The Opacity of Transparency International

There is an important story developing in Germany about bloggers acting as “whistleblowers” for corporate misconduct. The issue has captured the German blogosphore, with the offending organization, Transparency International, now the top search request on Technorati.

The story has been ignored in the MSM and the English blogosphere, but the details are available here. The short version is that a single mom was hired by Transparency International, the anti-corruption NGO, to work part time on a probationary basis. She was then offered a permanent job for 30 hours a week at a slightly higher salary. She declined, stating that she would have to quit her second job and the salary she was offered did not offset the lost wages from the second job. The woman relayed her struggles with Transparency International to a blogger friend, Moni, who posted the details on her blog. It is here that the story gets interesting.

Transparency International (“TI”) then threatened to sue the blogger if she did not remove the post within 48 hours. Rather than back down, the blogger posted the threatening email from Transparency International on her blog. TI then demanded that the email be removed or they would sue her for that as well. A blog storm then ensued, with the German blogosphere abuzz with the story. Many are now proposing boycotts of TI, encouraging donors to stop funding the anti-corruption NGO. There are now hundreds, if not thousands of posts addressing TI’s conduct. The blogger Moni has become a cause célèbre in Germany.

Several thoughts based on my understanding of the facts. First, Transparency International is a wonderful organization that has done tremendous work for the cause of anti-corruption. No one involved in this conflict debates that fact. I have followed them since the mid-1990s and credit their work in highlighting the cause of anti-corruption like no other organization. So it is particularly disappointing to see TI’s missteps. Second, it does not appear that TI violated any laws or even acted unethical in making the job offer that it made. So this is not appropriately labelled a “whistleblower” case. It may have been quite insensitive to a single mother’s plight, but based on my understanding of the facts, it seems hard to argue that TI’s conduct was much more than that. Third, an NGO like TI must be quite cautious about real or perceived hypocrisy. It is odd that an organization named transparency is discouraging transparency in its business dealings with its employees. Fourth, TI’s serious mistake appears to be the angry response to the blogger. To issue threatening letters and lawsuits to a blogger is to risk public disclosure of the communication. When you battle the press (broadly defined to include bloggers), it is wrong to assume that that fight will not reach the public domain. So be particularly careful how you fight. Fifth, the TI case illustrates how the blogosphere is changing the way people do business and resolve conflict. Prior to the Internet, questionable behavior by corporations or employees often would not see the light of day. But today unusual behavior by a corporation or an employee is often only one degree of separation away from the Internet.

I would be most interested in readers with facility in German to outline further details of the story in the comments.