The complaint or alert lines are a tool that helps to reveal or discover possible acts of corruption and other misconduct in companies. Anti-corruption laws in various countries have established reporting systems with greater or lesser success, but in the vast majority of cases, this tool has been adopted to prevent and detect possible acts of corruption and misconduct.
As we already know, the origin of the so-called complaint or alert lines is the term whistleblowing that goes back to the ancient practice of British police who blew their whistles when they witnessed the commission of an alleged crime. Currently the concept is applied to those who report a criminal act of corruption or misconduct in organizations, be they public or private (including non-governmental sector organizations).
The best international practice in anti-corruption management systems recommends the use of hotlines or alerts as a way to prevent and detect possible acts of corruption. Its use in the United States and other countries has been extensive for many years now, to such an extent that, in the United States, under the premises of the Dodd-Frank Act 2010, a monetary incentive is granted to whistleblowers who make a disclosure that leads to a Successful process in the courts against those who have committed a crime in matters of business ethics, such as acts of corruption or improper conduct that are punishable by either the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) or the DoJ (Department of Justice). In addition, both in the United States and in other countries such as the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and others, whistleblowers have protection against possible retaliation from their employers (which usually includes dismissals, threats, discrimination, demotion of post, among many others).
Thus it is that the complaint or alert lines seem to be well established in some countries that take the prevention of corruption in companies seriously, to such a degree that in the United States one of the main sources in the discovery of acts of corruption is precisely this tool, with complaints that originate in more than 172 countries under the protection not only of the Dodd-Frank Act 2010 but also of the provisions of the FCPA 1977 (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977).
In countries such as Mexico, and others in Latin America, reporting and alert systems have also been gradually adopted to prevent corruption, however, there are two problems that constitute obstacles to naturalization as effective tools to detect possible acts of corruption.
The first problem is that of credibility in the fact that the complaint will be investigated in a professional, impartial and effective way so that, if the commission of a crime or improper act is proven, those responsible are punished according to the disciplinary processes of the company, and where appropriate, the managers report to the corresponding authorities. The lack of credibility that the complaint will truly lead to a serious investigation and a disciplinary process in accordance with internal regulations and the law is, in general, low. And that does not allow the complaint and alert lines to be used with the frequency and seriousness that they have in other countries.
The second problem lies in the fact that whistleblowers fear that they will face intimidation and retaliation from their employers, which can negatively impact their employment and income, as well as their long-term professional career, and even in your safety and your personal life. Hence, many potential whistleblowers prefer 'silence' rather than reporting or alerting to the possible commission of an act of corruption or misconduct that they have witnessed or are otherwise aware of.
Fortunately, attitudes are changing, and every day more companies establish complaint systems that are well designed and more credible, however, the problem persists as this is not a cultural problem, but also the lack of scaffolding normative and institutional to protect whistleblowers against possible retaliation is a pending task. As long as we do not have the regulatory framework and credible specialized institutions for whistleblower protection, this valuable tool to uncover the corrupt will be limited in its effects and consequences.
In this blog, we will continue to generate contributions for the discussion of the state of whistleblowing policies in Mexico and Latin America. In turn, we will share updates on the discussions to be held in the next COSP-2021, to start on December 13.