SPO WHISTLE- BLOWING POLICY Initial Approval: July 1, 2010 Revisions/Amendments Dates: First/Final: July 1, 2014
This policy incorporates changes endorsed by the SPO Management Committee Approved By Naseer Memon, Chief Executive
INTRODUCTION Any staff member has the right and duty to raise matter(s) of concern i.e. any serious malpractice(s) which s/he has witnessed. This policy has been devised to ensure that mechanisms exist whereby such matters raised by staff may be addressed swiftly and effectively. This policy also sets out the recommended course of action that staff should take on if a matter is not addressed or if they feel that raising this internally could result in evidence of malpractice being concealed. What is whistle-blowing? To blow the whistle on someone is to alert a third party that person has done, or is doing, something wrong. So, literally, whistle-blowing means that one brings any misconduct to the relevant/concerned authorities. By blowing the whistle on misconduct, one alerts the organization to the fact that its stakeholders are being wrongfully harmed, or that they are at risk of harm. In its simplest form, whistle-blowing involves the act of reporting wrongdoing within an organization to internal or external parties. Internal whistle-blowing entails reporting the information to a source within the organization. External whistle-blowing occurs when the whistleblower takes the information outside the organization, such as to the media or regulators. With its whistle-blowing policy, SPO call upon others to assist it with its responsibility of being custodian of funds designated for worthy recipients and deserving beneficiaries. SPO believes that its duties as custodian of funds clearly outweigh possible personal, cultural, or historical objections to a practice of whistle-blowing. Reportable conduct falls into the following categories: 1. Illegal or un-lawful conduct Conduct may be illegal or unlawful in terms of the laws of countries and international law. We all have legal responsibilities, obligations or duties. Criminal offences - such as theft, fraud, corruption (for example, bribery), or money laundering - are in breach of legal duties and therefore constitute reportable misconduct. 2. Un-procedural conduct Conduct may be un-procedural since it violates clearly communicated procedures (in the form of policies, regulations, or rules) governing the operations of SPO. Specific SPO rules and processes, together with other best-practices/procedures, guide accounting practices and controls, financial reporting, auditing matters, the transfer of funds to recipients, approved recipient accounts, and the like.
Such procedures are important for good governance, and breaching them may expose the application of funds to risk of loss or real loss. 3. Un-ethical conduct Conduct may be unethical since it undermines universal, core ethical values, such as integrity, respect, honesty, responsibility, accountability, fairness and the like even though there may not (yet) be any laws or procedures governing such unethical conduct. For example, one could exert undue pressure on a person in position of power in order to gain an advantage. That would be unfair to others, and as such unethical, although neither unlawful nor un-procedural. But not all unethical conduct is reportable. For example, some kinds of conduct may be disrespectful, and therefore undesirable, without harming any serious interests other than personal feelings. This would not be reportable misconduct. 4. Wasteful conduct Conduct constituting a gross waste of resources is a reportable category in its own right since responsible stewardship of resources is so crucial to the success of SPO. All individuals in the service of SPO have an obligation to ensure that funds received by SPO are used prudently and efficiently. If resources are spent in a wasteful manner, and in breach of the commitments under which they are provided to SPO, this would be reportable under the whistle-blowing mechanism. Blowing the Whistle on Malpractice/Misconduct Conduct becomes reportable when it happens or when it is reasonably likely to occur. Harm to S P O may occur when any of this conduct is unchecked or unaddressed. Importantly, in determining whether to report conduct, harm is not only measured in terms of funds lost, or damage to a particular programme or initiative, but harm may also be done to the integrity and reputation of SPO itself, on which a programme depends for its support and survival. As Malpractice/Misconduct is not easily defined, the following list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. Malpractice/Misconduct covers a wide range of concerns. The types of activity that should be disclosed include but are not limited to the following: The use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal financial advantage, either for SPO or for a personal gain Intentional misrepresentations directly or indirectly affecting financial statements Fraud or corruption Financial maladministration Unauthorised use of funds
The physical, emotional or sexual abuse Failure to comply with legal obligations Endangering an individual s health and safety Damage to the work environment A criminal offence Failure to follow financial and contract procedure rules Showing undue favour to a vendor or a job applicant Miscarriages of justice Deliberate concealment of information relating to any of the above Deliberate violations of SPO Governance Rules, Policies and procedures Who should blow the whistle? Any individual who has observed reportable misconduct/ m alpract i c has an obligation to report that conduct, and may do so as described. These individuals may include but not limited to staff, partners, beneficiaries, external auditors, consultants and members of SPO governing body. Assurances of confidentiality and anonymity SPO assures the safety of whistle-blowing, and therefore undertakes to treat all whistle-blowing reports as either confidential or anonymous. The choice between confidential or anonymous whistle-blowing is that of the whistle- blower alone. What is confidential whistle-blowing? A whistle-blower may choose to reveal his or her identity when a report or disclosure is made. Should this be the case, SPO will respect and protect the confidentiality of the whistle-blower, and gives the assurance that it will not reveal the identity of the whistle-blower to any third party. The only exception to this assurance relates to an overriding legal obligation to breach confidentiality. Thus, SPO is obligated to reveal confidential information relating to a whistle-blowing report if ordered to do so by a court of law. An advantage for the report (as opposed to anonymous) is that it is better placed to investigate the report. Importantly, the SPO s assurance of confidentiality can only be completely effective if the whistle-blower likewise maintains confidentiality. What is anonymous whistle-blowing? Alternative to confidential reporting, a whistle-blower may choose not to reveal his/her identity. With the reporter s anonymity thus assured, the identity of the reporter cannot be ascertained by anyone. This advantage to the reporter is counterbalanced by a disadvantage to SPO, namely, that it compromises further investigation of the facts. The anonymous whistle-blower should be careful not to reveal his/her identity to a third party.
