Share this post
A European-based world governing body of a sport (Organisation A) went public with an investigation into the leader (Person A) of one of its teams (Organisation B) and his wife (Person B). Person B was the managing director of a competition series (Organisation C) run by the company that owns the sport (Organisation D). The authority decided to investigate if there had been a conflict of interest between the parties’ connection to each other through marriage and their professional relationship.
However, within two days, Organisation A had dropped the case and cleared both Persons A and B. This anonymised case study showcases the importance of keeping the identities of both whistleblowers and those accused of wrongdoing confidential. In addition, it highlights how essential it is for companies to maintain a robust and up-to-date code of conduct.
The background
In the early 2020s, Organisation A announced that its compliance department was investigating a report that the manager of Organisation B and an individual within Organisation D were passing confidential information between them. Although the statement did not name Person A and Person B, their relative positions in their organisations led to their identities being linked with the case.
Although Organisation A cited media speculation as its spur to investigate, it could produce no more than an allegation made by one media source that was unsubstantiated.
Person A and Person B, along with Organisations B and D, publicly denied any wrongdoing, calling into question the legitimacy of the allegation. In addition, each of the other teams under Organisation A’s jurisdiction made statements to the effect that they had no knowledge of any sharing of confidential information between the parties and had no complaints to make. They also noted their support for Organisation C.
What happened next?
Two days after the announcement of the investigation, Organisation A confirmed that it had reviewed Organisation D’s code of conduct and conflict of interest policies and found the compliance management measures in place robust enough to prevent parties disclosing confidential information.
The outcome
By implementing a thorough conflict of interest policy and setting out a compliance programme that provided strict protocols for this kind of situation, Organisation D was able to demonstrate that it had a framework in place to prevent misconduct. Without this in place, it is not only challenging to create a compliant culture, but companies cannot prove that they have done all they can to maintain adherence to the law.
The case also shows how damaging it can be for those being investigated to have their names made public during the process, especially if they are innocent of the behaviour attributed to them. Although Organisation A did not name them, there was enough detail to link the case to Person A and Person B, leading to detrimental coverage of them.
When carrying out an investigation, all parties must have the right to confidentiality until guilt has been ascertained.
How IntegrityLog helps
IntegrityLog is whistleblower software that allows investigating teams to converse with reporting persons and those accused of wrongdoing in a confidential manner. It is a secure platform that can only be accessed by authorised personnel. This means that they can establish the facts without damaging the reputation of those accused or endangering those reporting.
To find out how IntegrityLog can work for your business, request a demo today.
