Providing an Alternative to Silence:
Towards Greater Protection and Support for
Whistleblowers in the EU
Country Report: France
This report belongs to a series of 27 national reports that assess the adequacy of
whistleblower protection laws of all member states of the European Union.
Whistleblowing
in Europe: Legal Protection for Whistleblowers in the EU, published by Transparency
International in November 2013, compiles the findings from these national reports. It can be
accessed at www.transparency.org.
All national reports are available upon request at xx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
Publisher: Transparency International France
Researcher: Nicole-Marie Meyer
First edition: January 2013
Responsibility for all information contained in the report lies with the author. Views
expressed in the report are the author’s own, and may not necessarily reflect the views of
the organisation for which they work. Transparency International cannot accept
responsibility for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The sole
responsibility lies with the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any
use that may be made of the information contained therein.
With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union.
European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs
2
Sommaire
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
2. French legislation. .................................................................................................................. 5
Criminal Law / Public sector ................................................................................................... 5
Labour Law / private sector ................................................................................................... 6
Financial code ......................................................................................................................... 7
Whistleblower systems and the CNIL (2005, 2010, 2011) ..................................................... 7
3. Perceptions and political will ................................................................................................. 9
4. Strenghts, weaknesses and recommendation ..................................................................... 11
5. Sources ................................................................................................................................. 12
Introduction
In France, there is neither a definition of the whistleblower nor a stand-alone comprehensive
law nor public debate on whistleblowing. Sectoral laws (Labour Law, Civil and Criminal Code)
did not properly protect whistleblowers, but in a piecemeal fashion guarantee freedom of
expression, health and safety, or protect public and private sectors from discriminations. Any
private employee has the right to report on “any imminent and grave danger” which
jeopardizes his life, including a right to refuse participation, but could not disclose
wrongdoing until 2007. The civil servant has the legal duty to disclose to the State
Prosecutor “crimes and offences”, but without adequate protection against retaliation.
Since the 2007
Anti-corruption Act (loi n°2007-1598 du 13 novembre 20071) the private
employee who discloses in good faith wrongdoing is broadly protected from a wide variety
of sanctions. Compensation for retaliation is limited in cases of dismissal and
discriminations; financial rewards or
qui tam would not be admitted by the legal culture.
There is no independent authority that would ensure investigations or systematic data
collections. Since the
CNIL Guidelines for the Implementation of Whistleblowing Systems (2005), 2320 firms have furthermore adopted a facultative whistleblowing system, which
scope was in 2010 strictly limited to financial wrongdoing. In the meanwhile, the American
Sarbanes- Oxley Act (SOX) was violently taunted in the press; firms were brought into courts
and protection of personal data bitterly discussed. Confidentiality is recommended,
anonymous report not encouraged.
1http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=BF626E28237677383CB3B788F7811FE3.tpdjo02v_3
?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000524023&categorieLien=id
3
Among the 60 countries which yet adopted comprehensive or sectoral laws on
whistleblowing, this selective choice to protect the private employee but not the civil
servant
is peculiar to France. An OECD report on the fight anti-corruption checked recently
off the lack of disclosures by French civil servants, which can be related to the insufficient
protection and the dissuasive example of ostracized servants.
Cultural barriers against whistleblowing are high: whatever political (former Nazi-occupied
country), religious (Catholic
primum non nocere) or sociological (a kingly public service, a
popular acceptance of the fraud). Still in 2007, a senior official described whistleblowing as
Nazi denouncement or “social gangrene which paves the way of populism”. As long as no
clear distinction separates the “whistleblower” (public interest) from the “sneak” (private
interest) , should whistleblowers remain negatively seen as “crows” (writers of poison-pen
letters), “sneaks” or “informers” Furthermore whistleblowing systems were first be seen by
trade-unions as “exogenous”, imported from USA (SOX) to the detriment of the unions and
the advantage of investors.
In the occidental context of public interest and individual responsibility disintegration, a
social and corporate demand for ethics, business ethics and corporate social responsibility
increased in the 20 last years, whether
fashionable, whether
greenwashing, whether
strong
normative need
from citizens and organizations in front of a globalization governed by
greed.
