Sign the petition for strong whistleblower protection

Why cross-border coherence matters

Many of the biggest whistleblower disclosures of recent years have been international in nature - LuxLeaks and the Panama Papers in particular. As pointed out by the Greens in the European  Parliament, there is a general European public interest that often supersedes the national interests of a single member state.

July 4, 2018Blog
flag-3370970_1920

The big picture

Many of the biggest whistleblower disclosures of recent years have been international in nature - LuxLeaks and the Panama Papers in particular. As pointed out by the Greens in the European  Parliament, there is a general European public interest that often supersedes the national interests of a single member state.

For example, Luxembourgish authorities might well have prefered to silence the LuxLeaks scandal regarding their so-called sweetheart tax deals, but for Europe as a whole it is clear the disclosure was in the public interest.

Safer supply chains

In an increasingly globalized world supply chains also cross borders. The UK horsemeat scandal of 2013 could have been detected sooner if whistleblowers had known where to report and what protection they could expect.

The egg fibronil contamination scare in 2017 was also cross-border in nature. The problem originated from a company operating in Belgium and the Netherlands. The Dutch authorities were first alerted via a whistleblower tip-off that fipronil was being used illegally in farms in the Netherlands as far back as November 2016, but this information was not passed on to other countries.

Authorities explained that they had launched a fraud investigation, but had not considered the health risks. Imagine how much safer the public would have been if the whistleblower’s concerns had been reported to food safety regulators and inspectors in other countries where the eggs were sold.

Consistent, coherent protections for individuals reporting any credible suspicions should extend throughout the EU. Workers deterred or unable to report problems internally need clear guidance about which regulators or agencies they can report to.

Cross-border working conditions

The transnational nature of work is growing and this presenting specific problems for workers who want to report wrongdoing, but cannot rely on a single minimum standard of whistleblower protection.

Take for example a Belgian citizen employed by a French company, working on a German contract in Germany, who discovers wrongdoing during a site visit to a subsidiary factory in Poland. In the modern European company, such a scenario is certainly not far-fetched.

If neither the wrongdoing nor the employment contract is linked to Belgium, it is unlikely the whistleblower’s nationality would have any bearing on the case. From an accountability and legal responsibility perspective, the Polish factory management should be made aware of the wrongdoing. The German parent company would presumably want to know as well, although the Polish subsidiary may want to learn of it first to be able to address the issue. But the whistleblower may well be concerned how far up the management structure the wrongdoing reaches and decide to disclose to the head office in France. The French company may act responsibly and raise the issue with the German company, but perhaps the French company is not interested in pursuing the issue, perhaps concerned that raising it would jeopardize the good working relations. The tricky question then for the whistleblower is whether to go to legal or regulatory authorities in either Poland or Germany in the knowledge that their employer has ignored concerns.

In such a tangled, yet entirely plausible, situation, a whistleblower needs reassurance that their rights will be protected. The more questions an individual has about whether or how to raise a concern about wrongdoing, the more likely they are to stay silent.

Fragmented protection can lead to forum shopping

Just 19 of 28 EU countries have enacted partial legal protections for whistleblowers. Yet, according to BlueprintForFreespeech none of these laws “fully meet European and international conventions and standards.”

In some countries there is no formal protection at all, and what whistleblowing protection there is varies greatly in approach reflecting different cultural norms, history, economic and political circumstances.

The new proposal from the Commission is a step towards harmonizing protection for whistleblowers. However there is already some EU legislation in force that mentions whistleblower protection, such as the civil aviation directive or the market abuse regulation. The Commission says that the new proposals won’t change these, which could cause confusion about which laws apply and when. All of which makes doing the right thing more difficult for individuals who should not be required to know the detailed contents of EU-legislation.

Furthermore there are several areas - human rights, health services, education - where the EU has no competence.

Retaliation against whistleblowers by corporation is unfortunately a reality. The more fragmented the protection, the more opportunities afforded to corrupt organisations to pursue retaliatory action against whistleblowers where it will have the most chilling effect.

Share it

The transnational nature of work is growing and this presenting specific problems for workers who want to report wrongdoing, but cannot rely on a single minimum standard of whistleblower protection.

Brusselsgeek Colour

About the author

Jennifer Baker is an EU Policy Correspondent in Brussels.

You can follow her on Twitter @brusselsgeek

MORE ARTICLES

What now for the new Whistleblower Protection Directive?

By Martin Todd | April 18, 2019

On Tuesday it was all about the euphoria of the whistleblower protection Directive being adopted by the European Parliament (EP) in Strasbourg. Now the hard work begins again, as politicians, trade unions, NGOs and whistleblowers meet to discuss; “The future of the new [whistleblower protection] Directive”, at a civil society event at the European Parliament, on the 17th of April.

The future of the new whistleblower directive

By Janina Mackiewicz | April 15, 2019

In the final session before the EU elections, the European Parliament will vote for a new EU Directive to protect whistleblowers in Europe. Civil society played an essential role in making this happen.

JURI unanimously accepts trilogue’s whistleblower protection deal

By Martin Todd | March 18, 2019

Warm applause greeted the unanimous adoption of last week’s trilogue provisional agreement on whistleblower protection, at today’s European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee.

Whistleblower Protection platform largely welcomes EU agreement

By Martin Todd | March 13, 2019

Members of the WhistleblowersProtection.EU platform mainly welcomed the provisional agreement reached by the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, in the early hours of the 12th of March.

EU whistleblower directive must give whistleblowers all reporting options

By Nadja Salson | March 7, 2019

The European Union is expected to shortly adopt the EU’s flagship whistleblower protection directive. EPSU, believes it is essential that the final legislation fully protects whistleblowers and encourages whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, through which ever route they consider most appropriate, be that the media or relevant authorities.

Handover of 280,000 petition signatures calling for a better directive

By Martin Todd | March 5, 2019

MEP Virginie Rozière, European Parliament Rapporteur for the proposed whistleblower protection directive, yesterday, received petitions with more than 280,000 signatures, gathered by coalitions of trade unions and NGOs, which she handed over to the Council of the European Union at the final scheduled trilogue in the Parliament on Monday 4 March.

Over a quarter of a million signatories support better whistleblower protection

By Martin Todd | March 4, 2019

Today trade unions and NGOs will deliver two petitions gathering over 280,000 signatures supporting the European Parliament’s demands for an improved directive.

European whistleblowers call for better directive

By Martin Jefflen | February 25, 2019

In an open letter to the European Council, Commission and Parliament seven well-known European whistleblowers speak out for changing the directive and removing barriers for safe reporting.

Whistleblowers could be badly served by the EU’s proposed Whistleblowing Directive

By John Devitt | February 25, 2019

The EU Whistleblowing Directive is an idea whose time has come. New whistleblower protection laws in Ireland, France and the Netherlands showed consensus was building among EU Member States on the need to protect and enable workers to speak up about wrongdoing in the workplace.

Change the whistleblower protection directive – or it will not work

By Martin Jefflen | February 25, 2019

The directive must be changed to that whistleblowers can report not only a special internal whistleblowing channel, but also to managers or law enforcement.