The majority of whistleblower protection laws in G20 countries fail to meet best international standards, despite those countries' pious promises to shield whistleblowers from retaliation. A new report on the subject, however, offers compliance officers a fresh source of country risk data.

The majority of whistleblower protection laws in G20 countries fail to meet best international standards, despite those countries' pious promises to shield whistleblowers from retaliation, a new report has found. In 2010, the G20 countries declared that by 2012 they would have taken adequate legal steps to protect people who 'went public' with tales of abuse and criminal behaviour on the part of their employing firms from retaliation by those firms and to provide them with safe, reliable ways in which to report corruption, fraud and other crimes to their employers and to the wider world.

The report, entitled Whistleblower Protection Rules in G20 Countries: The Next Action Plan, has been released in the build-up to the G20 summit to be held in Brisbane in Australia later this year. It says that few states have introduced the following requirements, which it summarises in the following words.

“A three-tiered system of reporting channels, including clear external avenues to third parties such the media, Members of Parliament, non-governmental organisations and labour unions where necessary; anonymous channels to get those who know about corruption in the door to auditors or regulators, in the first instance; and internal disclosure procedures, the mechanisms by which organisations public or private adapt whistleblower protection principles to their own environment.”

The report is the first independent evaluation of all G20 countries’ whistle-blowing laws for both the private and public sectors. It was researched by an international team of experts from both civil society and academia (see below).

It scores the G20 countries’ laws (giving them a 1, 2 or 3) across a range of criteria that pertain to whistleblower-protection and includes comparison tables for laws that govern public and private sector disclosures. The University of Melbourne is the driving force behind the report. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the report gives Australia the best score for public sector protection laws, although that country only offers middling protection in the private sector. Contributions also come from Blueprint for Free Speech and Griffith University.

Under 'reporting channels, internal and regulatory' the score is a woeful 3 (absent) for Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, India, Mexico, Brazil and Germany, a middling 2 (partially comprehensive) for Italy, Argentina, Australia, Turkey, Indonesia, Japan, China and (presumably south) Korea and a glowing 1 (very or quite comprehensive) for France, South Africa, the UK and the US. Under 'external reporting channels, [to] third-party or public', however, the score is only 3 for Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, India, Mexico, Brazil and Germany. It is 2 for Italy, Argentina, Australia, Turkey, Indonesia, Japan, China and (presumably south) Korea and 1 for France, South Africa, the UK and the US.

The 'best practice criteria' for the evaluation of these laws rests on such things as comprehensive requirements for organisations (such as financial firms) to have internal disclosure procedures (reporting channels, internal investigation procedures); requirements for transparency (such as annual public reporting or provisions that override confidentiality clauses in settlements between employer and employee); protection against a broad gamut of retaliation, with laws granting the whistle-blower relief from legal liability/prosecution, direct reprisals, adverse employment action and harassment; oversight by an independent whistleblower investigation/complaints authority or tribunal; and a broad definition of “whistleblowers” that includes employees, contractors, volunteers and other insiders.