribery and corruption, which the business world needs to do as it is so corrosive. The most difficult element is how to say ‘no’ to a facilitation payment when you are at the front line and a lot hinges on whether you pay or not. This can be made worse if the payment made actually equates to the official’s salary as the local government knows they can get away with such practice.
Do you think the communications regarding the Bribery Act from the MoJ et al have been adequate?
In general, yes, though clearer practical guidance regarding facilitation payments would have been helpful. The SFO has now issued further guidance on this.
What do you see as the IBE’s main responsibilities when it comes to the Bribery Act?
Ensuring that experiences and practical solutions that companies have, relating to the Act, are shared for the benefit of all.
IBE has always fostered strong academic partnerships – how do you hope this will evolve in the future?
We will continue our annual student essay award, which for the last three years has had an Olympics theme of Ethics, Business and Sport, co-sponsored by the Pierre de Coubertin Committee.
We are also doing research into the Teaching of Business Ethics, an initiative co-led with the Institute of Global Ethics, to encourage the standard setters to include a larger element of teaching business ethics in their criteria for evaluation.
Thirdly, we are encouraging higher education institutions to establish codes of ethics, following up from a publication we did with the Council for Industry and Higher Education a while back. This was picked up on again by Lord Woolf in his recent report on the LSE where he concluded that such institutions should have a code of ethics.
For further info about the IBE visit www.ibe.org.uk
View our interview with David Harris, Head of Business Conduct at BAE Systems.
The ‘Broken Windows’ theory championed by former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, promotes an ideology where communities will report or fix a broken window, rectifying even the smallest incidents of wrongdoing, thereby instilling similar responsibilities in others and creating a better environment for all. Advocating whistleblowing within organisations follows a similar premise. By fostering a culture of self-regulation and accountability, management can help ensure their staff and business operations are protected.
Whistleblowing is a valuable tool in any organisation’s corporate governance strategy as it empowers employees to act on incidences of misconduct and help maintain a safe workplace, while protecting profits and reputation.
But is whistleblowing ethical? Such conversations provide great scope for dizzying philosophies – but let’s keep it simple for the moment – surely at base level, altruistically reporting wrongdoing must be ethical? The act of whistleblowing can cause a conflict of interest between the personal, organisational and societal spheres. Much of this conflict stems from the context that one views a whistleblower – as someone sharing knowledge of misconduct for the benefit of others or someone who is a ‘grass’ and acting ‘disloyal’ to their organisation.
Public perception of ethics and whistleblowing
Whistleblowing can be a divisive topic and, while most would agree with the value of reporting wrongdoing and condone good organisational governance, external contexts can colour acceptance and perception. There are elements of chicken and egg as attitudes that are encouraged in the work place extend to the street – if businesses promote good corporate governance for all, whistleblowing needn’t be viewed negatively or as solely the preserve of business or community leaders.
In 2007, a survey commissioned by the US Democracy Corps of 1014 “likely voters” revealed that 70% supported whistleblower protections and 40% stated that they would be much more likely to vote for a congress that enacts such legislation. When we vote, use services or entrust our money with banks we want to know that they are secure and working in our best interests (although the latter example might stick in your throat somewhat!). If an engineer at a water sanitation plant in your area uncovered safety issues we would hope they had ample opportunity to report this without fear of reprisal; avoiding danger and incident and allowing for the company in question to assess and improve their practices.
Personal perception of ethics and whistleblowing
The whistleblower is ultimately torn between loyalty to their employer (or the subject of their revelation) and their moral commitment to the law and society at large. Many feel they have the most to lose, at least in the first instance. It could be argued that it is incongruous with human nature to display loyalty to a bureaucratic organisation because it is composed of so many different people. This dehumanising environment could distort the whistleblower’s perception of their relevance within a company or their ability to influence change, thus degrading their sense of responsibility and motivation to report.
As long as the whistleblower is sure that their motivations are sound and that they are confident in the system they should not hesitate to relay such information and be pleased that they are helping to create a safer working environment for their colleagues.
Whistleblowers and the media have enjoyed a somewhat symbiotic relationship. ‘Though agendas and motivations may vary, they share the ambition of exposing wrongdoing and encouraging changes in systems that aren’t working in the interests of those they are supposed to protect. Recent high profile cases, such as the care homes scandal, are excellent examples of individuals reporting for altruistic reasons – but if a whistleblower appears to be seeking a soapbox for public attention or engineering an act of retaliation, it is of paramount importance that the investigative body in question ensures that the case is conducted in the correct way and that a message of intolerance is clear. If an individual feels disenfranchised by their position in the process, to transfer it to the public sphere might seem their best or only option. It’s up to business and community leaders to ensure this does not happen.
Corporate perception of ethics and whistleblowing
Even if an organisation has a whistleblowing hotline in place they should not be complacent when it comes to its usage and communication. If a company doesn’t receive many whistleblowing reports they shouldn’t assume that no news is good news. Read more about communicating your whistleblowing hotline service.In addition, if companies don’t use the data collected from their reports in a progressive manner (analysing trends, investigation and resolution etc) it negates the benefits of the service considerably. Businesses have a responsibility to the public to act on whistleblowing intelligence or risk adverse consequences. They are additionally accountable to the governing bodies of their sector such as the FSA, HSE and of course the Ministry of Justice. Where there are environmental concerns arising from a whistleblowing report, these too must be addressed with the correct authorities.
There are isolated instances where whistleblowing could be considered the wrong course of action in an ethical context; the Republicans branded Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks informant, a terrorist and whipped the media and public into a frenzy regarding breaches of national security. This of course is an extreme case and it is unlikely that whistleblowing cases made in a corporate context will ever mirror this level of drama. But, no matter what size or sector, businesses cannot afford to allow a culture of misconduct and corruption to infiltrate operations.
It might seem obvious as an employee of a market-leading hotline provider to believe in the ethics of whistleblowing – but personal politics aside, it is true to say that individual ethics are born of a culture of ethics and no matter what your personal take on whistleblowing in this realm, that assertion, at least, is undeniable.
To find out how Expolink’s marketing-leading, confidential whistleblowing hotline can help your business click here.
