Whistleblower

General

The following definitions apply in this policy:

Competent authority: Any of the competent authorities as referred to in Article 2c of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, namely the Authority for Consumers and Markets, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, De Nederlandsche Bank NV, the Whistleblowers Authority as referred to in Article 3 of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate, the Dutch Healthcare Authority, the Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection and any other organisations and administrative bodies designated by order in council.

Interests of society: the interests of society will in any event deemed to be at stake if the action or omission affects the personal interests of the notifier and constitutes a pattern or is systematic, or the action or omission is severe or of a significant scope.

Notifier: a natural person who reports or exposes suspected malpractice in the context of their work-related activities.

Report: the report of suspected malpractice.

Malpractice: Malpractice is a violation or risk of violation of European Union law, or an action or omission that threatens the interests of society:

due to a violation or threat of violation of a legal stipulation or internal rules of the employer (where such rules entail a specific obligation and were imposed by the employer based on a legal stipulation); or
as it forms a hazard for public health, the safety of individuals, the environment or the proper functioning of the employer’s business; or
as it is a violation or threat of violation of EU law.

Violation of Union law: an action or omission that is either (a) unlawful and concerns EU actions and policy domains that fall within the material scope of application as referred to in Article 2 of EU Directive 2019/1937, or (b) undermines the objective or application of the rules in the Union actions and policy domains within the material scope of application referred to in Article 2 of EU Directive 2019/1937.

Suspicion of malpractice: the suspicion by the notifier of malpractice within the organisation in which they work or have worked or within some other organisation if they have come into contact with that organisation through their work, insofar as the suspicion is based on reasonable grounds arising from knowledge that the notifier acquired at their employer or arising from knowledge that they acquired through their work for another company or another organisation.

Work-related context: future, current or previous work-related activities where, regardless of the nature of the work, persons may obtain information about malpractices and where those persons may be disadvantaged should they report such information.

Employer: RSW Accountants + Adviseurs

Employee: an individual who performs work by virtue of an employment contract or an individual who in other respects performs work in a subordinate position and for remuneration (e.g. interns, freelancers, partners, executive directors or supervisory directors) for the employer.

2. Submitting a report

2.1 Any notifier with suspicions of malpractice can inform the employer of what they suspect as follows.

2.2 The report can be made to Edwin Verhoeven (Compliance Officer) via evnauditsupport@ziggo.nl or Chantal Goossens (Deputy Compliance Officer) via chantal.goossens@rsw.nl.

2.3 If the notifier has reasonable grounds for suspicion and they disclose the suspicion that the compliance officer or deputy compliance officer is involved in the suspected malpractice, the report is not sent to the compliance officer or deputy compliance officer.

2.4 The report can be made by letter, by e-mail, by phone, by leaving a voicemail for one or both of the officers specified in Article 2.2 or during an appointment, made on request and taking place within a reasonable term to be determined by the officer, at a location to be specified, with one or both of the persons specified in Article 2.2.

2.5 When making the report, the notifier should provide a private residential address and/or private e-mail address and phone number where they can be reached by post and/or e-mail and phone for the purposes of the report.

2.6 The suspicion of malpractice must be based on reasonable grounds arising from knowledge that the notifier has acquired at the employer or arising from knowledge that the notifier has acquired through their work for another company or another organisation that performs work for or on behalf of the employer.

2.7 When making the report, the notifier should provide as much of the information as possible that is in their possession relating to the malpractice.

3. Possibility of confidential advice

3.1 Anyone who suspects malpractice can obtain advice in confidentiality (consultation and requests for example for information, discussion and support).

3.2 Confidential advice can be obtained from the confidential counsellor (Miranda van de Weijer, miranda.van.de.weijer@rsw.nl).

4. How the report is handled

4.1 Upon receipt, the report is added to a register set up for that purpose.

4.2 The report is investigated and followed up by the compliance officer.

4.3 If the report is made verbally (whether in a meeting scheduled for the purpose or otherwise), the compliance officer either draws up a written report of the discussion or makes a recording of the discussion. Prior consent from the notifier is required for recording the discussion. The notifier will be given the opportunity to respond in writing to any written description of the discussion.

4.4 The notifier will receive confirmation of receipt of the report within seven days, in the form of written confirmation sent to the private postal address or private e-mail address they provided. The confirmation of the report should preferably contain a neutral and business-like description of the report and a copy of it, or of the written description of the report if it was made verbally.

4.5 The report will be investigated by one or more persons who are not directly involved in the reported incidents, unless the report is not based on reasonable grounds or it becomes clear in advance that the report does not concern malpractice.

4.6 If the report is not based on reasonable grounds or if it becomes clear in advance that the report does not concern malpractice, the notifier will be informed of this in writing, with an explanation of this conclusion.

4.7 The person or persons to whom the report refers will be informed of the report, unless the employer considers this not to be in the interests of the investigation.

4.8 Within no more than three months after sending confirmation of receipt, information will be sent to the notifier about the assessment and (insofar as applicable) the follow-up to the report.

4.9 The person or persons to whom the report refers will be informed no later than at the same time as the notifier as per Article 4.8 about the assessment and (insofar as applicable) the follow-up to the report.

5. Confidentiality

5.1 Everyone at the employer who is involved in a report or investigation into suspected malpractice and obtains information in the process that they know or could reasonably suspect to be confidential is obligated to maintain the confidentiality of that information, except insofar as any legal stipulation requires them to report it or if their task in implementing such legislation entails a need to report.

5.2 Information that is confidential in nature includes at the very least information about the identity of the notifier and the identity of any person to whom the malpractice has been attributed or who has been connected with the malpractice, and information about a company secret.

5.3 The identity of the notifier and information that can be used either directly or indirectly to determine their identity must not be disclosed outside the employer’s organisation without the consent of the notifier. When they submit a report, the notifier implicitly consents to the use of their identity insofar as is necessary for investigating the report and any follow-up, unless the notifier states explicitly when making the report that they do not consent to this.

5.4 Should any legal stipulation relating to the investigation of the report or legal proceedings oblige the disclosure of the notifier’s identity, the notifier will be notified in advance where possible, unless this information could endanger the related investigation or legal proceedings.

6. Protection of the notifier

6.1 During and after the handling of the report, the notifier must not be disadvantaged as a consequence of the report, subject to the condition that they had reasonable grounds for assuming that the reported information concerning suspected malpractice was correct when submitting it.

6.2 A ‘disadvantage’ within the meaning of Article 6.1 includes the employer taking any measure detrimental to the notifier, such as their dismissal or suspension (other than at their own request) or the imposition of a fine (as referred to in Book 7, Article 650 of the Dutch Civil Code).

7. Publication of this policy

7.1 The employer will publish this policy on its intranet and on its website.

Last updated: January 2024