By setting up the necessary systems safeguarding confidentiality and offering anonymity, the interests of the whistle-blower are protected from possible harm through retribution by those who stand to benefit from the reported misconduct. Whistle-blower protection Both confidential and anonymous whistle-blowing options are aimed at safe reporting. Safety is a concern because those who benefit from misconduct may attempt to retaliate against or victimize a whistle-blower for loss, or potential loss, of that illgotten benefit. Such adverse consequences can only materialize if the identity of the whistleblower is known through a breach of confidentiality. An anonymous whistle-blower cannot be victimized, provided that the whistleblower also protects the anonymity of his or her identity. Where an individual makes a report under this policy in good faith, reasonably believed to be true, there will be no retaliation against the reporter should the disclosure turn out to be misguided or false. Retaliation means any direct or indirect detrimental action recommended, threatened or taken because an individual reports conduct described above. When established, retaliation is by itself misconduct which may be pursued under the appropriate mechanisms - for example, through disciplinary action initiated through established mechanisms of SPO. Reporting under this policy, however, in no way immunizes or shields a whistleblower against action following from his/her intentional misconduct, which includes willfully making allegations through the whistle-blowing mechanism that the individual knows to be false or makes with an intent to misinform. In short, blowing the whistle is no escape hatch for complicity in misconduct.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE POLICY PURPOSE SPO is committed to achieving workforce diversity and expects high standards from its employees. In order to maintain a culture of openness, accountability is vitally important. The aims of this policy are threefold: to encourage to raise concerns about malpractice within the organization without fear of reprisal; to reassure that concerns will be taken seriously and will be protected from reprisals or victimization for whistle-blowing in good faith; to provide information about how to raise concerns and explain how the concerns will be responded. SCOPE The policy applies to all employees (including full-time, short-term staff, consultants & others working under obligations of SPO). POLICY a. SPO recognizes the importance of encouraging a climate of openness in which staff can freely express their concerns without any fear of reprisal. This can contribute constructively to the development and continuous improvement of SPO systems of internal control. As a result if a member of staff raises such a concern the matter will be dealt with positively, quickly and reasonably. Anonymous complaints will not be considered, but every effort will be made to keep a staff member s identity confidential if they desire so. b. All staff has a duty of confidentiality. If a member of staff is considering making a disclosure of confidential information they are advised to seek advice from the Manager Human Resource. c. This policy applies to all staff (refer Scope above) and is intended to cover concerns that fall outside the scope of existing SPO policies and procedures. These procedures should be followed where appropriate. d. There will be no adverse consequences for a member of staff who raises a concern in accordance with this policy unless the concern was raised with malicious intent. e. If it becomes clear that the procedure set out below has not been invoked in good faith, for example, for malicious reasons or to pursue a personal grudge against another individual, this will constitute misconduct and will be dealt in accordance with SPO policies and procedures. f. It is recognized that there may be matters that cannot be dealt with internally and external authorities will need to become involved. Where this is necessary SPO reserves the right to make this referral without the individual s consent. 5
g. Any whistle-blowing employee is protected against adverse employment actions (discharge, demotion, suspension, harassment, or other forms of discrimination) for raising allegations of misconduct. h. An employee is protected even if the allegations prove to be incorrect or unsubstantiated. i. Employees who participate or assist in an investigation will also be protected. j. Every effort will be made to protect the anonymity of the whistleblower; however, there may be situations where it cannot be guaranteed. Blowing the Whistle Outside SPO In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to raise concerns outside SPO to the appropriate prescribed regulator. This should only be done where you are raising a genuine concern in good faith and where you believe the information is true, i.e. more than just suspicion. You are advised to discuss your concerns with a legal advisor, before reporting them outside SPO. Examples of prescribed regulators are set out below: Audit Committee of SPO BOD Head of Human Resources Head of Corporate Affairs/Company Secretary Internal Auditor The Chief of Programmes The Chief Executive The Chairperson As a last resort s/he may chose to raise the concern outside SPO to someone other than a prescribed regulator, for example to the Police, law enforcement agencies, district administration etc. You should only do this if, in addition to the conditions above, they meet one of preconditions. Provided the disclosure is reasonable in all the circumstances and is not made for personal gain, the preconditions are, that you: reasonably believed that you would be victimized if you raise the matter internally within SPO; or reasonably believed that the matter would be covered up and there is no prescribed regulator; or have already raised the matter internally or with a prescribed regulator.
