Blog

Whistleblower services have, over the years, gone from being a tool used by certain larger or particularly committed companies, to a legislatively mandated necessity. These channels are suddenly widespread in the business sector, among authorities and organizations. This has led to new patterns when it comes to problems and challenges. One theme that is periodically discussed is erroneous reporting and its potential effects. There is occasional concern about how the operations can be harmed by misdirected reports. For example reports that are either not formally considered whistleblower cases or reports made in bad faith, meaning intentionally incorrect reporting. The concern revolves around the risk that as a manager or employee, one might be hesitant to do their job or make decisions that could be perceived as tough. The fear is that as a manager, one might be defenseless against fabricated accusations. It is, of course, desirable that problems are primarily discussed openly. However, as long as there is a willingness or tendency to report anonymously, it must be assumed that such a reporting avenue is a supplementary option that holds some kind of value. It may be viewed as a problem that employees want to report anonymously. But the solution is rather a long-term trust-building process through serious handling of problems, not eliminating the option to report anonymously. The notion that a manager would be defenseless against baseless accusations presupposes a fundamentally unprofessional handling of whistleblower cases and a lack of professional staffing. Incorrect reports should, of course, be assessed on their merits. They should either be referred to the right department or dismissed in cases where the information is incomplete or the accusations cannot be substantiated. The assessment of whistleblower cases should always be carried out by a limited circle of professional individuals. These individuals should have good judgment and high trust among colleagues. Some criticize whistleblower channels for being just another tool for gossip and mudslinging, as discussed in an article in the magazine Chef recently. However, in an organization where discerning individuals evaluate cases based on their actual merits, the whistleblower channel will become quite unattractive for spreading baseless accusations and incorrect reporting. The problem is likely often the lack of professional staffing in whistleblower processes. In many of the smaller organizations that now must have whistleblower systems, relevant internal resources are lacking. New legal obligations are often regarded as something to be handled as quickly and easily as possible. This tends to result in the channel functioning less effectively than it could and perhaps even contributing to a poorer organizational culture rather than a better one. Often, much of the work can be handled internally even in small organizations. But there are good reasons to have support from someone with experience in assessing and handling cases, understanding legislation and practice, establishing procedures to guide misdirected cases correctly, or managing correspondence with and feedback to a whistleblower to build a strong organizational culture and establish long-term credibility in the whistleblower channel.

It is common for municipalities to receive requests for information about cases in the whistleblowing channel. Requests can come from journalists, citizens, or other parties who, for various reasons, are interested in what is reported in the municipality's whistleblowing system. Some publications have made it a practice to regularly request all information that has been submitted to the municipality's whistleblowing system. In Sweden, the principle of transparency is a fundamental idea. Therefore, the so-called Principle of Public Access is often referenced when information from whistleblowing systems is requested. For affected municipalities, two different principles are thus pitted against each other: the Principle of Public Access and the principle that advocates for extensive confidentiality protection for whistleblowers and individuals identified in whistleblowing cases, as specified in the whistleblowing law. The balance is struck in different ways in different municipalities, and there is sometimes a clear tendency to focus on the Principle of Public Access. A recent example is Hässleholm municipality, which appears to have opened up completely to the media and participated in an article with detailed explanations of what has been reported. It is not always clear-cut when you cross the line and disclose too much information. In some situations, adequate confidentiality protection can be achieved by masking cases, but if masking is done very selectively, there is always the risk that contextual information may still reveal the individuals involved. Lantero's starting point is that municipalities, regarding cases in the whistleblowing system, should generally focus on the importance of confidentiality protection. This assessment is based on several different aspects: * The whistleblowing law imposes specific requirements on the handling of information in whistleblowing systems, while the Principle of Public Access is a more loosely defined guideline. * The harm to the individual can be significant if municipalities neglect this obligation. Both a reporting individual (who risks social or monetary costs) and an identified person (who may be wrongly identified but still has a legitimate need for protection). * The long-term credibility of a whistleblowing system relies on respect for the individual in case handling. Protecting confidentiality is thus a prerequisite for employees and other affected parties to dare and want to report. * The role that the whistleblowing system has to play is about silently identifying and addressing problems. In that sense, it becomes a valuable complement to the generally held principle of transparency (Public Access). At the end of 2022, there was also a decisive ruling in the Swedish Administrative Court. An authority was questioned for being too extensive in its masking of cases that had been requested by the media. The Administrative Court clearly sided with the authority and supported very extensive masking, emphasizing the importance of the confidentiality responsibility implied by the law.

