Copy of Protocol for handling suspected Integrity Violations explained

Fair investigation

Fair Investigation

Each (alleged) violation must be investigated fairly.

• Irrespective of the person concerned or the position they occupy, always neutral and objective.
• Thorough, paying attention to detail and with appropriate documentation.
• Within the bounds of existing laws and guidelines.
• With the backing of management.

Employee Responsibility

Every employee is responsible for knowing and observing the rules. The Integrity Officer can support staff wherever possible, for example through guidance, training or monitoring of tasks.

Employee Responsibility

Only one process

Only One Process

There is only one process for reporting any and all (alleged) violations – no exceptions for individual policies.

Confidentiality and Privacy

Confidentiality and privacy of the concerned parties will be protected as far as is possible/unless prohibited by law. The full scope of the case must be clarified (not just parts).

Violation must be rectified

The violation must be rectified and measures taken to prevent it happening again.

Violation must have consequences

The violation must have consequences that are proportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

We handle other cultures with respect

Cultural sensitivity

We handle other cultures with respect, and take into consideration that other cultures may observe different laws and guidelines, whilst still maintaining Greenpeace’s own standards.

What integrity violations may occur?

The violations under discussion here are not minor misunderstanding, but rather behaviours or events that require a closer look – what does this mean for us as an organisation? Is this a risk? Will this incur a cost?

The following documents provide guidance about what constitutes an integrity violation:

• Code of Conduct

• Set of policies on integrity violations

o Preventing the misuse of power

o Preventing the misuse of organisational resources

o Information and Confidentiality

o Working together

o Environmental responsibility

• Local laws and regulations incl. financial regulations

• Other GPNZ specific regulations and procedures

Talk to Person Directly

Talk to person directly

In all cases, you should first consider if it is possible to simply talk to the person of concern directly. Most of the time, there is a good and reasonable reason for the behaviour. In many cases, it may be a simple misunderstanding, or a mistake, or the reasons for a particular decision have not been properly understood, for example.

If that is the case, the person concerned has the opportunity to correct the mistake, or to report the issue to their manager themselves. If it is still unclear afterward, or the problem persists, it is of course possible to still report the situation afterward.

A staff member is not obliged to talk directly to the person of concern if they can reasonably assume that doing so would harm their own interests, or if they feel afraid of negative consequences.

People of Trust

For each integrity violation, the reporter and person of concern may choose to talk with a designated person of trust at any stage in the process, even before deciding whether or not to make a report.

The person of trust will attend to and support the person throughout the entire analysis and decision-making process. Their role is not to advise on a course of action, but to provide information about the options available and what is to be expected during the process.

Further information about the role of the person of trust can be found in the person of trust function description on Greennet. Our people of trust are Freya and Andrew.

Integrity Officer

All staff members can talk to the Integrity Officer directly in the case of (alleged) violation. This is a step that makes it possible to independently investigate accusations.

Only the ED and Org Director (in cases of HR issues) are informed about the situation and the name of the source. The source can only be named if permission is expressly given. For more details about the role and position of the Integrity Officer, please see the Integrity Officer function description (available on Greennet).

Managers

Any staff member can contact their manager in the case of a (alleged) violation, or if you feel that you may have committed a violation yourself. The manager MUST report a (alleged) violation to the Integrity Officer. If you have reported a suspicion of a violation to your manager, and no action has been taken, or if the suspicion is about your manager, you may go to the Integrity Officer, or go up the chain of command to the next level of management.

Org Director and P&C

Staff members can also talk to the Org Director or any member of the P&C team in the case of a (alleged) violation. In most cases, the Integrity Officer will inform the Org Director (as Head of People & Culture), as well as the Executive Director, if a suspected violation of this nature occurs.

Whistleblower

The Whistleblower procedure is a last resort. There are three reasons for this to be used:

1. Only if you have made a report, and followed all of the previous stages, including moving up the chain of command, yet no action has been taken, you may go directly to the board.