At the bridge of social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance it tended
to a formalization of ethics through corporate charters and codes before or after the SOX. It
did more recently tend to a discursive will of a renovated political life.
TI France reports to enhance whistleblowing since 2004 remained confidential, but partly
inspired the guidelines of the CNIL (2005), the first reports to the Labour Minister Gérard
Larcher (2007) or the Environment Minister Corinne Lepage (2008), both of them issued
following crises worsening. They got more coverage in the press and more support from
NGO (Anticor, Fondation des Sciences citoyennes), trade-unions (CFDT cadres, Uni Global
Union) or political parties (Greens) during the last presidential campaign. Increase of public
scandals (AZF, Madoff, Kerviel, Mediator) and some charismatic scientists whistleblowers led
very recently to change the image of the whistleblower from negative into ambivalent.
In 2007, the French Terminology and Neology Committee translated whistleblowing as
“alerte professionnelle” like trade-unions. In 2008, the French Labour Ministry translated it
as “dénonciation”(DGT 2008/22). NGO, Universities or press tend now like TI France to use
“alerte éthique” as the disclosure involves more than employees and “signalement” as for
children abuses. Research and publications remain deficient. Trade-unions published in 2005
guidelines for “unpleasant” whistleblowing systems, in 2010 a special issue about
whistleblowing and best practices, in 2012 a
Manifesto for a responsible management in a
time of crisis (Uni Europa Cadres) which recommends inscribing a right to alert in
international conventions. Union teams however remain negative by fear of bankruptcy and
unemployment. Whistleblowing definition by TI France (2004, 2012) has been broadly
adopted.
4
The French government unlike his partners did not yet begin to work on the subject, despite
the reports Larcher (2007) or Lepage (2008), despite the Council of Europe Resolution 1729
and Recommendation 1916 (2010) and despite the commitment in the Seoul G20 Anti-
Corruption Action Plan (2010) to enact and implement whistleblower protection rules by the
end of 2012. Only the Green Party issued on 28 August 2012 a proposal to protect public and
private employees from retaliation if they disclose with good faith serious health and
environmental risks.
2. French legislation
In
Enhancing whistleblowing (2004), TI France reported the lack of a right to alert in the Civil
Code as well as a right to alert for wrongdoing in Labour Law ( including a right to refuse
participation and the protection for the whistleblower), and the lack in Criminal Code of
penalty for retaliation and interference.
While the statuses of the public administration contain provisions which should protect the
civil servants who denounce criminal or punishable facts, their effectiveness remains denied.
While sectoral laws protect freedom of expression, health and safety of the private
employee or punish sexual or moral discriminations, there was no legal protection for the
disclosure of wrongdoing until the law enacted on 13th November 2007, effective on 1rst
March 2008, which creates the article L 1161-1 of the Labour Law.
Criminal Law / Public sector
In accordance with article 402 of the Criminal Code, the civil servant has the legal duty to
denounce to the State Prosecutor crimes or offenses he should be aware of in his office.
In accordance with article 11 of the statuses of the public administration (article 11 du titre I
du Statut général des fonctionnaires3) “ the Nation has the legal duty to protect civil
servants against threats, violence, assaults, injury, defamation or insults that should occur
within their office, and to compensate eventual damages “. For the administrative
jurisprudence this list is open, and protection should include any attack.
In accordance with the abovementioned article 40, any civil servant could therefore consider
that he is protected by article 11 in case of retaliation. However, TI Report underlined some
limits (administrative slowness, respect for hierarchy) in 2004. A 2012 academic study 4
proved furthermore the discordance between article 40 and the legal duty of reserve of the
2http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154&idArticle=LEGIAR
TI000006574932&dateTexte=20080521
3http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessionid=33A8FC27ACC48B4D93D627976905EC06.tpdjo08v
_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000024040127&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068812&dateTexte=20120523
4 S.Pringault : « l’obligation de réserve des agents publics face au devoir de dénonciation d’infractions pénales.
Une inadaptation du droit français.
Droit administratif n°4, avril 2012, étude 8.
5
civil servant and recommended the revision of article 40 in the spirit of the European human
rights court. According to witnesses to courts, TI France and NGO, civil servants who
disclosed illegal or dangerous facts did take early [compulsory] retirements, were dismissed
or ostracized and contract workers (20% of the personnel) not renewed or dismissed
without possible reinstatement.
