OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Anti Corruption International

ACI

The Organisation has the following objectives: To provide support and information for students and young people around the world battling corruption in all its forms; To function as a platform for young people to share their corruption concerns, stories and experiences; To investigate and expose corruptive practices; To educate people about the destructive impact of corruption on societies across the world and indeed on human progress and development; To seek and promote a constructive inclusive way for young people to tackle corruption in all its forms on a local, national, regional and global level; To raise public and political awareness on the need for robust anti-corruption legislation and policies to combat corruption; To promote and present the interests of The Organisation to the notice of national and local authorities as well as to regional and international organizations to coordinate a truly global, grassroots anti-corruption movement; To encourage, promote and conduct research on the prevalence, effect and causes of corruption around the world, and to utilise the conducted research to put pressure on governmental authorities to address these imbalances; To seek, develop and refine anti-corruption mechanisms in general and specific sectors through exchange of ideas and experience as well as through debate and dialogue; To present and advocate anti-corruption mechanisms in front of organizations and institutions in order to significantly decrease the prevalence and effects of corruption; To network with civil society organizations working towards the same goals in order to bring forward the antagonistic collaboration between governmental institutions, economic agents and the civil society; To take reasonable steps necessary to the attainment of the above-stated objectives.

Lobbying Activity

Response to EU Whistleblower protection

13 Jul 2018

Anti Corruption International is the largest globally present youth-focused anti-corruption organization. We run the Right to Report EU campaign with the goal to create awareness amongst European citizens, specifically youth, on the importance of whistleblower (WB) protection for establishing fair and transparent societies and safeguarding the European public interest. Within the organization, we regard whistleblowing both as an effective tool to fight grievances and wrongdoing, and as a person’s right to speak up stemming from the universally accepted freedom of expression - which increasingly is coming under threat around the world. We appreciate the determination of the European Commission to legislate on the matter and we welcome the broad scope of the draft directive. Nonetheless, we believe multiple adjustments are necessary to ensure the directive is fit for its purpose. Scope: i. All disclosures should be protected when concerning harms or threats to the public interest that have occurred, are occurring or are likely to occur. Not only those concerning “unlawful activities” or “abuse of law” as laid down in the directive. ii. Workers’ rights cannot be limited to health and safety and should, therefore, be included in full in the scope of the directive. The annex should be extended to include Art. 153 TFEU or equivalent individual standards that cover a wide range of wrongful acts that can exist at the workplace. iii. Partial protection should also be given to family members of the WB in case they are to experience own negative consequences of the act of whistleblowing. This will incentivize a larger group of people to report malfeasance and, therefore, increase the effectiveness of the directive. iv. Special attention should be paid to the impact the directive has on reporting different forms of corruption, which in most cases has a direct effect on matters of public interest which are covered by EU-law. v. We reiterate that the possibility to give asylum to WBs from outside Europe should be considered in future negotiation on definitions of the refugee status. Minimum standards: With regard to Art. 19, it should be clarified which components of the law are obligatory and especially if a deviation is also valid for a different set up of reporting channels. As much as such a deviation can strengthen the freedom of expression, it might not be compatible with the idea of having effective and harmonized WB protection. Deviations from the standard should be allowed only on empirical and academic grounds for which a qualitative measurement should be found. Anonymity: The directive speaks about WBs as though their identity is already known and needs to be protected. However, the need for an environment which allows the WB to choose between confidentiality and anonymity must be highlighted. Therefore, a first step of anonymous reporting should be added to the directive. Entities should be obliged to establish anonymous reporting channels and promote their use by educating the employees on the potential advantages and disadvantages of anonymity vs. confidentiality. If an entity violates the anonymity, penalties should be in place. Burden of proof: We appreciate the inversion of the burden of proof for retaliation against the WB. However, true WB protection would put the complete burden of proof onto the employer. This is important for encouraging WBs to speak up, whom in vast majority report in good faith. Internal reporting i. A certifiable standard for legal entities in the private sector (defined by Art. 4) based on academic grounds should be introduced and referenced in the directive. ii. The scope of conditions allowing to move on to external reporting channels or public reporting should not be exhaustive.
Read full response