Offices and authorities: Avoiding grievances

Corruption and misconduct are unfortunately not the exception, but the rule. According to a recent study that surveyed 80 companies with 2.4 million employees in 200 countries, 2.5 out of every 1,000 employees reported wrongdoing in their company. The number has increased. Eight years ago, it was still 0.5 out of 1,000.

But grievances are by no means limited to companies. More and more often, such reports are also coming from public authorities and offices. Disastrous conditions in old people's homes, derogatory treatment of welfare recipients at public offices, bribery, and corruption. Such things also happen too often in the public service.

Errors and misconduct

Public authorities or offices do not generate corporate profits. Nevertheless, the reputational damage caused by misconduct often has consequences. In most cases, those responsible for wrongdoing must face personal consequences.

Not having known is not a good excuse. It is the responsibility of the head of office or authority to check the processes and employees in their own house. Whoever has this responsibility must ultimately take responsibility for problems. Whether they knew about it or not.

One example is last year's flood disaster. Here, a committee of enquiry is now examining the responsibilities. The public prosecutor's office is also investigating. One question is how and when the respective authorities were warned and whether, under certain circumstances, duties of care were violated. Among other things, the committee of enquiry is looking into the question of whether there were errors in communication between the responsible authorities when the flood warnings were issued.

Another example is the corruption in the mask affair. Here, politicians as well as persons in offices and authorities are said to have been involved. Here, too, an investigation is underway.

These examples show that malpractices are by no means only a problem in the private sector. Effective processes must therefore also be created in public offices, authorities and institutions in order to prevent or uncover abuses from the outset.

Personal consequences

The prevention or clarification of grievances is particularly in the interest of those responsible. Even those who have not been directly involved in the respective offence may be held responsible due to their position.

Especially in authorities or offices, where those responsible often enjoy civil servant status, the respective persons have a lot at stake. An affair of corruption or abuse of office can quickly cost a person his or her job. As a civil servant, you lose entitlements, for example pension rights. In addition, a further career in the state apparatus is denied. On the private labour market, it will also be difficult to get a foothold again after a corruption affair.

Prevention

For this reason, heads of public offices and authorities should immediately set up systems to prevent malpractice from the outset. In the meantime, there are so-called reporting systems that make it possible for employees to anonymously report a grievance. The responsible persons are thus informed at an early stage and can take countermeasures.

However, such whistleblowing systems are not only a risk management tool. They also show employees and the public that transparency is a top priority in the authority. In this way, those responsible can demonstrate their values and attitude and create trust.

Digital whistleblowing systems like whizzla are therefore the future of modern compliance management. Not only in the private sector, but also in the public sector. Take the chance to become a pioneer.