The
2007 Anti-corruption Act should be extended to the public sector, or the statuses of the
public administration (guaranties) completed by an article 6 septiès that would protect civil
servants from retaliation or any discrimination in case of whistleblowing, as article 6 to 6
sexiès do from other discriminations.
Labour Law / private sector
- The
2007 Anti-corruption Act (la loi n°2007- 1598 du 13 novembre 2007 relative à la
lutte contre la corruption5),
effective 1rst March 2008, gives protection from any retaliation or discrimination to
employee of the private sector as well as industrial and commercial public bodies (EPIC),
who reports with good faith wrongdoing (article L 1161-1).
The scope of this protection includes recruiting procedures. The burden of proof lies with
the employer to show that the reprisal is not related to the disclosure (reverse burden of
proof).
The law does not mention or define « whistleblowing » or « whistlerblower ». The law does
not precise “wrongdoing” (faits de corruption). No protection of the identity of the
whistleblower. No mention to internal or external reporting channels. There is no
independent authority that would ensure investigation and follow-up, or data collection or
independent review. No jurisprudence is available.
- Other laws (partial rights to alert)
In accordance with article L4131-1 of the Labour Law the employee has the right to alert his
employer about “any grave and imminent danger for his life and health”, including the right
to refuse participation. In accordance with article L4131-2, the staff representative in the
Comité d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail (CHSCT) has the legal duty to alert
the employer in case of any grave and imminent danger.
In accordance with article L2113-2 any staff representative has the right to alert the
employer about any attack against “personal rights, physical or mental health or personal
freedom in the firm” as well as to investigate with the employer and bring if necessary the
case before the court (Tribunal des Prud’hommes). In its report 2004, TI France
recommended to apply this right to any employee and extend the alert to wrongdoing.
5http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=BF626E28237677383CB3B788F7811FE3.tpdjo02v_3
?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000524023&categorieLien=id
6
In accordance with article L2323-78 the works council has an economic right to alert the
employer about facts “that could deeply damage the economic situation of the firm”. The
council has the right to report to the employer and the auditor.
There is also a right to alert in case of harassment (article L1152) or discrimination (article
L1132).
Financial code
Specific procedures exist in the banking system as the notification of suspicion : la
déclaration de soupçon to the independent authority TRACFIN6 (articles L.561-1, L.562-1 to
L.562-10 and L.564-1 to L.564-6) according to the European directive 2005/60/EC of the 26
October 20057 transposed into French law by Order n° 2009-104 of the 30 January 20098.
Whistleblower systems and the CNIL (2005, 2010, 2011)
According to the French data protection authority (Commission nationale de l’informatique
et des libertés or CNIL) « a whistleblowing system is a system (phone number, email, web
form) enabling employees to report on wrongdoing”, in compliance with the French Data
Protection Act of 6 January 1978, as amended in August 2004, relating to information
technology, data filling systems and liberties (loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 19789).
Whistleblowing systems are “neither allowed nor banned” by French Labour Law, but are
subject since 2005 to a requirement of prior authorization by the CNIL since personal data
are collected and processed. They must be facultative and complementary with other
resorts (staff representative, auditor, labour inspector).
Within the simplified notification procedure or so called Unique Authorization of 2005 (AU-
004)10, their scope is limited as follow: accounting, finance, banking issues, the fight against
bribery, anti-competitive practices (a new issue added in 2010). Any company wishing a
broader scope will need to be authorized specifically by the CNIL. (Discrimination was added
in 2011 in individual authorization in accordance with the
Label Diversité).
The CNIL had no objection in principle to such whistleblowing schemes, “provided the rights
of individuals directly or indirectly incriminated through them are guaranteed with regard to
personal data protection rules. In fact, such individuals, in addition to the rights which they
are granted under labour law if disciplinary actions are initiated against them, are entitled to
6 http://www.economie.gouv.fr/tracfin
7 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:309:0015:0036:fr:PDF
8http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=19ECE43F9023EF8716BFFE50EBA3D6BB.tpdjo03v
_2?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020176088&dateTexte=20090131
9http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=DE371AA70291C04E4DF21B3CF88BD7B8.tpdjo02v
_3?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068624&dateTexte=20120523
10 http://www.cnil.fr/en-savoir-plus/deliberations/deliberation/delib/83/
7
specific rights under the French Data Protection Act or under Directive 95/46/EC of 24
October 1995 when data relating to them are processed : right to such data being collected
fairly; right to be informed that such data is being processed (article L1321-3, Labour Law);
right to object to such processing for legitimate reasons; right to have any inaccurate,
incomplete, ambiguous or outdated information rectified or removed”.
