To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
If those who have the courage to blow the whistle on wrongdoing in an organization suffer ill-treatment, no one will be able to raise their voice. For the healthy development of society, whistleblowers must be protected.
An expert panel of the Consumer Affairs Agency, which has been discussing a review of the whistleblowing system, has compiled a report calling for criminal penalties to be imposed on companies and other entities that fire or punish whistleblowers because of their whistleblowing.
The Whistleblower Protection Law prohibits “disadvantageous treatment” of whistleblowers. However, there are currently no penalties to enforce this prohibition. According to a survey by the agency, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to suffer disadvantageous treatment in their position and other matters. As a result, in many cases they regret having ever blown the whistle.
The purpose of a whistleblowing system is to make companies and organizations aware of internal irregularities and engage in self-correction. Retaliatory measures, such as firing or punishing whistleblowers, runs directly counter to the purpose of the law.
The government plans to submit a bill to revise the Whistleblower Protection Law, which includes the introduction of criminal penalties, to a Diet session next year. Strict measures should be taken against disadvantageous treatment of whistleblowers so that people who learn of wrongdoing will be able to quickly blow the whistle on it. This also is expected to have a deterrent effect against ill-treatment, such as unfair dismissal.
The Whistleblower Protection Law came into effect in 2006 in response to a spate of corporate scandals, which included information being falsified on food labels and the concealment of automobile recalls.
However, when fraudulent insurance claims by the major used car sales company then known as Bigmotor Co. came to light last year, it did not have an internal section in place to deal with whistleblowing. It is hard to say that the principles of the law have penetrated deeply into society.
In Hyogo Prefecture, a former senior prefectural government official accused Gov. Motohiko Saito of workplace bullying, only to be hit with a three-month suspension from duty. Before conducting a thorough investigation, the prefectural government prematurely deemed the allegations “a pack of lies” and proceeded to identify the whistleblower who had made the allegations.
It is natural that some experts have criticized this as a highly illegal response. Currently, the so-called Article 100 committee — a panel set up by the Hyogo prefectural assembly — as well as a third-party committee of lawyers are conducting investigations. It is important to clarify the problems with the prefectural government’s response.
On the other hand, false allegations in the guise of “public-interest whistleblowing” cannot be allowed. This is not only because the accused suffer highly adverse consequences, but also because an organization’s operations could be hindered as time is wasted on a needless investigation.
This point needs to be thoroughly considered in the revision of the law.
It is difficult to determine whether any given act of accusation constitutes whistleblowing. The government should provide standards such as criteria for judgment so that companies and organizations can properly operate the system. It is also hoped that the government will not forget to make the system well known to the public.
