NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisabeth Roscher, Geir Sviggum, Tine Vigmostad and Kristin Nordland Brattli, Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS
6.4 Protections Afforded to Whistle- Blowers Right to Report Objectionable Conduct There is protection afforded to whistle-blowers in Norway. The protection of whistle-blowers follows from the Norwegian Act relating to the working envi - ronment, working hours and employment pro - tection, etc, of 2005 No 62 (the “Working Envi - ronment Act”). According to Section 2 A-1 (1) of the Working Environment Act, an employee has the right to report “censurable conditions” (ie, matters of concern, hereinafter referred to as “objection - able conduct”) relating to the employer’s busi - ness. From the same paragraph, it follows that this right is also granted to hired workers. The term “objectionable conduct” includes mat - ters that represent contravention of legal rules, written ethical guidelines or broadly accepted ethical norms in society (Section 2 A-1 (2)). Examples of “objectionable conduct” include: • danger to life or health; • danger to the environment or climate; • corruption or other economic crimes; • abuse of authority; • unsatisfactory working environment; and • breach of data privacy. A notification may be made anonymously, and the employer would, to the extent possible, also be required to follow up on anonymous notifica - tions. The right to report objectionable conduct does not extend to matters that solely concern the employee’s own working conditions, unless such matters relate to conduct clearly defined
suspicions of, for example, economic crime, and to do so as early and thoroughly as possible. Among other things, companies are encouraged to share the results of any internal investigations relating to the (suspected) violation. Should a criminal investigation be opened, companies are encouraged to co-operate with the investigative authorities. In general, the timing and extent of the willing - ness to disclose information and co-operate with the authorities will be taken into account when the authorities exercise procedural discretion related to the case. For example: • when considering whether to initiate investi - gative steps such as searching the company’s premises or seizing documents; • whether to prosecute, and, if so, the nature of the charges; and • when assessing company liability and decid - ing the amount of penalty to be imposed. Also, see 4.5 Safe Harbour or Amnesty Pro- gramme on the ongoing work to develop guide - lines for imposing corporate penalties in inter - national corruption cases. Such guidelines are also expected to contain incentives for voluntary disclosure. 6.3 Self-Disclosure Procedures There are currently no formalised procedures for self-disclosure, although the police, including ØKOKRIM, can be tipped off. However, see 4.5 Safe Harbour or Amnesty Programme on the ongoing work to develop guidelines for impos - ing corporate penalties in international corrup - tion cases. Such guidelines are also expected to regulate the significance of self-reporting.
312 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook