OIT - Protecting whistle-blowers in the public service - A global survey of whistle-blowing laws applicable to the public service sector

X Protecting whistle-blowers in the public service A global survey of whistle-blowing laws applicable to the public service sector Author / Maximilien Roche

February / 2025 ILO Working Paper 135Copyright © International Labour Organization 2025 This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Users can reuse, share, adapt and build upon the original work, as detailed in the License. The ILO must be clearly credited as the owner of the original work. The use of the emblem of the ILO is not permitted in connection with users’ work. Attribution – The work must be cited as follows: Roche, M. Protecting whistle-blowers in the public service: A global survey of whistle-blowing laws applicable to the public service sector. ILO Working Paper 135. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2025. Translations – In case of a translation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This translation was not created by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and should not be considered an official ILO translation. The ILO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. Adaptations – In case of an adaptation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the International Labour Organization (ILO). Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the ILO. This CC license does not apply to non-ILO copyright materials included in this publication. If the material is attributed to a third party, the user of such material is solely responsible for clearing the rights with the right holder. Any dispute arising under this license that cannot be settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award rendered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of such a dispute.

Any dispute arising under this license that cannot be settled amicably shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The parties shall be bound by any arbitration award rendered as a result of such arbitration as the final adjudication of such a dispute. All queries on rights and licensing should be addressed to the ILO Publishing Unit (Rights and Licensing), 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email to rights@ilo.org.

ISBN 9789220412916 (print), ISBN 9789220412923 (web PDF), ISBN 9789220412930 (epub), ISBN 9789220412954 (html). ISSN 2708-3438 (print), ISSN 2708-3446 (digital) https://doi.org/10.54394/XFJH2510

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the ILO concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the ILO of the opinions expressed in them.Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the ILO, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. Information on ILO publications and digital products can be found at: www.ilo.org/researchand-publications ILO Working Papers summarize the results of ILO research in progress, and seek to stimulate discussion of a range of issues related to the world of work. Comments on this ILO Working Paper

are welcome and can be sent to liang@ilo.org.

Authorization for publication: Frank Hagemann, Director, Sectoral Policies Department ILO Working Papers can be found at: www.ilo.org/global/publications/working-papers Suggested citation: Roche, M. 2025. Protecting whistle-blowers in the public service: A global survey of whistle-blowing laws applicable to the public service sector, ILO Working Paper 135 (Geneva, ILO). https://

doi.org/10.54394/XFJH251001 ILO Working Paper 135 Abstract This paper provides an analysis of national laws relevant to whistle-blowers in the public sector across 67 ILO Member States. It studies each national law through a selection of indicators derived from reference frameworks and guidance by inter-governmental organizations (e.g. UNODC, OECD) and global civil society organizations (e.g. Transparency International, the International Bar Association). It aims at drawing a picture of each studied member state’s approach to specific questions such as which public sector employees should benefit from a statutory whistle-blower protection, under which conditions and what such protection entails. The study concludes by observing that although enacting national laws protecting whistle-blowers is a relatively recent trend, such laws present a broad diversity of approaches which contrasts with the relative consistency of institutional recommendations. About the author Maximilien Roche is a teaching practitioner in the field of organizational integrity. He has been working for 20 years in the for profit and not for profit sectors as a financial auditor, forensic investigator, compliance and risk officer. He has extensive experience managing whistle-blower reports in an international context, from setting up compliant internal whistle-blowing frameworks to managing and investigating reports. Mr Roche teaches combatting white collar crime and corporate fraud at several academic institutions, including the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and the Institute of Economic Crime Investigation in Neuchatel, Switzerland.02 ILO Working Paper 135 Abstract 01 About the author 01 Acronyms 06 Executive Summary 07 X Introduction 09 Objectives 09

Economic Crime Investigation in Neuchatel, Switzerland.02 ILO Working Paper 135 Abstract 01 About the author 01 Acronyms 06 Executive Summary 07 X Introduction 09 Objectives 09 Methodology 09 Scope 09 Analysis 11 Limitations and disclaimer 12 X 1 Detailed results by indicator 14 Specific legislation for the protection of whistle-blowers 14 Coverage of organizations (within the public sector) 16 Definition of reportable irregularities 18 Definition of whistle-blowers 20 Protection threshold 23 Diversity of reporting channels 27 Provisions and protections for anonymous reports 30 Confidentiality of reports 33 Protection against retaliation 35 Remedies against retaliation 38 Sanctions against retaliators 41 Control authority 44 Transparent use of legislation 46 Right of information for whistle-blowers 48 X 2 Summary of findings 51

