Approach to acting with integrity varies among ministries
Suspected integrity breaches not always reported
While confidential counsellors at ministries are in a position to perform their duties effectively, some ministries need a greater focus on workplace integrity, and to increase the importance attached to the applicable rules and their monitoring. Being willing to report concerns is part of a civil servant’s professional duty. A questionnaire distributed by the Netherlands Court of Audit among central government civil servants found, however, that those willing to report a suspected breach of integrity were outnumbered by those who were not.
The extent to which ministries systematically structure their integrity policies was found to vary and often to be incomplete. Similarly, the manner in which integrity was experienced in the workplace was found to be in need of further attention. The Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations could improve her role in coordinating the central government’s policy on integrity as she currently has too little overview of how departments deal with this issue. These were some of the findings of a recent audit by the Court of Audit on how integrity policy is structured for (and by) ministry civil servants and how they experience it in practice. This policy was first introduced in the 1990s. The report on Foundations of integrity was sent to Parliament and the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations on 10 September 2024.
Greater focus on embedding integrity in day-to-day practice
The President of the Court of Audit, Pieter Duisenberg, emphasises the importance of taking central government integrity seriously. Integrity is an essential element of good governance and the backbone of a reliable government functioning effectively. Citizens, businesses and members of parliament alike have to be able to rely on this. ‘We all expect the Dutch government to operate ethically. All civil servants, including those in management roles, need to feel secure in reporting matters of professional integrity.’
Figure 1 - Questionnaire on integrity policy sent to ministry civil servants
Integrity policy consists of numerous rules and agreements. The audit found that while most civil servants with management responsibilities could operate effectively, they felt support to be lacking. They felt they could set a clearer example; all ministry civil servants would then feel they would be supported if they were to raise questions or doubts about professional integrity. The subject should also be discussed more often in the workplace in order to encourage desirable behaviour. As President Duisenberg explained, ‘It’s often only when things go wrong in practice that the subject of behaving with integrity gets discussed. More can be done to ensure that professional standards, in which acting with integrity plays an integral role, are more effectively embedded.’
The Court of Audit previously investigated workplace integrity in, for example, 2004 and 2009. Then, too, the role played by managers in setting an example and providing support was found to be very important.
Incidents attract attention, but a structural approach is more effective
While the ministries have the basic structures in place for an effective policy on integrity, certain aspects of these structures still need further development. In three ministries, for example, a high-quality risk analysis is needed, while such an analysis was found to be inadequate at four other ministries. Those responsible for coordinating some ministries’ approach to integrity are still too focused on dealing with incidents, whereas a structural approach is more effective. It is important, therefore, for integrity coordinators to have a strong and independent position within the organisation. At present, however, this is not always the case in practice. Arrangements in place for confidential counsellors, by contrast, are generally better. The protocols for responding to reports of suspected breaches of integrity were found to be inadequate at four ministries.
A Court of Audit questionnaire completed by over 4,000 ministry civil servants found that only 15% of managers felt they received sufficient structural support to perform their responsibilities in this respect effectively, even though setting an example is vital for ensuring an ethical organisational culture. More of those responding to the questionnaire stated that they would not report a suspected breach of integrity than the number stating that they would. The reasons given included aspects relating to organisational culture, such as not feeling sufficiently safe to report situations, or concerns about job security. The results of the questionnaire emphasise the importance of continuing to focus attention on ensuring a secure reporting environment.
Lack of specific detail in the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations’ response
In an initial response to this audit, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations confirmed she was seeking to reinforce her coordinating role in this field. While her response is seen as lacking in specific detail and as taking too little account of the findings at various ministries, the Court of Audit regards her intention to reinforce her coordinating role as positive. Developing a vision for the way forward may be of help in this regard. The announcement of a framework against which behaviour can be tested also represents a step in the right direction. However, a greater sense of urgency is needed if civil servants with management responsibilities are to be supported more effectively. So, too, is it important to create a safe environment for civil servants wanting to report suspected breaches of integrity. As President Duisenberg explained, ‘The relevant minister’s ministerial responsibility should not stand in the way of clear management guidance across the central government. Integrity is a matter for continuous attention and not one that should be allowed to fade into the background after the latest incident has been dealt with.’