Head of “Transparency International” in Lithuania: 170 persons have been granted speaker status

“I think that the fact that we have more than 170 persons who have been recognized as speakers in these four years is already quite a large number,” I. Kalinauskienė said to LRT radio.

However, responding to the results of the latest investigation, the head of the organization’s Lithuanian department emphasizes that legal regulation alone is not enough in order to properly ensure whistleblower protection.

“When we talk about laws such as the Whistleblower Protection Law, it is clear that the law or legal acts alone are not enough for the protection of the whistleblower to be properly implemented, it requires a cultural change,” said I. Kalinauskienė, noting that certain changes in society have already are noticeable.

The head of TILS emphasizes that it is also very important that the heads of institutions pay proper attention to the implementation of the whistleblower law.

“One of the areas that is very important is the proper attention of managers to the implementation of this law through the introduction of a culture of openness and feedback in their institution. We would like managers to understand that this law is primarily intended for them, so that they are the first to learn about possible ill health or violations in their workplace and take timely action to prevent it,” she said.

Institutions do not pay sufficient attention to ensuring the confidentiality of whistleblowers and protecting them from negative effects, it shows “Transparency InternationalResearch conducted by the Lithuanian branch (TILS).

Although Whistleblower Protection Act entered into force in 2019, and this status was granted to more than 170 persons, according to the research participants, the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity is often not ensured during internal investigations. This can be influenced by the small number of employees in the institutions, the lack of competencies of the employees who administer the internal channels of the institutions. According to those who participated in the study, specialists also lack the knowledge of how to properly respond to information received through the internal message channel.

“It is often quite easy to identify the reporting person due to department or function-specific information that is provided in people’s reports, as well as in low-staffed institutions and departments. The inclusion of additional specialists in the execution of the investigation becomes a circumstance that complicates the assurance of confidentiality,” the TILS research conclusions read.

“If confidentiality is not ensured, it becomes much more difficult to protect the person and from the negative impact, which is extremely difficult for the whistleblower to prove in court,” the publication states.

In addition, it is noticeable that the belief that those who report ill health in the organization are “complainants” is still prevalent. Such trends persist because, according to the study’s findings, there is a lack of leadership support and engagement in creating a feedback-friendly culture.

“In such situations, the potential role of managers is very important, since it is precisely their negative impact that is feared. Both the support and involvement of managers in implementing appropriate internal communication channels and procedures, as well as the introduction of such a culture to new and previously joined employees, is important. (…) Too little attention is paid to creating a safer environment that fosters trust, openly talking about emerging challenges even before a person decides to report,” TILS points out.

However, protecting whistleblowers from adverse effects is one of the biggest issues. In order to solve it, according to TILS, it is necessary to ensure regular dialogue between the institutions implementing the law, sharing of information and experience. It is also important that the institutions implementing the law have adequate human resources and sufficient funding.

“Much more active communication on these issues is expected from the representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office, as a competent institution,” the research concludes.

Finally, there is still no consensus on how to properly evaluate the success of the Whistleblower Protection Law implementation. Most of the time, as possible indicators of success, the research participants indicated the evaluation of the speakers’ experience, the share of reports received and realized, the amount of damage to the state that was clarified, and the amounts of rewards and compensations granted.

“Whistleblower protection is an integral part of the conversation about state resilience. Law and internal procedures alone are not enough – a cultural change is necessary. Therefore, it is especially important that the heads of institutions take more responsibility by encouraging employees to openly raise questions and report any observed ill-health. Also, I would very much like to see us agree on specific and measurable indicators to evaluate the success of the law in the near future”, said the interim head of TILS, evaluating the conducted research Ingrida Kalinauskiene.

The Whistleblower Protection Law entered into force in Lithuania in 2019. January 1, amendments to the law, taking into account the European Union directive on the protection of whistleblowers – from 2022 February 15