Therefore in the name of the law 1978 and worker privacy, the CNIL first refused in 2005 two
systems whereas they may exclude individuals from the benefit of a right or of their
employment contract in the absence of any specific legal provision. Therefore trade-unions
opposed to these schemes. This opposition did in peculiar not allow firms to comply with
international conventions against corruption as well as with the American SOX. Through TI
France and The corporate responsibility observatory intercession, a modus vivendi was
found and the simplified notification procedure AU-004 adopted on 10th November 2005,
with a set of rules11 in accordance with article 25-I 4°12 of the French Data Protection Act.
Although the CNIL mentioned that these systems should primarily dedicated to accounting,
finance, banking and bribery issues, in 2005 the CNIL also added any violation in general
which would be detrimental to the company or to “the moral or physical integrity of its
employees”. This relative broad interpretation was challenged by the French case-law: in
particular, on December 8, 2009 the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) ruled
severely against the firm Dassault. With its October 14, 2010 deliberation, the CNIL removed
consequently from the permitted scope of reporting this provision that has caused
misunderstandings (and court actions). In fact, although whistleblowers systems and the
American SOX were harm attacked in the press and by trade-unions, courts actions were all
brought in cases where they extended beyond the (financial) scope of the CNIL (or the SOX)
including for example behaviors.
Conditions for the AU-004:
- a complementary scheme, with limited scope, allowed only in 5 cases in accordance with
the article 7 of the law 1978. Among them,
legitimates interest.
- a facultative (not compulsory) one ; no sanction against the worker ;
- legal extensive information : categories of personnel affected by the system, identity of
the responsible , scope, sanctions against slanderous accusations (article 32) ;
- respect of the rights to object and rectify (articles 39 and 40) ;
- international cooperation : any transfer of data to a country must provide an
equivalent level of data protection to the UE;
- limited data storage period (2 months), immediate destruction of unsubstantial reports
11 http://www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/documents/La_CNIL/actualite/CNIL-docori-10112005.pdf
12http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessionid=FF1B7F19EAE0446E18D0C39213BE6C71.tp
djo02v_3?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006528109&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068624&dateTexte=20080522
8
Slanderous accusations are punished in accordance with the article 226-10 of the Criminal
Code. Regarding the duty of loyalty towards the firm (article 1382 of the Civil Code), the
Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) by a decision on July 12, 2006 admitted the disclosure of
wrongdoing by a employee in cases where wrongdoing is proved or report made in good
faith.
Since 2005, the AU-004 under the control of the CNIL allows compliance with the section
301(4) of the SOX and since 2010 with the so called “Japanese SOX”. It does not allow the
compliance with the
Anti-Bribery Act (UK, 2012)
_______________________________________________
In conclusion, regarding TI guidelines for whistleblowing legislation as well as Council of
Europe Recommendation 1729 (2010), the French whistleblower legislation is late (2007)
and limited, both limited to the private sector and, in the private sector, to the financial
field.
3. Perceptions and political will
Within a culture in which disclosure is usually seen as denouncement, three periods can be
distinguished in public perception and press:
- relative indifference and silence in the time 1990 to 2005 when companies adopted
ethics charters and codes (with participation of unions), with the aim of improving
corporate responsibility and risk management;
- violent public vomiting and press outcry from 2005 to 2009 against whistleblowing
and systems made obligatory by the American SOX; court actions before and after
the CNIL Unique Authorization (mostly from unions) against whistleblowing systems
which in fact extended far beyond the financial scope of the SOX or the AU-004 and
seemed to attack human rights and worker privacy and dignity;
- public and press ambivalence since 2010 due to financial and environmental crises
increase and to positive figures of some whistleblowers (mostly scientists) ; recent
reversal of opinion due to the Mediator case and the doctor Irène Frachon.