The new requirements for whistleblower systems for all companies with at least 50 employees have been introduced in Sweden and several other countries. Lantero has been working with whistleblower solutions since 2014 and has different packages for various types of organizations to meet different priorities regarding cost, support, and functionality. During the fall, there has been intense work to assist new customers, but the picture is that many still haven't implemented a solution. Many questions still arise about the new rules and how to approach them as a slightly smaller employer. A common question for companies with around 50 employees is how to manage independence in case handling. It's more likely that conflicts of interest arise in a smaller organization, yet the number of reported cases is often low, and there is often greater sensitivity to costs. A whistleblower solution doesn't have to be expensive. At the same time, it may be unwise to choose a low-cost solution, as it may mean a lack of support from an experienced provider or that the provider's business model is structured in a way that potential follow-up dialogues risk being overpriced. We at Lantero are happy to engage in discussions if there are questions. We appreciate the dialogue and are eager to continuously gain a better understanding of the problems and concerns of existing and potential customers. New rules also mean that it may take time to establish a practice in the field. The organization setting up a whistleblower solution for the first time should ideally seek support from an established player to get a long-term functioning solution in place to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, it is not difficult to add features or change the whistleblower process if needs, preferences, or understanding of the issue change later on. It's also worth considering that it's not just the independence issue that is interesting when it comes to the support of external handlers. It can also be a question of competence, availability, or the need for internal political support from an external assessment. Get in touch, and we'll tell you more!

Lantero participated in an anti-corruption seminar on December 11th in Stockholm. The participants were mainly representatives from procurement and compliance in government agencies and larger organizations. The overall discussion focused on the development of corruption in Sweden. The discussion covered its connection to public legal awareness and self-perception, trends, and concrete work in the field, including processes based on the new legislation. Perspectives were shared by the police, academia, the Swedish Competition Authority, the National Anti-Corruption Unit, Business Owners, and Transparency International Sweden. Petter Tiger from Lantero contributed perspectives on the whistleblower issue, addressing how to establish and effectively work with whistleblower channels. The discussion actively involved examples of specific challenges and problems that may arise if an organization has insufficiently prepared in terms of processes, principles, or staffing. The whistleblower issue is evidently a current topic that has gained traction in many larger organizations. This is especially true for the public sector, resulting in a more systematic approach with well-thought-out processes. The fight against corruption is well-reflected in how an organization handles the whistleblower issue and structures work processes to support it. By adopting a serious approach in staffing, conditions for the favorable development of organizational cultures are also created. This requires, among other things independence in investigations and clear mandates in processes. In Lantero's presentation, the importance of organizational culture was emphasized as the focal point in whistleblower work. By focusing on values, clear principles, what the organization stands for, and wants to be, one can achieve benefits that essentially overshadow the utility of the whistleblower channel itself. Organizational culture determines not only whether to report an issue, but also whether miscunduct is committed in the first place. During the Q&A session after the seminar, topics included the international standard on whistleblowing, where Lantero has been involved in representing the industry in the development of the standard. A clear benefit of the standard was described as the international coordination resulting from a coordinated process. For example clarifying the understanding of what constitutes a whistleblower function and how to appropriately manage risks when developing relevant tools and processes.

The team at Lantero is working continuously on offering our customers a tool that is as good and easy to use as possible, and in this blog post we would like to tell you about some of the functionality that we have updated or added the past months. We have users who are not Swedish citizens and can’t use BankID for two factor authentication. For those customers and users, we offer two factor authentication using one-time codes sent out using e-mail and SMS. For the customer who have many cases to handle, there are new functionality as well. You can define a name for each case, making it easier to find the correct case in the case overview. In addition to that, we can also configure your user settings so that you can receive a daily digest for your notifications, instead of receiving individual notifications when a case progresses through the system. It is also possible to switch off notifications completely for a particular user. We have created a handling log, where you can document any actions that are performed outside of the whistleblower system for a given case. This function is particularly well suited if you have multiple case handlers collaborating on cases. Apart from that, we have added support for more languages and the possibility to get notifications and reminders by SMS as a complement to e-mail. We are constanlty looking to improve, so any feedback is welcome!

