A participative control system makes companies better

In this regard, however, it is necessary to recall that the legislator has made available a tool, the whistleblowing, which allows anyone to completely overcome that sense of fearful subjection or, better, subservience, which, for many, has constituted and continues to constitute the perfect alibi for not reporting anything without feeling, as one is, a runner or at least a co-participant in corporate (or institutional) wrongdoing.

The healthier the company, the more transparent it is, the more there is respect for the rules, the more everyone is incentivised to participate in the construction of the best possible organisation and, within this, the best control system, remembering that, in its essence, the latter is placed in defence of the gentlemen and the company as a whole.

The whistleblowing, however, which also - in my opinion, very inconsistently - provides for the use of anonymity, has not yet taken root in Italian culture, where the positive concept of 'whistleblowing' is still strongly confused with the very negative concept of 'whistleblowing': and, in fact, in companies (especially - unfortunately - if they have a 'public' shareholding), there is continuous recourse to evergreen 'anonymous reports', characterised, substantially, by their often defamatory content and of no help to the best corporate (or institutional) performance.

It is necessary to dispel the alibi of 'fear' and to remember, without mincing words, that the anonymous person usually has no ethics, nor does he or she pursue any ideals, but, on the contrary, is characterised as a highly dangerous person, with a destructiveness and evil behaviour that almost always relegates him or her to the margins of the organisation of which he or she is a member.

Incidentally, if, in companies as in other organisations, anonymity is allowed to proceed with impunity, there is no incentive whatsoever for the development of a culture of transparency, which, conversely, would certainly have the capacity to prevail over opacity and mockery.

The only remedy is, on the one hand, to encourage, or at least not to discourage, participation in the improvement of the system, also by means of 'reports', and, on the other hand, to counter the consideration and disclosure of anonymous letters in every way.

If we do not substantially and seriously follow this path, we will have to continue to acknowledge the failure of a healthy corporate and institutional culture and the inability of management to spread a climate of active participation in the life of companies, through the culture of dialogue and confrontation that, whatever one may think, is typical of the most successful companies and institutions: it is freedom that prepares the economic growth of companies and, therefore, of the market and, more generally, of society.

Ethical progress does not come through permanent recourse to behaviour typical of the past, but is only achieved through the effort to move forward, to progress, in the name of behavioural transparency and the defeat of the culture of mutual suspicion and pernicious hostility that, unfortunately, continues to pervade so many aspects of community life.