In the gap of the law and confronted with brutal management changes and crises
(complexity, elite crise, truth crise) due to globalization, some French firms adopted since
1990 ethics charters and codes, with the aim of improving corporate governance, corporate
social and environmental responsibility and risk management. In this trend of ethics
formalization strengthened by scandals as Enron, TI France issued its report
Enhancing
whistleblowing (2004). Through the American SOX, because of its press outcry in 2005,
9
charters and codes got control and restriction with the AU-004 of 10th October 2005 – in
peculiar if whistleblowing systems became obligatory (American subsidiaries and rated
firms), and even if anterior charters remained leaning against internal codes.
Confronted with this gap of the law and the so-called maladjustment of whistleblowing to
French culture, confronted with the press violence illustrated by titles as« the right to sneak
will not cross the Atlantic Ocean”, the Labour Minister Gérard Larcher Larcher ordered the
21th of December 2005 a report on
“Ethics charters, whistleblowing and French law” with
the aim of making regulations, report partly inspired by TI France proposals and that issued
on January 2007. On 13th November 2007 the first whistleblowing legislation (private
sector) was enacted. In 2008, a General Directive was issued by the Labour Ministry. In the
meanwhile, firms with whistlblowing systems extended beyond accounting and financial
scope, within the CNIL Unique Authorization or not, were brought to courts. The CNIL
modified consequently in 2010 its Unique Authorization, removing “the vital interest of the
business or the physical or moral integrity of employees”. Anonymous reports and hotlines
were reviled. On the other hand, whistleblowing systems adopted with participation of
multiple actors were held up as examples (like the Shell’s which associates human resources,
unions and an external deontolog). Iterative partnership with trade-unions and attention to
corporate culture should be, with protection of individual liberties, the stumbling block for
these whistleblowing systems to be agreed.
According to the CNIL (2012), 2320 French firms have adopted whistleblowing systems. In a
study of 26 June 2008, CNIL reported the poor use of these systems. There is no updating of
the data, no review is available. No case-law is available in accordance with the
Anti-
corruption Act of 2007 and the article 1161-1 (Labour Code), even if dissuasive effect of the
law is predictable.
We are yet since 2010, after indifference and outcry, in an ambivalent phase due to crises
worsening and some French emblematic figures of scientists whistleblowers (Cicollella
against glycol ether, Ménéton against the salt lobbies, and Irène Frachon against Mediator
medicine). The report Lepage (2008), issued from the political
Environmental Grenelle, still
prepared public opinion to the necessity of a right to alert – with this so damageable
fragmentation of a right to alert by field. No law was consequently enacted. The medical
Mediator case, as public health case and because of its charismatic spokeswoman, should
mark the reversal of public opinion in favour of a right to alert in the fields of health and
safety, or the right to alert.
French press, so harsh from 2005 to 2009, even if some “incorruptible” figures of
whistleblowers were sporadically outlined in newspapers, brought into the light in 2010 -
2012 whistleblowers figures, as witnesses through public radio and televisions, witnesses of
fights and ruined carriers and lives in public and private sectors. Some articles, some reports
were published both on whistleblowing and whistleblowers. TI France issued in 2012 a
statement about whistleblowing since 2009. French trade-unions signed at the European
level the 2012
Manifesto (Uni Global Cadres) recommending the right to alert in
international conventions, even if their teams remain reticent to the point to recently
counsel the national publication of a guide for a responsible alert. Employment remains the
essential concern, the “crow” disliked. If some foreign blockbusters or legendary movies
10
magnified whistleblowers, only a French TV film with low ratings reported on the story of
Alain Cicolella.
In public administration, the Magistrature Superior Council and the Council of State issued
in 2010 and 2011 ethics charters (
Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats,
Charte de déontologie des membres de la juridiction administrative), but no revision was
planned of the public administration statuses. At last, administrative law has published in
April 2012 its first whistleblowing case study, which concludes with the incongruity of the
French law and its necessary revision.
French government is mute since Larcher and Lepage reports (2007, 2008) and despite the
commitment of the Seoul G 20 Anti-corruption Action Plan (2010) to enact and implement
whistleblowing rules by the end of 2012.
