In Praise of Whistleblowers

By Edward Milner

Blowing the whistle is a shorthand phrase meaning ‘halt the action; something is wrong’. In sport it usually denotes a foul. In real life whistleblowers raise the alarm when they see powerful forces falling short of standards they have set themselves – either by breaking the law or failing to adhere to common standards. Perhaps the most celebrated – or notorious – whistleblower is Edward Snowden who revealed not only widespread criminality by US Government contractors in Iraq but official cover-ups as well. Whistleblowers have revealed that big business is frequently responsible for damage to the natural environment or the pollution of air, land and water. Not all are pursued into exile like Edward Snowden, but they are frequently ignored, silenced or threatened. Cases are so frequent that one is forced to question the prevailing business models in the twenty-first century – is a serious concern for the natural world relevant to today’s business practice? Even when the first objective is the maximisation of profit and the protection of shareholder interests?

Early thinkers about capitalism such as Adam Smith saw industry and commerce – what is now generally referred to as ‘trade’, coming together to improve the lot of humanity. In France the ideals of peace and ‘commerce’ were traditionally pictured as beautiful damsels,  an image even promoted on standard postage stamps throughout the French Empire. Such sentimentalism has rather gone out of fashion, even in France. Today perhaps a more appropriate image might be a thug with a chainsaw, or on a tractor hauling a load of giant logs.

From the corporate mission statements and claims with regard to ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure) performance, a wide range of companies are committed to high environmental standards and social purpose. But when whistleblowers cast doubt on these claims by providing evidence of failures the response is an almost universal closing of ranks, denials and threats – yet if the standards aspired to were genuine you would expect any deficiencies exposed to be of primary concern to the companies concerned. After all, their expertise is the basis of their professional standing and profitability. But if a company that claims to be reducing pollution is shown by a whistleblower to in fact be causing it, you might expect them to be concerned at least with rectifying the damage. This is rarely how it works. The domestic water industry is a case in point.

A recent television documentary in UK (BBC Panorama: The Water Pollution Cover-up) investigated a British water company and exposed examples of sewage pollution in lakes and rivers, even in supposedly Protected Areas including lake Windermere, resulting from numerous illegal untreated releases which were undoubtedly the responsibility of the company. The paper trail documenting such ‘pollution incidents’ revealed that there was serial under-reporting by both the water company and the responsible government agency responsible for the water industry even when urgent alerts of pollution had been received. Serious incidents were frequently downgraded to a category that meant no action was necessary, even when shoals of dead fish, bad smells and items of domestic sewage were evident in the flow. The company involved claimed that ‘Our track record on pollution is one we are proud of’ and was vigorously defended by the single company representative in the filmed interview. Furthermore, as the commentary made clear, the company had been rewarded financially and its reputation enhanced by the government agency involved – which also claims to have the natural environment as a major concern. Whistleblowers from each party were interviewed and made it clear that in their view the evidence uncovered by the programme was not in any way unusual, both remaining anonymous in fear of victimisation.

Lake Windermere

It is difficult to understand the attitudes of either the company or the government agency when you would think that such pollution events would be of primary concern to both. They are the experts, after all. You would expect them to be more aware of pollution events than random members of the public – but you’d be wrong. Although initially flagged as serious events, not only did they downgrade them to ‘insignificant, not requiring any action’, but denied the compelling evidence which had been recorded in photographs, video and from water samples. In the case of the Government agency, they had even declined to investigate the incidents to make their own observations.

The water industry in UK was privatized decades ago and is run by companies whose primary business seems to be to maximise profits, pay executives ‘competitive’ salaries and provide the best possible financial returns to investors. The word responsibility, and the concept of ‘the common good’ don’t seem to apply. In fact, reflecting on the evidence in the programme the phrase ‘excessive profiteering’ came to mind. The government agency’s role is to regulate these companies in the public interest; they would surely be keen to justify their role? Yet the BBC was unable to get a spokesman from the agency to appear – leaving the whistleblowers’ concerns unanswered; what had they to hide? Both company and regulator apparently perceived the whistleblowers as hostile witnesses, yet they were only expressing a natural and entirely justified concern for their local environment.

Contaminated water

This is not a particularly significant case – the pollution events were relatively small and of only local effect – but reports from all over the country show that it was more than typical. Similar occurrences involving the water industry have been reported from elsewhere including huge leaks at Hamilton, Ontario; Sydney, Australia and within the catchments of many European rivers – many of them first spotted by local whistleblowers. In the UK cases of untreated sewage being released into lakes, rivers and the sea run into thousands, raising the question as to whether the entire privatised water business is functioning in the public interest, with the morality of the entire business model coming under question.

Coincidentally, this week saw the publication of the fourth national State of Nature report –  the ‘most comprehensive overview of species trends in the UK’, it is an independent report produced by a wide range of environmental NGOs, universities and government agencies. The key finding was that even in Britain, one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, continued losses and declines of much wildlife and habitat are clearly evident. Reducing pollution and improving the quality of Protected Areas are two of the four urgent recommendations. While the report does not assign any blame for this ongoing deterioration, business practices by polluting industries and shortcomings in the government’s regulatory agencies are clearly under suspicion. The importance of whistleblowers cannot be underestimated; perhaps a fifth urgent recommendation is needed, one that might have resonance across the globe – a need for the urgent encouragement and better protection for whistleblowers.