PROCEDURES REPORTING 1. An employee who reasonably believes that inappropriate conduct is occurring should raise the issue with his/her Supervisor/Manager/Regional Manager/Regional Head or Head of HR at NC and as the case may be. If the employee is not comfortable in reporting to his/her Supervisor/Manager/Regional Manager/Regional Head or the Head of HR, the conduct or activity should be reported to the Chief Executive. To preserve anonymity the whistleblower is not restricted to reporting the issue to his/her Supervisor/Manager/ Regional Manager/Regional Head or the Head of HR. It will be the responsibility of the Chief Executive who receives the allegation to initiate the enquiry. 2. If the Whistleblower would be uncomfortable or otherwise reluctant to report to his/her supervisor, then the Whistle-blower could report the event to the next highest or another level of management, including to an appropriate Board committee or Member. 3. Staff must raise the matter when it is just a concern, rather than wait for proof or investigate the matters themselves. 4. If an individual believes that the procedure set out above is not suited to their particular circumstances, they should contact the Head of HR. Individuals should also contact their Head of Human Resources for advice when it is difficult to raise concerns which fall within the scope of this procedure with their line supervisor. 5. In circumstances where an individual still considers that the normal procedure cannot be used, they should report their concern to a named staff of the SPO, preferably, SMC member. 6. Staff will be entitled to be accompanied by a work colleague of his/her choice at any meeting to discuss their concerns. 7. The staff must put their concerns in writing and should make every effort to ensure the details are accurate, factual, substantiated and relevant. 8. All incidences of whistle-blowing to be reported to the Head of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary, at NC, Islamabad. 9. The time limits shall be so ensured that the matters are resolved as quickly as possible. Preferably, these shall be expressed in working days, being Monday to Friday but excluding statutory and public Holidays.
10. SPO or whistle-blower, if mutually agreed may request the services of external body to conduct the investigation. The staff should do this only if they remain dissatisfied after the above procedures have been exhausted. INVESTIGATION 1. Once the claim of malpractice or misconduct is made, the Company Secretary SPO will respond to the whistleblower within 10 working days setting out the intended investigation plan. 2. The investigation plan will be jointly developed by the Chief Executive and the Company Secretary and responsibilities will be assigned to the relevant person/committee. 3. An investigation may include internal reviews, reviews by the designated staff or Lawyers or some other external body, as the case may be. 4. Once the investigation is complete, the Company Secretary SPO will inform the whistleblower of the results of the investigation as well as any corrective steps that are being taken. 5. Employees who believe they are being penalized in any way for whistle-blowing or who believe that there has been cover up of the action disclosed or who do not consider that they have had a satisfactory response to their disclosure should write to the Chairperson of the Audit Committee with the facts. Safeguards 1. If requested by the whistleblower all reasonable steps will be taken to protect the anonymity of the whistleblower. However, under certain circumstances to assist with the investigation the individual s identity may become known or needs to be revealed. Disciplinary Action 1. If the claim of malpractice or misconduct is substantiated, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against the responsible individual(s) up to and including termination of employment. 2. Any act of retaliation or victimization against the whistleblower will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. 3. The malicious use of the whistle-blowing policy will result in disciplinary action against the whistle-blowing complainant, up to and including termination of employment.
RECORD KEEPING Details of all concerns raised and the subsequent investigation will be retained for five years. The records will be maintained by the Company Secretary. The purpose of this is to ensure that a central record is kept which can be cross-referenced with other complaints in order to monitor any patterns of concern and to assist SPO in monitoring the effectiveness of this policy.