In December 11-12, InsightEvents is organizing an anti-corruption conference in Stockholm. Lantero is participating with a session on whistleblowing and how to set up effective reporting channels and processes. The conference takes a practical perspective on how organizations should think and act. Speakers from academia, government, and the private sector will discuss various aspects of corruption. This includes general legal awareness, contexts where risks arise, whistleblowing, current societal issues, experiences with regulation, new considerations related to AI, and international perspectives on the matter. The conference will be moderated by the well-known anti-corruption figure Louise Brown, and among the speakers is Ulrik Åshuvud from Transparency International Sweden. Insight Events describes the event as follows: "What are bribes and corruption according to the Swedish people, and where is the gray area between what is criminal and just friendly assistance? Bribes and corruption are costly – both in terms of financial damage and damage to trust. It reduces the organization's efficiency, and proactive efforts to detect and identify risk areas are crucial. Fundamental to all organizations is a sound business ethics and morality. It must then be translated into guidelines and procedures to act in a timely and appropriate manner if the worst happens. It is, of course, better to have procedures and create conditions to prevent scandals. However, this is an ongoing effort that must always be on the agenda. Over the two days, companies and organizations, as well as researchers and experts, will share their work and knowledge on anti-corruption."

In anticipation of the whistleblower law requirements for whistleblower systems to apply to all companies with at least 50 employees, Lantero is running a campaign with a unique Black Week offer. "The offer is not only a way to test the effectiveness of individual channels where we run marketing campaigns but also a push to expedite orders from some of the many companies that are last-minute in their approach," says Joakim Wirén, Digital Manager at Lantero. The offer is valid throughout the week, as long as the order is placed in time via the online order form. "Running a campaign during Black Week may seem a bit unusual for a service targeting the corporate sector rather than consumers," Joakim Wirén continues. "But even though anonymity is a core value for us, we have an open approach to working methods and are willing to try new ways of working, including in marketing." The average discount during Black Week is around 20 percent, but Lantero chooses to go further and discount the first-year subscription for a whistleblower system by 50 percent. This is partly because the new rules will soon come into effect, making it a strong call-to-action. It is also because, based on experience, they know that their customers tend to be satisfied and are likely to stay once they have started working with them.

The Lantero system supports multiple login methods, including username and password, BankID, SSO (Single Sign-On), and two-step authentication. In this post, we want to emphasize two-step authentication or BankID, which we encourage users, particularly handlers, to use. With two-step authentication, users first enter their username and password. Lantero then sends a one-time code to the user's email, and the user enters this code to complete the login. If email is not available at the time of login, a one-time code can be requested via SMS. The main advantage of using this form of login is that it provides much better security than logging in with just a username and password. If you, as a Lantero customer, want to change the login method, please contact us at Lantero, and we will assist you! Lantero's approach is to constantly meet the security needs of our customers, where login is a crucial part. This means that methods and their implementations are continuously evolving. In addition to the existing options, we are open to dialogue with our customers, leading to new possibilities and adjustments—either for the solution as a whole or for individual customers' implementations. In the near future, the BankID implementation will be upgraded and modernized, and we will provide more details in a later blog post.

The Örebro District Court has convicted a technician involved in vehicle inspections for bribery. (Länk) The man is said to have accepted bribes to approve cars. The case follows a pattern where bribes often occur at the intersection of the private and public sectors. Vehicle inspections can be considered a delegated exercise of authority since it is an activity sanctioned by the public and funded with public resources. The problem is often linked to sparsely compensated officials representing significant values in their duties and, therefore, having incentives to capitalize on these values. It is somewhat less clear whether the official's compensation level has any substantial statistical significance when it comes to bribes. It is conceivable that control over values in the form of permits, licenses, or the like, exerts sufficient allure regardless of the official's current income level. Lantero frequently receives questions about what falls within the scope of whistleblower laws (The Whistleblower Act), and in such a case, it is certainly possible to interpret it as a whistleblowing case. Publicly sanctioned activities that control or regulate traffic safety are considered a matter of public interest, and bribery that risks undermining traffic safety or the legitimacy of regulatory authorities (and operations with delegated exercise of authority) must be regarded as serious. In the current case, however, it is unclear whether it has been brought to light through whistleblowing reporting and has bearing upon the Whistleblower Act.

The EU has observed increasing activity of malicious influence from foreign interests. A report has now been adopted to counter influences that threaten the integrity of European institutions. This will protect the Union's openness and other fundamental values. The initiative seeks to deal with problems around conflicts of interest and the influence of the democratic processes. It also aims to create better follow-up and accountability regarding violations. The pattern is recognized that corruption occurs where financial resources and power are managed or controlled by politically appointed individuals. The risks are naturally present in all types of organizations, but follow-up and control often seem to be lacking in public operations. Furthermore, a recurring pattern is that measures tend to be about follow-up and control rather than taking the more laborious route of removing the incentive structures that invite the problems. More about the initiative can be read here.