4. Strenghts, weaknesses and recommendation
To sum up, in a context of ambivalent perception, France has a sectoral approach of the
right to alert and whistleblowing legislation, fragmented by field, a sectoral reflection within
public administration, fragmented by body, an imprecise whistleblowing legislation for the
private sector (2007), ethics charters and facultative whistleblowing systems for private
sector (2005), no whistleblowing legislation for the public sector, ethics charters without
whistleblowing systems adopted by some Ministries (2007-2009), then public bodies (2010,
2011), then National Assembly (2011), a nascent academic research, a faint reversal of public
opinion and a discontinuous political will.
Our recommendation is that following the reports of Transparence France (2004),
Antonmattéi-Vivien Larcher (2007) and Lepage (2008), in accordance with Transparency
International Whistleblowing Guidelines (2009) and the Council of Europe Resolution 1729
(2010), France would enact a single comprehensive stand-alone law “covering the public,
private and not-for-profit sectors, providing for reporting channels to communicate concerns
and for independent review”, and extend the scope of the whistleblowing systems (to
human rights, health and safety, environment).
Among the international whistleblowing laws, the most clear and complete remains the
Public Interest Disclosure Act (RU, 1998).
A independent authority should be instituted.
A Whistleblowing Center as Public Concern at Work (UK), the GAP (USA), FAIR (Canada) or
Whistleblower Netzwerk (Germany) should be opened. The tragic condition of the French
whistleblower, without any institutional support, could be one of the worst’s in Europe.
In a hostile (ambivalent) context, steps therefore will be necessary (culture, law):
11
- education and formations in and from government, public and private sectors,
press and NGO starting with the official distinction between the whistleblower
(public interest) et informer (personal profit) ;
- a cultural evolution of public administration (end of omerta and vote-catching);
- extension of the right to alert the authority in the Civil code the any citizen ;
- revision of the article 40 of the Criminal Code with the approach of the European
human rights court;
- precision (protection of identity, channels, follow up) of the
2007 Anti-Corruption
Act , and extension to the public sector with addition in the administration
statuses of article 6 septies (guarantee to protect whistleblowing from
retaliation);
- investigation and follow up of WB cases by the Mediatory of the State (Médiateur
de la République) waiting for an independent authority. The Mediatory does not
actually have the right to investigate in peculiar in cases of civil servants.
The last both procedures should be consider as an emergency.
5. Sources
ANTONMATTEI Paul-Henri, VIVIEN Philippe (2007), Rapport au ministre délégué à l’Emploi,
au Travail et à l’Insertion professionnelle des jeunes, Charte d’éthique, alerte professionnelle
et droit du travail français : état des lieux et perspective, Rapport au gouvernement, La
documentation française, Paris.
CERCLE ETHIQUE DES AFFAIRES (2005) « Whistleblowing : quel système d’alerte éthique
pour les entreprisesfrançaises »,
Les cahiers de l’éthique, Paris.
CHARREIRE PETIT Sandra, Joëlle SURPLY (2008), « Du whistleblowing à l’américaine à l’alerte
éthique à la française: enjeux et perspectives pour le gouvernement d’entreprise »,
M@n@gement, vol 11, n° 2, p. 113-135.
CHATEAUREYNAUD Francis, TORNY Didier (1999), Les
sombres précurseurs, une sociologie
pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque, Édition de l’EHESS, Paris.
CFDT Cadres (2010)
« Dénoncer ou alerter ? », revue Cadres n° 439, juin.
CNIL (2005 et 2010), Document d’orientation adopté par la commission le 10 novembre
2005 pour la mise en place de dispositifs d’alerte professionnelle conformes à la loi du 6
janvier 1978 modifiée en août 2004, relative à l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés,
Paris.
DGT (2008), Circulaire ministérielle DGT 2008/22 du 19 novembre 2008 relative aux chartes
éthiques, dispositifs d’alerte professionnelle et au règlement intérieur, ministère du Travail,
des Relations sociales et de la Solidarité, Direction générale du travail, sous division des
relations individuelles du travail.