Appendix: List of laws included in the research, by country 54

References 60 Table of contents03 ILO Working Paper 135 List of Figures Figure 1. National laws reviewed by ILO region 10 Figure 2. Number of national laws reviewed by period of enactment 5104 ILO Working Paper 135 List of Tables Indicator No. 1 – Specific legislation for the protection of whistle-blowers 15 Indicator No. 2 – Coverage of organizations (within the public sector) 16 Indicator No. 3 - Definition of reportable irregularities 19 Indicator No. 4 – Definition of whistle-blowers 22 Indicator No. 5 – Protection threshold 25 Indicator No. 6 – Diversity of reporting channels 28 Indicator No. 7 – Provisions and protections for anonymous reports 32 Indicator No. 8 – Protection of confidentiality 34 Indicator No. 9 – Protection against retaliation 36 Indicator No. 10 – Remedies against retaliation 40 Indicator No. 11 - Sanctions against retaliators 42 Indicator No. 12 – Control authority 45

Indicator No. 8 – Protection of confidentiality 34 Indicator No. 9 – Protection against retaliation 36 Indicator No. 10 – Remedies against retaliation 40 Indicator No. 11 - Sanctions against retaliators 42 Indicator No. 12 – Control authority 45 Indicator No. 13 – Transparent use of legislation 47 Indicator No. 14 – Right of information for whistle-blowers 4905 ILO Working Paper 135

List of Boxes Romania: Law on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public interest 17

Belgium: Law relating to reporting channels and the protection of those reporting breaches of integrity in federal public sector bodies and within the integrated police 19

Spain: Law regulating the protection of persons who report regulatory violations and the fight against corruption 22

Brazil: Law No. 13,608, of January 10, 2018, providing for a telephone hotline to receive complaints and for rewarding information that assists in police investigations 25

Law On Whistle-blower Protection in The Institutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina 29

Australia: Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 32

Singapore: Prevention of Corruption Act 34

Barbados: Whistleblower Protection Act, 2021 37

Saudi Arabia: Law for the Protection of Whistleblowers, Witnesses, Experts and Victims, 2024 40

Bolivia: Law on the Protection of Whistle-blowers and Witnesses, 2013 43

Côte d’Ivoire: Law 2018-570 - protection of witnesses and whistle-blowers 43

Jordan: Law No. 13 of 2016 on Integrity and Anti-Corruption 45

United States of America: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 48

Malta: Protection of the Whistleblower Act, 2013 4906 ILO Working Paper 135

Acronyms ILO International Labour Organization OAS Organization of American States OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime07 ILO Working Paper 135 Executive Summary

Acronyms ILO International Labour Organization OAS Organization of American States OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime07 ILO Working Paper 135 Executive Summary This paper provides a mapping of national laws relevant to whistle-blowers in the public sector across 67 ILO Member States. It studies the provisions of national laws in light of international reference frameworks and guidance by relevant inter-governmental organizations and civil society organizations. The analysis compares the comprehensiveness of national laws across a selection of 14 key indicators derived from publications by Transparency International, the International Bar Association, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Council of Europe and the Organization for American States. Results of the analysis reveal a broad diversity of approaches across the following dimensions: ● Scope of protection: the diversity of approaches is exemplified by the focus of national laws, with a majority of them specifically designed at protecting whistle-blowers, while a significant number of such laws still address such protection only as part of a broader framework and purpose (Indicator No.1). All national laws studied cover a comprehensive scope of public sector organizations (Indicator No.2). However, some of them do not extensively protect all public sector workers (Indicator No. 4). Even more diversity is observed on the type of reportable irregularities allowing for statutory protection. In many countries, whistle-blowing remains a tool allowing for the reporting of corruption or for the cooperation with witnesses of serious crimes (Indicator No. 3). The scope of the protection also differs based on each individual national law’s approach to the legitimate interests pursued by whistle-blowers by referring to and/or defining “good faith” as key requirement to be recognized as a protected whistle-blower (Indicator No. 5). ● Reporting channels: a majority of national laws studied still require whistle-blowers to report through an official institutional channel to be protected. Some national laws protect individuals reporting internally within their organization and some protect them if they report externally

