The organization should treat as detrimental conduct any act or omission prompted by a report that harms or could harm the whistleblower, whether deliberate or not, whether the report is the only cause, one cause or a contributing cause, and including detriment in anticipation of a report (someone dismissed after saying they will report); harm is read broadly as professional, financial, physical or psychological. The held definition of detrimental conduct (3.13) confirms the breadth: any act or omission linked to whistleblowing, whether threatened, proposed or carried out, direct or indirect, that can harm a whistleblower or another relevant party, from dismissal, demotion, transfer, changed duties or adverse ratings to disciplinary or legal action, blacklisting, harassment, isolation, disclosure of identity or financial loss, including failing, at any stage, to take reasonable care to prevent or limit harm, but not action on the whistleblower's own unrelated wrongdoing, performance or management. The convenor's guidance, aligned here with the shifted burden of proof of Directive (EU) 2019/1937, is that harm claimed by a whistleblower is taken to relate to the report unless there is convincing evidence of unrelated reasons; allegations of detriment are investigated by persons without a conflict of interest; and harm not shown to be unrelated is remedied: compensation for damage, an apology from management where it matters to the whistleblower, restoration of position, reputation, salary and responsibilities and of fair access to training, promotion, benefits and entitlements, and withdrawal of any litigation against the whistleblower, each backed by a documented process (5.1.2: the organization is to make sure no whistleblower or other person involved suffers detriment). The substance comes from the convenor's guidance keyed to 8.4.2 and 8.4.3, the SUSA remedy items and the UNOPS review of the standard's criteria (due process for complaints of detriment, remediation, disciplinary consequences, review of the adequacy of protection); the clause text is not held.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.