12
DIDIER Christelle (1999),
Pour un questionnement éthique des choix techniques. Une
ouverture dans la formation des ingénieurs, « document de travail » n° 109, Édition Charles
Léopold Mayer, Paris [http://www.eclm.fr/fileadmin/administration/pdf_livre/237.pdf]
DIDIER Christelle (2009)
« L’alerte professionnelle en France : un outil problématique au cœur de la RSE »
DYCK I.J. Alexander, Adair MORSE, Luigi ZINGALES (2008), “Who Blows the whistle on
corporate frauds?”
FAYOL François (2002), « Droit d’alerte et whistleblowing. Donner du sens et négocier »,
Revue Cadres-Cfdt, n° 414, p. 37-42.
FAYOL François (2007), « Construire et garantir la responsabilité sociale des cadres. La place
du droit »,
semaine sociale Lamy, supplément du 4 juin 2007, n° 1310, p. 39-44.
FLAMENT Laurent, Philippe THOMAS (2005), « Le « whistleblowing » : à propos de la licéité
des systèmes d’alerte éthique »,
La semaine juridique sociale, 18 octobre 2005, n° 17, p.
1277.
FORCE OUVRIERE (2005) « Les systèmes d’alerte éthique. Une conception bien désagréable
de la démocratie en entreprise »,
InFOjuridique, n° 50, juin.
IRIBANE (D’) Philippe (2002), « La légitimité de l’entreprise comme acteur éthique aux États-
Unis et en France »,
Revue française de gestion, septembre-octobre, p. 23-39.
LEPAGE Corinne (2008),
Mission Lepage, Rapport final phase 1,
http://www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Mission_Corinne_Lepage_Rapport_Fi
nal_cle11b4d5.pdf
MERCIER Samuel (1997),
Une contribution à la politique de formalisation de l’éthique dans
les grandes entreprises, Thèse en sciences de gestion, Université Paris IX dauphine. [www.e-
rh.org/documents/these Mercier.pdf].
MEYER Nicole-Marie (2010)
« Alerte éthique et service public : un malentendu français ? » [www.transparence-
france.org]
MEYER Nicole-Marie (2012)
« Le droit d’alerte depuis 2009 »,
in Lettre n°53 TI France juillet 2012, p 6-7
[www.tranparence-france.org]
MEYER Nicole-Marie (2012)
« Le droit d’alerte concerne aussi les fonctionnaires »,
Revue Acteurs publics, n°septembre
PRINGAULT Stephen (2012)
« L'obligation de réserve des agents publics face au devoir de dénonciation d'infractions
pénales. Une inadaptation du droit français à la problématique du whistleblowing » :
Revue Droit administratif n°4, avril 2012, étude 8, p.13.
RACINE Louis (1990), « Déontologie et éthique de l’ingénierie »,
Ethica, vol. 2, n° 1.
SAINT REMY Hortense (2010)
« Le sort du whistleblowing en France »,
Les brèves juridiques, n°74, octobre [www.avens.fr]
SERVIERE Samuel Frédéric (2011)
« Whistleblowing / Alerte éthique dans l’administration », novembre [www.ifrap.org]
SENDEN Lynda (2004),
Soft Law in European Community Law, Hart Publishing, Portland,
Oregon.
TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL (France) (2004),
Favoriser le déclenchement d’alerte en
France, Paris.
13
WRIGHT Katie (2008), “Towards a Cultural Sociology of Whistleblowing”
Re-Imagining S
Sociology, Refereed Proceedings of the Australian Sociological Association, Melbourne.
V. Charts.
Loi n°2007-1598 du 13 novembre 2007 relative à la lutte anti-corruption
___________________________________________________________
Yes
No
Partial
Notes
Broad definition of
x
whistleblowing
Broad definition of
x
No mention. An employee who reports on curruption
whistleblower
Broad definition of
retribution protection
Internal reporting
x
No mention
mechanism
External reporting
x
No mention
mechanism
Whistleblower
No mention
participation
Rewards
x
Against legal culture
system
Protection of
No mention
confidentiality
Anonymous reports
Against legal culture, but no mention
accepted
No sanctions for
x
In good faith
misguided reporting
Whistleblower
x
complaints authority
Genuine day
x
in court
Full range of remedies
x
Penalties for
x
retaliation
Involvement of
No mention
multiple actors
14