whistle-blower (Indicator No. 5). ● Reporting channels: a majority of national laws studied still require whistle-blowers to report through an official institutional channel to be protected. Some national laws protect individuals reporting internally within their organization and some protect them if they report externally (i.e. to civil society, the public or the press). But only a quarter of the national laws studied protect whistle-blowers across all three channels: official, internal and external (Indicator No. 6). ● Confidentiality and anonymity: almost all national laws studied explicitly protect the identity of whistle-blowers as confidential information (Indicator No. 8). By contrast, provisions allowing for and protecting anonymous reports are much less common, with a large majority of national laws studied either ignoring or explicitly excluding anonymous whistle-blowers from their protection (Indictor No. 7). ● Anti-retaliation provisions: as a matter of principle, a very large proportion of national laws in the study explicitly protect whistle-blowers against retaliation (Indicator No. 9). However, approaches differ again when it comes to defining specific remedies against retaliation (Indicator No. 10) and enacting sanctions against retaliators (Indicator No. 11). ● Institutional set-up: similarly, a significant number of national laws studied designate agencies or jurisdiction to collect whistle-blowers’ claims and enforce their protection (Indicator No. 12), but much fewer include transparency and accountability in such agency or jurisdiction’s mandate (Indicator No. 13). Finally, only a minority of studied laws explicitly prescribe that the whistle-blower be kept informed of the report within a certain timeline (Indicator No. 14).08 ILO Working Paper 135 The study concludes that, while there has been progress in developing whistle-blower protection laws in recent years, as more than half of the national laws studied were enacted within the last decade, many countries still do not meet recognized international guidelines comprehensively. The observed diversity of approaches contrasts with the consistency of recommendations across sources and questions the need for additional guidance and coordination.09 ILO Working Paper 135 X Introduction Objectives

decade, many countries still do not meet recognized international guidelines comprehensively. The observed diversity of approaches contrasts with the consistency of recommendations across sources and questions the need for additional guidance and coordination.09 ILO Working Paper 135 X Introduction Objectives The ILO held a Technical meeting on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public service sector from 26 to 30 September 2022. In its conclusions, the meeting recommended that the Office should “conduct studies, gather statistics and research, including comparative analysis of national practices, collect data on trends, criteria, developments and case law, concerning the effective protection of whistle-blowers in the public service sector, with a view to offering guidance to ILO Members and informing decisions by the Governing Body of the ILO on the acknowledged need for future action and discussion, without excluding any action within the mandate of the ILO in furthering the protection of whistle-blowers.”1 This study presents an analysis of the laws applicable to whistle-blowers in the public sector, in 67 Member States across all ILO regions. It aims to build on the initial analysis presented in the ILO working paper on “Law and practice on protecting whistle-blowers in the public and financial sectors”2 and the report prepared by the International Labour Office as a basis for discussion at the above-mentioned technical meeting.3 The 347th Session of the ILO Governing Body requested the Director-General to bear in mind the technical meeting’s recommendations for future action by the ILO when drawing up proposals for future work. Methodology Scope The aim of this study is to review the relevant legal texts of a number of countries, bearing in mind balanced geographic coverage reflecting the full diversity of ILO Member States. To that end, it covers 15-18 countries from each of the four largest ILO regions (Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia) and four countries (out of 11 ILO Member States) from the Arab States Region. On that basis, the study covers only countries with existing legislation on whistle-blower protection applicable to the public sector.

Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia) and four countries (out of 11 ILO Member States) from the Arab States Region. On that basis, the study covers only countries with existing legislation on whistle-blower protection applicable to the public sector. Such legislation (here referred to as “national laws”) must have been enacted by the executive branch or the parliament prior to the start of this research. Bills or draft legislation are thus not included. The national laws reviewed for each country are presented in Appendix 1. The study draws on original legal texts only. To ensure that the analysis includes the most up-to-date, enforceable 1 ILO, Conclusions of the Technical meeting on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public service sector, 2022. 2 ILO, Law and practice on protecting whistle-blowers in the public and financial services sectors, 2019. 3 ILO, The protection of whistle-blowers in the public service sector. Report for the Technical meeting on the protection of whistle-blowers in the public service sector (Geneva, 26–30 September 2022).10 ILO Working Paper 135 version of each national law, only official/institutional sources are used, namely either national governments’ websites or trusted institutional legal databases such as the ILO’s NATLEX4 or the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)’s FAOLEX.5 To the extent possible, this study attempts a balanced representation of the countries in terms of their regions, subregions, languages, size and income groups. Based on the approach described above, the scope of this research may be defined as below: ILO Regions Countries in scope Countries ISO3 Codes Africa 15 AGO; BWA; CIV; DZA; ETH; GHA; MDG; MUS; NAM; SLE; TUN; TZA; UGA; ZAF; ZMB Americas 15 BOL; BRA; BRB; CAN; CHL; CRI; ECU; GTM; GUY; HND; JAM; MEX; PER;