2. If you have good reason not to trust the existing channels of reporting, (for instance based on past experiences), you may go to the board (in this instance, it is possible that the board refers you to the Integrity Officer if they decide that it is possible to trust this position)

3. If the (suspected) violation is so severe, and involves the actions and/or complicity of the Executive Director and/or Senior management you may go directly to the board.

Please refer to the GPNZ Whistleblower policy for more information.

Reporting Rights & Obligations

Reporting Rights and Obligations

Every staff member or representative has the right to report a violation.

In contrast, only the following employees are obliged to report:

• Those with a management role.

• Those with a specific function within the integrity system, including auditors (with the exception of persons of trust).

• Those who know that there is a risk of repetition or a risk to the personal safety of another individual.

Every person making a report (the reporter) has the option to receive support and guidance from a person of trust.

Immediate Actions

The following measures may be considered:

Internal communication

External communication (involving external parties (specialist lawyer; tax advisor, insurer, etc.), if necessary also contact with the press/press release or ad-hoc communication). 

Withdrawal of authorisation (access authorisation, IT access, power of disposition such as a power of attorney for banking matters or signature authority)

Withdrawal of objects (cellphone, laptop, vehicle)

Immediate Actions

Disciplinary Action

When determining such actions, the ED (based on the advice of the Integrity Officer and Org Director) must consider various factors including:

• The motivation (why did the person(s) act in this way?)
• The extent of consequences for the organisation
• Whether the person acknowledges wrongdoing
• Attempts to make amends or remains in disagreement

Disciplinary action

Disciplinary action includes measures such as:

• Verbal warning
• Written warning
• Termination with or without notice.

The key principle is that disciplinary action must be proportionate to the violation that has taken place.

General Measures

General measures are based on an analysis of how violations can be prevented from the outset, or become apparent when an attempt is made.

This means looking at the processes and procedures in place in the organisation, and identifying where they can be improved/changed/redesigned in order to prevent this violation from taking place in the future.

The measures must ultimately guarantee the following:

• Has the identified violation been stopped, and if not, what measures must be taken?
• Is there a risk of repetition?
• Are there comparable violations at other points in the organisation or in its daily business?

Who decides?

Who Decides?

• The final decision is made by the ED, based on the advice provided.

• The Integrity Officer and the Org Director shall develop suggested disciplinary action in accordance with employment law (if necessary), ideally together with a lawyer or employment law expert.

• Both the Integrity Officer and Org Director work closely together during this process.

• The ED can also solicit and collect guidance from other persons in order to lead an objective discussion on the suggestions.

Executive Director

• Informed of every violation.
• Reaches decisions on whether to initiate an investigation based on recommendations made by the Integrity Officer.
• Takes decisions on detailed analyses based on the interim report.
• Establishes a critical incident response team when necessary.
• Enacts measures and sanctions on the basis of the final report in consultation with the relevant staff.
• Is the last point in the chain of command for the escalation of a report, when all previous escalation steps taken over the course of the process have not brought about progress.

Integrity Officer

• Central point for integrity issues and violations
• The Integrity Officer is informed of every violation.
• The Integrity Officer is the central coordinator to drive checking processes and reporting to the ED. Only the ED can request exceptions.
• All essential activities (contact with the person concerned, lawyers, investigation strategy and significant investigation steps, involvement of other departments, GPI or external parties/lawyers, etc.) shall be coordinated with the ED.

Other Department Heads

• Managers are included if staff from their team or department are affected, from bottom to top, unless the situation requires otherwise.
• However, managers are only included once this has been discussed with the person concerned, unless the situation requires otherwise.
• The Org Director shall be included, with regard to all questions relating to employment law and cases of harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination, and when it comes to determining appropriate disciplinary action.

Board and Senior Management

Board and Senior Management

• These bodies are usually only informed through the summarised and anonymised annual compliance report, and hold no authority to make decisions.
• The sole exception is if the ED is concerned, in which case the Board has authority to decide.

People of Trust

People of Trust

People of trust have an important function to fulfill by supporting the reporting or concerned parties with help and advice throughout the entire process.

People of trust play a very significant role in the integrity system.

A description for this function can be found on Greennet.