The Pros and Cons of Anonymity for Whistleblowers.
Whistleblowing is one of the most effective ways to detect and prevent corruption and other malpractice in the organisation. It allows people to expose those wrongdoings in a safe and confidential manner.
For a whistleblower program to have the best chance of success, in that employees and affiliates of the organisation feel safe to use the program, it is vital that the organisation circulates the importance of the information the Whistleblower Protection Officers require to investigate reports.
Stopline is engaged by their clients to triage the incoming reports. The information will be collected in the first instance by Stopline, and then forwarded to the Whistleblower Protection Officers so they can:
• assess how to deal with the disclosure and make sure that whistleblowers are protected and supported from retaliation (or threats of retaliation) for making a complaint
• deal with the matter under workplace policies or refer to another person to investigate
• manage the disclosure from start to finish.
Whistleblowers can provide their name and contact details when they report. They can also report anonymously.
What are the pros and cons of reporting anonymously?
The benefits of reporting anonymously are exactly that, total anonymity. Calling hotline numbers or using the online portals, the Whistleblower can confidently provide details without any of their particulars being collected. This allows them to feel safe in revealing important information.
What could be the cons of anonymously reporting? Without the means to be able to contact a Whistleblower, Stopline or the Whistleblower Protection Officers won’t be able to request information that may be vital to proceed, instead they will have to rely on the Whistleblower making contact again seeking an update.
The Whistleblower Protection Officers should be able to proceed without further questions from the Whistleblower if:
the report has been submitted with information that provides significant and provable accounts, and or
documents are supplied containing evidence, and or reference to records held on file.
When the Whistleblower wishes to be anonymous, they need to ensure their report is written from a witness or third person perspective.
What if the information provided identifies the Whistleblower?
If Stopline receive an anonymous report that has identifying information contained within, and Stopline is unable to contact the Whistleblower, the report may need to be modified or redacted to protect the identity of the Whistleblower. If redaction is required, significant narrative of the report may be impacted in a way that renders the report inadequate for the Whistleblower Protection Officers.
What other options do Whistleblowers have?
Whistleblowers do have two other options that allow for confidentiality.
Partially confidential, where consent is gained to share their identity with the Whistleblower Protection Officer/s and relevant persons for investigation purposes only.
This allows the Whistleblower and the Whistleblower Protection Officers to work together to establish if there are any further details that could assist with the progression of an investigation.
Or, not shared with the organisation and Stopline acts as an intermediary.
In this case Stopline and the Whistleblower will still need to ensure the report triaged doesn’t contain any identifying information.
So, in summary, if the Whistleblower can provide an anonymous detailed description with evidence of wrongdoing, that can be passed on or collected by the Whistleblower Protection Officers, then being totally anonymous will not impact the assessment and investigation process.
However, if the report contains and relies on information that identifies the Whistleblower, it could be more beneficial for the Whistleblower to consider sharing their details with Stopline or the Whistleblower Protection Officers.