Why Proactive Whistleblowing Safeguards Integrity

In an era defined by increasing scrutiny and a heightened demand for corporate responsibility, organizations face constant ethical headwinds. The true test of integrity often comes not from whether misconduct occurs, but from how effectively it is brought to light and addressed.

‍

This is where proactive whistleblowing systems become invaluable – acting as an Ethical Ark, safeguarding an organization's integrity against potential ethical storms. John Cleary, with his unique dual experience as a prominent whistleblower and a seasoned advisor in major public inquiries, profoundly understands this imperative.

‍

The Cost of Unpreparedness

John's direct experience underscores a critical truth: the necessity of proactive measures becomes acutely clear only in the midst of a crisis, by which point it is already too late. He explains that many organizations might opt for an easier life by not setting up robust internal reporting structures, falsely believing that a lack of such structures means a lack of problems. However, John highlights that issues invariably find other avenues for exposure. These can include royal commissions, sector-wide crises, court hearings, police referrals, or media disclosures.

‍

This perspective clarifies that investing in a comprehensive whistleblower system is not merely a compliance burden. It is a vital, proactive measure taken in stable times, preventing devastating consequences when unforeseen ethical storms hit.

‍

Proactive Measures: An Investment in Reputation and Culture

Implementing effective whistleblowing systems is not cost-prohibitive. John emphasizes that it can actively form part of an organization's ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) proposition and its EVP (Employee Value Proposition). It signals best practice and a good culture. Such systems also inherently support risk management, serving as an early warning mechanism for potential issues that could otherwise escalate.

‍

Organizations that defer setting up these structures miss an opportunity to integrate integrity into their core operations. John asserts that it is far better to have the internal framework already in place, advocating for readiness rather than reactive scrambling.

‍

Lessons from the Royal Commissions: The Advisory Perspective

John's experience extends beyond being a whistleblower. He has leveraged his insights to advise other organizations facing intense public scrutiny, particularly during the Royal Commissions into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with a Disability.

‍

In the Aged Care Royal Commission, serving as an Aged Care CEO, John's prior experience proved timely. He described his role as helping to calm the team, explain the document's meaning, and outline the necessary methodology. This was crucial, as these matters outside business as usual could paralyze the organization. His forensic mind was vital in ensuring comprehensive and accurate responses, making significant efforts to search every relevant box and database.

‍

Similarly, during the Disability Royal Commission, where he served as a national project manager, his team oversaw tens of thousands of incidents and reviewed vast amounts of documents across three states. He often had to brief the CEO on some regrettable pieces of the organization's history. This advisory role reinforced the value of an open approach. He contrasts this sharply with relying on legal representatives to assert privilege over investigation reports and to defend actions that were ultimately indefensible. John learned that a far better option involves recognizing the past, presenting the full story, and then shifting focus to future strategies for addressing historical issues with remorse and reform.

‍

Evolving Frameworks and Top-Down Accountability

Integrity frameworks are not static documents meant to remain inactive. John stresses that they must evolve as companies grow, change roles, enter new markets, and adapt to shifting risk appetites. Regular review is crucial to prevent practices from becoming outdated, which he cautions is dangerously close to having no effective practice at all.

‍

Crucially, effective systems demand accountability from the top. John advocates that a key responsibility for a CEO or board director is to clearly communicate to the entire organization that no one is exempt from these standards, including senior leadership. Pathways, particularly through external services, must be designed for the possibility that a disclosure could pertain to senior leadership, such as a director, chair, or CEO. This top-down commitment reinforces that integrity is non-negotiable for everyone.

‍

The Ethical Ark: A Protector of Reputation

Ultimately, proactive whistleblowing systems serve as a critical reputation protector. When an organization faces a reputational siege during a public inquiry, it is often too late to wish for the whistleblower structures that should have been in place.

‍

The time to invest in these safeguards, and the culture that supports them, is long before the ethical tide turns into a flood. By building this "Ethical Ark," organizations cultivate resilience, foster trust, and ensure that truth, rather than being a threat, becomes their most powerful asset.

‍

Further Insights

For a deeper dive into the complex decisions and profound implications involved when individuals choose to expose wrongdoing, explore our on-demand webinar. It unpacks "The whistleblower's choice - Risk, responsibility, and doing the right thing," guiding listeners through the critical factors and moral imperatives that define the whistleblower's journey.