Seven questions for Caroline Hunt-Matthes, whistleblower and guest lecturer at the Faculty of Law.

I worked at the UN for 10 years, where I held the position of investigator in the Inspector General's office. It was in this position that I discovered that rules and regulations were not respected and that some investigations were influenced by political considerations. This became clear when I investigated the rape of a refugee by a staff member. In 2003, the United Nations had issued guidelines stipulating that investigations had to be carried out correctly and thoroughly to eradicate sexual abuse, but I found that some people within the organization were altering investigations. I reported these problems to my superiors. Although many initially agreed with me, the situation deteriorated, with more and more mistakes being made at work. Considered a risk, I was fired overnight, which put me in the whistleblower category. No one plans to become a whistleblower, but we often find ourselves in this situation unexpectedly.

There is no universal definition of a whistleblower, although several definitions are proposed in the literature. Generally speaking, a whistleblower is a person employed by or connected with an employer, who discovers and reports some form of corruption, misconduct, or breach of rules (fraud, abuse of power...). In some professional environments, such as the United Nations where I worked, it is mandatory to report such anomalies. However, it is vital to ensure that the report can be made safely, as the security of the environment where the report is made is crucial.

Yes, there are different types of whistleblowers and different ways to act. Research on this subject is developing rapidly. In fact, there is an international network of whistleblower researchers, bringing together 200 to 300 experts. The number of whistle-blowers is constantly increasing. A distinction is made between internal and external whistleblowers. There are several categories, and the classification may vary according to semantic analysis and literature on the subject.

In Europe, and more specifically in Belgium, whistleblower protection has been improved thanks to the European directive adopted in 2019. Belgium did an excellent job in transposing this directive at the end of last year, which represents a significant step forward. Some cultures and countries value speaking up more than others. For example, in the United States, the culture of speaking out is more developed and it's probably less dangerous to be a whistleblower compared to the United Nations, where theoretical protection is hard to come by in practice.

The European directive has raised awareness throughout Europe of the importance of whistleblowers, as they are often the first to identify corruption, far more effectively than an external auditor or any other type of control.

However, problems persist, particularly when those involved in acts of corruption occupy very senior positions. Whistleblower protection is difficult to implement, especially in small companies where it is complicated to guarantee the necessary anonymity and independence. What's more, no law can fully protect whistleblowers from social exclusion, which remains one of the worst aspects they can suffer.

They can greatly contribute to corporate ethics and responsibility, especially if the company values openness and transparency. I was pleasantly surprised to talk to some of UNamur's vice-rectors and see such openness on the subject. The will to encourage the possibility of self-expression is there. We now need to make employees and students aware of the procedure and places for reporting problems. But this is a very common phenomenon in many companies, people often don't know where to go to talk about it.

When employees and students feel free to express themselves, they are more likely to report inappropriate behavior. A healthy work environment fosters a culture of open communication where whistleblowers are not required. Ideally, employees should be able to report inappropriate behavior directly. This would enable everyone to reflect on their own behavior and how to communicate respectfully and constructively. Rather than judging, it's about giving feedback. Encouraging open communication and constructive questioning can help create an environment where whistleblowers are less necessary and ethics and responsibility are embedded in the corporate culture.

The aim is to raise awareness in the workplace. This promotes corporate well-being and leads to reflection on power imbalances within the organization, which is particularly relevant in long-standing institutions such as universities.

For example, relationships between PhD students and their supervisors can be marked by abuses of power. Young students are often more vulnerable to inappropriate advances from their supervisors, and as we've seen with the Me Too movement, many don't report such behavior for fear of damaging their careers.

Implementing a whistleblower protection system can thus help create a fairer and more ethical working environment, encouraging employees to report inappropriate behavior without fear of reprisal. This not only improves corporate culture, but also prevents abuse and maintains institutional integrity.

This is a complex challenge. Confidentiality can be maintained up to a point, but anonymity is often compromised when management has to intervene. This creates a major difficulty, as individuals, whether teachers, professors or students, are already under a great deal of stress and have no desire to add to it. Managing these disclosures is an additional burden, and many prefer to avoid being judged or upsetting their colleagues. This reluctance is understandable, but regrettable, as it prevents improvement. Although some people are open to feedback, many individuals, especially the older ones steeped in academic tradition, are not ready for it.

As part of the Faculty of Law's Fil Rouge on the theme of harassment, Aude Hansel, professor of English in UNamur's Department of Modern Languages, welcomed Caroline Hunt-Matthes. In her "English for legal professionals" course, she wanted to raise awareness among her second-year students of this subject close to her heart, by tackling the issue of whistleblowers.

"The great thing about language courses is that we can take a very cross-disciplinary approach," enthuses Aude Hansel. "We specialize in the discipline while building bridges with other subjects, which generates a lot of interest among students. To address this theme, I wanted to invite a "native speaker". Caroline agreed to come and meet our students. I explained the history of the theme, presented them with a biography of Caroline Hunt-Matthes and provided them with the necessary vocabulary. We prepared questions in class on the subject, and they were really ready to take part in this conference."

On the day, Amélie Lachapelle, lecturer in the Faculty of Law and whistleblower specialist, introduced the conference by reminding the students of the legal context. They were then able to exchange views with Caroline Hunt-Matthes, by asking her their questions.