SUR; USA

Arab States 4 JOR; KWT; LBN; SAU

ZAF; ZMB Americas 15 BOL; BRA; BRB; CAN; CHL; CRI; ECU; GTM; GUY; HND; JAM; MEX; PER;

SUR; USA Arab States 4 JOR; KWT; LBN; SAU Asia and the Pacific 15 AUS; BGD; IDN; IND; JPN; KHM; KOR; LKA; MYS; NPL; NZL; PAK; SGP; THA;

VNM

Europe and Central Asia 18 BEL; BIH; CHE; DEU; DNK; ESP; EST; FRA; GBR; GEO; ISR; KAZ; KGZ; MLT;

NOR; ROU; SRB; UKR

Grand Total 67

Note: countries are identified above and in the “Detailed results…” section by their ISO3 Code. The correspondence between ISO3 Codes and country names is shown in Appendix 1.

As shown in figure 1, most of the national laws reviewed in this study do not specifically cover public sector employees. X Figure 1. National laws reviewed by ILO region 4 https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/r/natlex/fe/home 5 https://www.fao.org/faolex/en11 ILO Working Paper 135 Analysis The analysis presented here aims to establish criteria for effective whistle-blower laws derived from recognized civil society and intergovernmental organizations. It expands the analyses presented in the two previous ILO studies published on this topic6, while building on the work of previous studies pursuing similar goals but differing in scope, such as David Banisar’s study entitled “Whistleblowing: International Standards and Developments”7, published in 2011, the report entitled “Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries, Priorities for Action”8 by Simon Wolfe et al., published in 2014, and the research article titled “Evaluating the effectiveness of whistleblower protection: A new index”, by Shpresa Kaçiku Baljija and Kyoungsun Min.9

Action”8 by Simon Wolfe et al., published in 2014, and the research article titled “Evaluating the effectiveness of whistleblower protection: A new index”, by Shpresa Kaçiku Baljija and Kyoungsun Min.9 The key study indicators identified in sections 1–14 below draw on the following guidance and recommendations issued by relevant organizations: ● The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Resource Guide on Good Practices in the Protection of Reporting Persons,10 containing guidance on how public officials and other employees who report wrongdoing can best be protected so as to improve the effectiveness of implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC); ● The Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2014)7 and Explanatory Memorandum11 on the Protection of Whistleblowers, which list and explain 29 Principles intended “to guide member States when reviewing their national laws [on whistle-blowing] or when introducing legislation and regulations or making amendments as may be necessary and appropriate in the context of their legal systems.” The scope of these principles covers both the public and private sectors; ● The Organization of American States (OAS) “Model Law to facilitate and encourage the reporting of acts of corruption and to protect whistle-blowers and witnesses”,12 presented as part of the “Mechanism for Follow-up on the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption”. This model law aims at protecting “public officials and any person who, in good faith reports or witnesses” acts of corruption; ● Transparency International’s International Principles for Whistleblower Legislation13 and its supplement entitled Best Practice Guide for Whistleblowing Legislation,14 presenting a set of 30 principles which “serve as guidance for formulating new and improving existing whistle-blower legislation”. This guidance covers both the public and private sectors;

6 Specifically, under “Table 4.1” of WP 328, ILO (2019) and under “Table 1” of TWBPS/2022, ILO (2022). 7 David Banisar, “Whistleblowing: International Standards and Developments “, in Corruption and Transparency: Debating the Frontiers between State, Market and Society, ed. I. Sandoval (World Bank Institute for Social Research, 2011). 8 Simon Wolfe, Mark Worth, Suelette Dreyfus, A J Brown, Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries, Priorities for Action, Transparency International Australia, 2014. 9 Shpresa Kaçiku Baljija and Kyoung-sun Min, “Evaluating the effectiveness of whistleblower protection: A new index” in Data & Policy (2023), 5: e28. doi:10.1017/dap.2023.20. 10 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), The United Nations Convention against Corruption: Resource Guide on Good Practices in the Protection of Reporting Persons (Vienna: UNODC, 2015); see also UNODC, Speak Up for Health: Guidelines to enable whistle-blower protection in the health-care sector (Vienna: UNODC, 2021). 11 Council of Europe, Protection of Whistleblowers: Recommendation CM/Rec (2014)7 and Explanatory Memorandum, 2014. 12 Organization of American States (OAS), Model Law to facilitate and encourage the reporting of acts of corruption and to protect whistleblowers and witnesses, 2013. 13 Transparency International, International Principles for Whistleblower Legislation, 2013. 14 Marie Terracol, A Best Practice Guide for Whistleblowing Legislation, Transparency International, 2018.12 ILO Working Paper 135 ● The International Bar Association and Government Accountability Project study entitled Are whistleblowing laws working? A global study of whistleblower protection litigation15, which presents a “checklist of 20 requirements for best practice whistle-blower laws”, also applicable across the public and private sectors; ● The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendation of the

