Public service integrity is a cornerstone of good governance. The EU enlargement criteria emphasize that countries need to create a strong national public administration where it will be possible to effectively transpose, introduce and implement the principles of good governance.[1] International standards of integrity for public servants relate to the principles of honesty, fairness, transparency, accountability, impartiality, prudent use of state resources and non-discrimination. Each of these principles is essential to the proper functioning of the public service and to the confidence of the public. In order to put the above principles into practice, it is necessary to have a sound legal framework, in line with international standards, relevant visions and policies, and their consistent implementation in practice.
The main tools for introducing the principles of integrity in the public service are the existence of ethical documents and the tools for their implementation in practice, the provision of sound disciplinary and oversight mechanisms, awareness raising, the introduction and promotion of whistleblowing mechanisms, and more.
The study, conducted by IDFI, aims to examine current trends and practices in the protection of integrity and whistleblowing in the public service, as well as key attitudes and perceptions of public servants about issues of integrity and ethics.
Legal framework
The legislation does not oblige public institutions to develop codes of ethics and practical tools (explanatory manual) for their implementation.
Existing norms of ethics do not apply to senior officials who are required to set an example for the public sector and establish standards of integrity.
The legislation on the whistleblowing mechanism is not sufficiently detailed and leaves a number of issues unregulated, leaving the private sector and the law enforcement agencies out of control.
The legislation does not set a single standard for internal whistleblowing procedures and does not oblige public institutions to establish internal whistleblowing channels and ensure their effectiveness.
There is no special legal regulation regarding the compensation for the damage caused to the whistleblower, which would make the issue clearer and more understandable for the whistleblower.
Documents defining ethics and integrity
Most public institutions explained to IDFI that they had not adopted an integrity policy document, a code of ethics and practical tools for their implementation.
According to information received from public institutions, only 23 agencies have rules of ethics and conduct of employees regulated by internal legal documents.
Of the ministries that provided information to IDFI, codes of ethics for civil servants employed in the agency are approved only by the Ministries of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Internal Affairs.
Among local self-governments, documents on ethics have been approved by only three mayor’s office and four municipal councils.
The codes of ethics in the Georgian public sector in most cases are not exhaustive, tailored to the specifics and needs of the institution and have a template character.
Enforcement and whistleblowing mechanisms
Some public institutions do not have a mechanism for enforcing ethical norms (supervisory structural unit).
61 public institutions clarified that they do not have internal mechanisms for enforcing ethical norms. 47 agencies refrained from verifying this information.
The Internal Audit Service is most often defined as the agency responsible for enforcing ethical norms. In some cases, this function is combined with administrative and human resource management services.
Most public institutions do not have an independent body or structural unit that can advise public servants on ethics if necessary.
According to information received from public institutions, violations of ethical norms have been registered in only 40 public institutions during the last three years.
In the last three years, more than 10 cases of violation of ethical norms have been registered in only nine public institutions.
Most of the public institutions (87 agencies) explained to IDFI that they do not have internal channels of whistleblowing. 80 agencies did not specify the issue, while 52 public agencies confirmed to IDFI the functioning of internal disclosure channels.
In some of the institutions where the internal channels operate, the existence of proper whistleblowing mechanisms is still not ensured.
In 2019-2021, only six agencies registered whistleblowing reports through internal channels.
Awareness and attitude of public servants
Regular training on ethics, integrity and whistleblowing is not provided in most public institutions.
14% of respondents did not know at all whether their agency had its own code of ethics. 30% did not know if their agency had an explanatory guide to the Code of Ethics.
42% of respondents stated that their agency had its own code of ethics against the background that according to the analysis of public information only a small number of public institutions have this kind of document.
Of the respondents who confirmed the existence of a code of ethics in the agency, 23% did not know whether the code of ethics regulated issues related to whistleblowing;
26% of respondents stated that they had no information about the whistleblowing mechanism at all.
27% of respondents did not know if there was a structural unit in their facility that was responsible for receiving and responding to whistleblowing reports.
30% of respondents believe that the whistleblowing mechanism in their agency is gender sensitive, 32% - not sensitive, and the largest share (38%) - do not know.
19% of public servants who became aware of a specific breach of ethics did not respond to it.
24% of the respondents who did not respond to the violations of ethical norms, considered that the violation known to them was not so serious as to react.
53% of respondents express a positive attitude towards the whistleblowing mechanism.
A large proportion of the surveyed public servants positively assess the environment of integrity in the institution.
Analysis of the legal framework reveals that the legislation provides for certain mechanisms of public sector integrity and whistleblowing, however, these norms need to be refined, detailed and additional issues regulated.
Practice analysis indicates that most public institutions are governed by general ethics-related legislation and have not adopted an integrity policy document, a code of ethics, and practical tools for their implementation. The existing codes of ethics in most cases are not exhaustive, tailored to the specifics and needs of the institution and have a template character. Public sector requires raising awareness of issues of integrity, ethics and whistleblowing, and it is important to work on building the right attitude.
Regarding the challenges identified according to the research findings, IDFI identifies the following recommendations:
In order to improve the legal framework:
- Define the obligation of public institutions to develop codes of ethics and practical instruments for their implementation;
- Develop norms of ethics for senior officials;
- Improve the legislation on the whistleblowing mechanism and extend it to the private sector and the law enforcement agencies;
- Determine by legislation the unified standard of internal whistleblowing procedures and the obligation of public institutions to establish internal whistleblowing channels and ensure their effectiveness.
- Develop special legislative norms regarding the compensation of damages to the whistleblower.
Regarding ethics and integrity documents, public institutions should ensure:
- Development of integrity policy documents, codes of ethics and practical tools for their implementation;
- Implementation of an integrity risk assessment system;
- Comprehensive regulation of relevant issues by codes of ethics, adaptation to the specifics and needs of the institution.
Regarding enforcement mechanisms, public institutions should ensure:
- Establishment of a mechanism for enforcing ethical norms (supervisory structural unit), staffing with properly qualified staff and constant care for their qualifications;
- Development of an effective advisory mechanism on ethics;
- Proper recording and periodic publication of data on violations of ethics, including in the form of generalized cases.
Public institutions should ensure the effectiveness of whistleblowing mechanisms:
- Proper functioning of internal channels of whistleblowing (including confidential);
- Recording and responding to whistleblowers, periodically publish statistics.
With the purpose of raising awareness of civil servants and forming the right attitudes the public institutions should ensure:
- Implementation of regular trainings on ethics, integrity and whistleblowing issues, including for senior officials;
- Provision of information to employees on existing codes of ethics or other relevant documents;
- Informing staff about existing oversight, whistleblowing mechanisms and disciplinary procedures.
___
[1] European Commission, Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2014 – 15; SIGMA (2018), Toolkit for the preparation, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of public administration reform and sector strategies: guidance for SIGMA partners.
/public/upload/00_studies/2023/Civil-Service-Integrity-Study_Eng_compressed.pdf
Subscribe to Our News
