Comment & Analysis
As a rule, press releases promoting new websites fall somewhere between the bin and behind the radiator of the PE editorial office. But rules are there to be broken, and so a release for a new website launched this week happened to catch my eye and inspire.
Arctictruth.org is a whistleblowing website by Greenpeace. The environmental group wants employees and subcontractors to help expose the bad practice of oil companies “as they look to plunder the resources of this pristine region”.
“The Arctic is the most remote and technically challenging drilling environment imaginable and so far the industry has proven that it’s simply not up to the challenge,” says Ben Ayliffe, head of Arctic Oil at Greenpeace International. “The human, environmental and economic impacts of an accident in the polar north would be catastrophic.
“We hope this new website will reveal the truth about the gamble oil companies like Shell are willing to take.”
Greenpeace has singled out Shell as one of the main culprits. Arctictruth is part of a concerted PR attack on the oil firm - the launch of the website was accompanied by a poster and leafleting campaign at Shell’s London office targeting its employees.
There’s no doubt that drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic is challenging. There is little argument to be had about whether oil companies’ activity in the region should be scrutinised. Society should debate the environmental risks and benefits of Arctic exploitation.
But arctictruth provides an opportunity to consider the practicalities and ethics of whistleblowing itself. It takes only a minute for somebody, perhaps even a Shell employee – if Greenpeace are lucky – to log in to arctictruth and anonymously post something damaging and litigious. In that minute the individual stops becoming a bystander and puts themselves in the eye of the storm.
There are risks. Even when submitting information anonymously, Greenpeace is unable to guarantee anonymity. There could be severe legal consequences – you may be breaching a confidentiality clause or a non-disclosure agreement. In some cases you could be exposing official secrets.
There is also what is termed “workplace retaliation” to consider. There are laws to protect whistleblowers and each case has a different scale of severity and response. But you have to work for a very forward-thinking company if whistleblowing is going to win you 'employee of the year' award. Is that your company? What are the ramifications for your career if you inform?
On the other hand, whistleblowing can make an important contribution to the public interest. The number of important cases that have effected change around the world is numerous and lists are abundant online. Suffice to say that most include infamous Watergate source, W.Mark Felt, also known as Deep Throat, at or near the top.
And herein lies the problem. Critics of whistleblowing say that whistleblowers are most often ambitious individuals clamouring for attention and personal glory. The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, springs to mind when considering this. Companies (http://www.whistleblower.co.uk/) exist that specialise in helping people maximise the media attention from their whistleblowing activities while providing legal advice.
Most people would consider it wrong to whistleblow for personal gain. If the whistleblower has a vested interest in the resolution of the issue, in most cases the action becomes a personal complaint. The important distinction for the individual here is that if it is a personal complaint, the onus of providing evidence is on the individual.
If the person is acting in good faith, that is, believes the information to be something the public should know and true, whistleblowing legislation to protect the individual kicks in. The onus of providing evidence then falls on various government agencies and watchdogs.
Most of the press releases PE receives about websites relate to new ways of selling equipment and components. Greenpeace’s website is selling an environmental conscience, but the product is far from straightforward and the price high. There are options for whistleblowers: going to the appropriate government agency, talking to the media or a pressure group like Greenpeace. The most appropriate action depends on the situation and the individual’s own moral compass. What is apparent is that being a whistleblower is not an easy ride.
Personally, if I knew something important was wrong or someone approached me with an important enough story, I’d speak to an independent organisation like Public Concern at Work or Whistleblowers UK, before speaking to an environmental NGO or publishing an article. Rules are there to be broken, but if in breaking them more harm may be done than good, actions have to be carefully considered.