Running time: 10-15 minutes
Use the scroll button to navigate through each screen
This resource has been put together in order to give you some background information on various aspects of whistleblowing. It contains a couple of interactive exercises designed to help you explore the issues and develop your own ideas before you view the case study videos.
You can explore these materials in any order by scrolling/swiping up and down the page and you can come back to them at any time.
Hover over or click the text to explore some elements of this definition.
Again, hover over or click on the definition to explore the differences between whistleblowing and the broader category of ‘speaking up’.
Often, a whistleblowing case will be covered by a specific policy within the organisation, and there may even be statutory or regulatory protection invoked, or the involvement of a third party such as a professional body. In contrast, cases of speaking up may be dealt with more informally. Do you know your organisation’s policy? Do you know where to find it?
Organisations generally prefer their employees to feel that they can speak up, either informally or through more formal whistleblowing channels. For this reason, it is greatly to an organisation’s advantage to develop an ‘open culture’, a culture in which speaking up is encouraged and welcomed, so that it becomes normal and accepted practice.
'An organisation which has an "open culture" or "speaking up philosophy" stands a much greater chance of identifying and addressing issues before they have a significant negative effect.
However, given the complexity of factors affecting culture, and the possibility of different cultures developing in different parts of the organisation, a well-equipped organisation will also need to support whistleblowers in the event that whistleblowing becomes necessary. Efforts to develop an open culture and measures to support whistleblowers should therefore not be thought to be in opposition to each other; they are complementary.
There are a number of reasons why you might feel the need to blow the whistle or to speak up about something. For example:
On the other hand, there may be a number of concerns which might make you pause. For example:
As well as whether or not to take action, you would also need to decide who would be the most appropriate person to speak to. In the interactive exercise that follows, we will explore the possible consequences – good and bad – of speaking up or blowing the whistle in a number of different ways.
This exercise is not intended to show everything that can happen in such cases, but to give you an idea of the type of decisions you might face in such a situation.
Imagine you came across evidence of misconduct by someone relatively senior in your department. When looking over an invoice presented to a client, it appears that they have been charged for some work that you know was not actually performed. You strongly suspect that this has been done intentionally, as there is too much detail in the invoice for it to have been an accident.
Speak to the person directly Speak to someone more senior Speak to a colleague Speak to your line manager
Speak to HR Contact an external organisation set up by your employer Finish Exercise
(Bear in mind that your company may have a policy, from which you can get guidance as to possible courses of action. This is likely to be a good first place to look before speaking to anyone.)
Depending on the nature of the misconduct, you might want to try to persuade the person to come clean about their misconduct. However, you might inadvertently be giving them the chance to cover up evidence. Certainly, if the misconduct is serious, you should not just speak to the person and leave it at that. Who else might you try to speak to at this point?
Speak to someone more senior Speak to a colleague Speak to your line manager Speak to a professional body Speak to HR Contact an external organisation set up by your employer Finish Exercise
This might be an effective way of getting something done about the misconduct. You would need to think very carefully about who would be the most appropriate person to speak to. This might for example be your Head of Department, the Chief Actuary, the Chief Executive, or the Finance Director in the case of financial misconduct. However, there is always the possibility that the misconduct you have uncovered is more widespread in the organisation than you thought. It may not be possible to be sure that the person you are speaking to is not involved on some level, or might try to cover the incident up rather than investigating it. Imagine you spoke to someone senior in the organisation and they did nothing to follow up on your concern. Who else might you talk to?
Speak to HR Speak to a professional body Contact an external organisation set up by your employer
Speak to the relevant regulator Go to the press Finish Exercise
Talking to a trusted colleague can be a useful way of getting some perspective on the issue, and perhaps some advice. However, you will still need to make a decision about whether, and how, to raise your concern more widely. Imagine you speak to your colleague and they agree that you have evidence of serious wrongdoing, and urge you to do something about it. What might you do next?
Speak to HR Speak to a professional body Contact an external organisation set up by your employer
Speak to the relevant regulator Go to the press Finish Exercise
Research shows that people who have a concern about something at work will be more likely in the first instance to speak to their line manager, or to another trusted colleague, than to anyone else. However, whether this is a good idea really depends on the line manager. Hopefully, you would be able to rely on your line manager to support you in raising your concern, and to help you with identifying the appropriate channels. For the sake of argument, however, imagine you do not think your line manager would be helpful (perhaps they are the person who has apparently committed the misconduct!) Who might you speak to next?
