Internal reporting mechanism for food safety needs to be established

In recent years, food safety accidents have occurred frequently, and internal parties have not known about it, and external agencies have not been able to supervise them. Even if there are occasional disclosures, the “inside ghosts” in the organization’s inventory are quickly caused.

In July 2011, the Office of the State Council’s Food Safety Commission issued the “Guidance Opinion on Establishing a Food Safety Prize Reporting System”, which requires all localities to establish a food safety prize reporting system. However, the construction of such a reporting system may also be difficult to be effective. The most important measure is probably an internal report. This internal report is not an incentive report that can promote or inspire. How to activate internal reports, how to effectively protect internal reporters, and how to make reasonable trade-offs between public interest and corporate interests are important issues in improving the ability of enterprises to self-purify and improve social security.

Internal reporting realistic background

In modern society, with the increasingly perfection of enterprises, the expansion of the organization scale, the improvement of the complexity, and the extensive application of science and technology, the level of illegal activities of enterprises has gradually increased, and the difficulty of finding and stopping illegal activities has also increased. It is of course important to strengthen supervision in response to all kinds of illegal and criminal acts, but supervision is often ineffective because it is difficult to obtain internal bad information. And in the context of streamlining institutions, limited law enforcement personnel have also reduced the possibility of finding bad information. From the perspective of severe penalties and punishment, external supervision may temporarily receive deterrence and general prevention of downstream effects, but it may also result in lack of effective information due to insufficient information. And excessively increased punishment may also contradict the principle of proportionality.

Internal reporting, as well as internal oversight and auditing systems, help companies become more transparent and accountable, thereby enhancing the company's ethical standards and then promoting healthy development.

Internal report or issue

Internal reports often involve important values ​​such as public safety, health, and well-being. However, judging from many internal reporting incidents, internal reports may cause many problems even if they are in the maintenance of public interests, and there is an urgent need to regulate and protect the system.

First, it is difficult to protect the rights of reporters. The person most affected by the report may be the whistleblower, who may be reduced pay, transferred, or dismissed as a result and may not continue to perform the same or even the same profession. The whistle-blowers also suffered from the cold-eyed discrimination of their colleagues and society, and were even killed.

Second, the interests of enterprises are vulnerable to losses. Insiders often have confidentiality obligations in accordance with laws, contracts, or industry rules, and must not disclose information obtained during the course of their duties to a third party unrelated to their duties. This is a need to protect the interests of enterprises in competition. In addition, if the information reported internally is false, if it is handled improperly, it will adversely affect the interests of the company. Maintaining the company's internal order and protecting the company's reputation should be a factor in the design of the system.

Again, the trust relationship between the company and the whistleblower needs to be maintained. The whistleblower has access to or access to important information, often containing the trust and expectations of the organization or supervisor. Internal reporting will undoubtedly undermine this trust. Moreover, the work units are connected with a close network of relationships, close friendships and mutual trust. Once the defects of the company are revealed, it may affect the interests of others and the interests of the company, and even affect their own personal relationships.

Therefore, the institutional construction of internal reporting is not only the issue of the protection of internal whistleblowers - although this is a major issue, there is also the right to punish dismissal rights and restrictions imposed by the public interest, corporate reputation rights, and employees' confidentiality obligations. Many legal and ethical issues such as the conflict between reports need to be resolved.

Mechanism for internal reporting

In China, internal reporting mechanisms exist, but the overwhelming majority are very sparse. The whistleblower protection measures are too general and there is no sign of protecting the company’s legitimate interests. Under the severe situation of social security, it is necessary to formulate a “public welfare reporting law” (which can be piloted in the food industry first) that is not divided into areas and public or private. It provides adequate protection for informants on the one hand. On the other hand, we must also make a reasonable trade-off between corporate interests and public interests. Comprehensive legislation will help prevent the loss of one million.

In terms of legislative authority and form, the public welfare internal reporting system should be determined by the National People's Congress and its standing committee in the form of laws. This is because the balance of various interests is suitable for the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee to complete in order to achieve the requirements of the legitimacy of democracy; and only the law can have enough powers to eliminate inappropriate restrictions on reporting and only have sufficient means. To protect the whistleblower who should be protected, to give public welfare reports priority over the statutory status of the company's reputation, to declare that the ban clause in the civil contract is invalid, to reduce the whistleblower's burden of proof, and to decide whether to award or not.

However, the objective reality is that it is difficult to fully protect the whistleblower by virtue of the law alone. The retaliatory measures of enterprises are multifaceted and difficult to prevent. Intricate causality is sometimes difficult to prove; when the door to employment is closed tightly, the law cannot guarantee that it will be reopened; the law cannot relieve the whistleblower who has suffered psychological pain from reporting. "Compared with the pressure given by society to whistleblowers, any protection given by the law to whistleblowers is pale." In the society, internal reports are often viewed with indifference, in proportion to "inside ghosts." However, the internal whistleblower is not one of the indispensable and troublemakers, but also one of the necessary mechanisms for the company's self-purifiers, public interest defenders, and organization self-improvement.

With the implementation of the law and the development of a market economy, companies will weigh the advantages and disadvantages. If they want to develop in good times in the long term, they must legally operate, assume social responsibilities, and establish a set of effective self-purification mechanisms. In this way, a new culture about internal reporting will gradually come into being. This will also help reduce the whistleblower’s concerns and form a partnership between the company and the workers. The cooperative governance of the society will also gradually improve.