whistleblowing laws working? A global study of whistleblower protection litigation15, which presents a “checklist of 20 requirements for best practice whistle-blower laws”, also applicable across the public and private sectors; ● The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity16 and Public Integrity Handbook17, both focusing on the public sector, as well as its report entitled Committing to Effective Whistleblower Protection18 containing several analyses focused on the public sector. Additionally, the OECD’s “Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions”19 contains provisions on whistle-blower legislation, applicable across public and private sectors. The above-listed organizations and publications all share the common goal of promoting features for making whistle-blowing protection legislation more effective. The “Detailed results …” section below focuses on 14 indicators selected to expand the content of the above-mentioned ILO 2019 and 2022 analyses.

For each selected indicator: – three levels of implementation: “Comprehensive”, “Partial” and “Absent or Limited” qualify the extent to which each national law embeds the guidance described above; – one of these three levels is allocated to each national law.

Limitations and disclaimer For each country, the study focuses on one law or regulation applicable to whistle-blowing in the public service sector (as presented in Appendix 1). In some instances, the study looks at one or two laws or regulations that complement the one on which it focuses, such as application decrees referring to the selected act or acts of parliament referred to by the selected decree. The study does not address each country’s entire legal framework applicable to whistle-blowing or to whistle-blower protection in the public sector, but provides an overview of each Member State’s approach to the protection of reporting persons, and how each State assesses its strategy for eliminating irregularities in public service management. For this reason, the specific case of employees at oversight bodies who have the duty to report irregularities as part of their duties and whose specific protections may be the subject of speapproach to the protection of reporting persons, and how each State assesses its strategy for eliminating irregularities in public service management. For this reason, the specific case of employees at oversight bodies who have the duty to report irregularities as part of their duties and whose specific protections may be the subject of special laws, is not covered. However, it is assumed that that they will also be protected by the laws studied here. Owing to the large quantity of information and the diversity of sources from which that is extracted in terms of format and language, this research draws partly on automated searches of key words, natural language-processing search and analysis tools (Large Language Model tools) and artificial intelligence-powered translations of original texts into English. 15 International Bar Association and Government Accountability Project, Are whistleblowing laws working? A global study of whistleblower protection litigation (London: IBA, 2021). 16 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, OECD/LEGAL/0435, 2017. 17 OECD, Public Integrity Handbook (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020). 18 OECD, Committing to Effective Whistleblower Protection (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2016). 19 OECD, Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, OECD/LEGAL/0378, adopted in 2009, amended in 2021.13 ILO Working Paper 135 This document is intended to contribute to the ILO’s knowledge base on the subject, and as a support for discussion among ILO Members, constituents and decision-making bodies. It should not be treated as legal advice.14 ILO Working Paper 135 X 1 Detailed results by indicator

Specific legislation for the protection of whistle-blowers The technical meeting found that “Although there is no uniform definition of whistle-blowing yet, there is nonetheless a growing understanding among ILO Members concerning the concept that constitutes whistle-blowing”, and that “… since reporting irregularities is a duty of public service sector workers and workers of oversight bodies, protecting whistle-blowers is a decent work concern, and is consistent with the mission of the ILO”.

there is nonetheless a growing understanding among ILO Members concerning the concept that constitutes whistle-blowing”, and that “… since reporting irregularities is a duty of public service sector workers and workers of oversight bodies, protecting whistle-blowers is a decent work concern, and is consistent with the mission of the ILO”. This study covers laws specifically dedicated to empowering and/or protecting whistle-blowers, and also national legislation that contains provisions on whistle-blower protection or creates protections that could apply to them. The focus of a national law, in itself, is not a guarantee that its content will provide optimal protection to whistle-blowers based on international standards. However, as stated in Transparency International’s Principle for Whistleblower Legislation No. 24: “Dedicated legislation – in order to ensure clarity and seamless application of the whistle-blower framework, stand-alone legislation is preferable to a piecemeal or a sectoral approach”.20 This principle is further explained in Transparency International’s 2018 publication, A Best Practice Guide for Whistleblowing Legislation.21 The OECD also emphasizes the value of dedicated whistle-blowing legislation in its 2016 document, “Committing to Effective Whistleblower Protection” (chapter 1), notably by stating that “dedicated law(s) […] often provide more clarity