Speak to the person directly Speak to someone more senior in the organisation Speak to a colleague
Speak to HR Speak to a professional body Contact an external organisation set up by your employer
Speak to the relevant regulator Go to the press Finish Exercise
Often, speaking to the human resources department can be a good idea in cases like this one. A good HR department will guarantee you confidential advice, and will be able to initiate an investigation if appropriate, while providing support and protection for you. However, what if you spoke to HR and they failed to follow up on your report? What might you do next?
Speak to someone more senior in the organisation Speak to a colleague Speak to your line manager
Speak to a professional body Contact an external organisation set up by your employer
Speak to the relevant regulator Go to the press Finish Exercise
Your own professional body can be an excellent source of advice, guidance and support in cases like these. Contacting the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries via its confidential Professional Support Service can be a useful step in order to clarify your concerns and your options by getting access to the views of experienced actuaries.
The IFoA has published Whistleblowing: A Guide for actuaries (as well as a Whistleblowing: A Guide for employers of actuaries; revised versions of both available soon) giving advice as to how to act if you feel you might be in a position where you may need to be a whistleblower. Alternatively, if the person concerned is a member of another professional body, you may wish to raise your concerns with them so that they can potentially begin disciplinary proceedings. However, you may also want to raise your concerns elsewhere…
Speak to the person directly Speak to someone more senior in the organisation Speak to a colleague
Speak to your line manager Speak to HR Contact an external organisation set up by your employer
Speak to the relevant regulator Go to the press Finish Exercise
In cases of serious misconduct, it may be necessary to speak to the relevant regulator (for example the FCA in cases of financial misconduct in the UK). In some cases, you may be required to do this by the Actuaries’ Code (see Advice and Guidance section for more details). However, what internal avenues did you try before going for this option? Depending on the nature of the incident, it may be more reasonable to speak to someone senior in your organisation before blowing the whistle externally.
This would give the organisation a chance to address the problem, and might also make them look more favourably on you than if you blew the whistle externally straight away. Alternatively, you might want to speak to someone within your organisation at the same time as going to the regulator, so that they have a chance to take action to deal with the incident and to manage any wider repercussions.
On the other hand, if you have reason to believe that the misconduct you have witnessed is indicative of wider problems in the organisation, you may be concerned about the possibility of a cover up. In which case, blowing the whistle internally may not be an option.
Many organisations provide access to an external third party to facilitate reporting of concerns and to ensure confidentiality and independence. Employees can report their concerns anonymously where local laws allow. RightCall is an example of an organisation that fulfils this role These organisations are well equipped to investigate whistleblowing cases while preserving the anonymity of the whistleblower. However, not all organisations provide access to a service of this kind. What would you do if no service of this kind was available to you?
Speak to the person directly Speak to someone more senior in the organisation Speak to a colleague
Speak to your line manager Speak to HR Speak to the relevant regulator Go to the press Finish Exercise
Going to the press or other media is a form of external whistleblowing which would usually only be appropriate as a last resort having exhausted other avenues. There are significant risks, including legal risks, associated with going directly to the press, for example, you may face defamation proceedings if your report is found to be unfounded. Stories can be distorted, legal cases can be compromised, individuals can be inappropriately harmed, etc.
On the other hand, it is likely to be the most effective way of making public something which people are trying to cover up. If you are considering taking this route, you would need to very carefully weigh up the considerations on both sides, and would need to have a good reason for thinking that going to the press was more appropriate in this case than the other routes we have considered.
This exercise showed some of the potential advantages and pitfalls of taking various routes to speak up or blow the whistle. Of course, the scenario described in the exercise was very abstract, and any real scenario will have features that make different routes look better or worse. As with all ethical challenges, judgement is key here.
There may also be routes for speaking up which were not explored in the exercise. For example, you might blow the whistle externally by going to Public Concern at Work (see ‘Advice, Guidance and Support’ section for more details), or to your MP. Can you think of any other ways in which you might raise concerns?
Bear in mind also that you may witness apparent misconduct by someone at another organisation (a client firm, a partner organisation, etc.) the Actuaries’ Code is clear that you would still have a duty to report in a case like this, but your options in terms of lines of reporting may be different. For example, it may not be appropriate for you to report to an authority within another organisation, so you might be more likely to go to an external authority, such as a regulator or a relevant professional body.