Organisational culture is key to avoiding governance failures, say LLG and AMO

In a joint response to the Ethics and Integrity Commission’s Call for evidence: on designing and embedding ethical codes in the public sector, LLG and AMO said: “Our collective experience suggests that governance failures rarely arise because policies or procedures are absent.”

The two organisations said that when ethical issues arose this was usually “where challenge is discouraged, concerns go unheard, leadership fails to model expected standards, or organisational objectives become detached from public service values.”

For monitoring officers, local government lawyers and governance professionals, ethical conduct was “further reinforced by professional and statutory obligations relating to integrity, objectivity, legality, fairness, transparency and stewardship”.

The joint response said the primary purpose of any code of ethical conduct should be to support the development of healthy organisational cultures characterised by integrity, accountability, transparency, trust and continuous learning.

It said the two bodies strongly supported the commission's objective of strengthening ethical cultures across public service.

But they said that while codes had a role ethical behaviour was “shaped less by the existence of a code itself and more by organisational culture, leadership behaviours, governance maturity, accountability mechanisms and the extent to which ethical considerations are embedded within everyday decision-making”.

Ethics within local government could not be viewed solely through the lens of officer conduct as elected members and officers collectively shaped organisational culture, decision-making and public confidence.

“Any future framework should therefore recognise the interconnected nature of these relationships and the importance of coherence between officer and member conduct frameworks.”

The response said ethical codes were most effective “when they are firmly rooted in the Nolan Principles of Public Life, whilst being tailored to reflect the functions, values, risks and responsibilities of the individual organisation”.

It said ethical standards were a matter of culture rather than compliance and was “most effectively embedded where they are treated as integral elements of professional practice and organisational culture, rather than as discrete compliance requirements”.

This could be strengthened through exploration of competing considerations, challenge, peer learning and reflection “rather than through procedural instruction alone”.

The response was also sceptical about the idea of incentivising ethics, noting ethical conduct “should be regarded as a fundamental expectation of public service rather than a target-driven outcome”.

Nor should simple awareness of a code be regarded as the principal measure of success, as “far more important is evidence that ethical principles are informing behaviours, influencing decision-making and supporting positive organisational cultures”.

It concluded: “Leadership remains the single most important factor in determining whether ethical standards are genuinely embedded within organisational culture.”

On whistle blowing, the response said employees “must have confidence that concerns will be listened to, investigated fairly and acted upon appropriately. They must also have confidence that they will not be disadvantaged as a consequence of speaking up.”

Mark Smulian