Wrongdoing, Whistleblowing, and Governance (original) (raw)
Related papers
Making Whistleblower Protection Work: Elements of an Effective Approach
U4 Brief, 2008
Protection of whistleblowers-individuals who make a principled public interest disclosure of wrongdoing 1-is now broadly accepted as an essential tool for strengthening accountability and reducing corruption in the public and private sectors. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre www.U4.no by Howard Whitton The Ethicos Group www.theethicosgroup.org www.U4.no December 2008-No. 24 U4BRIEF This U4 Brief argues that aid organisations and all other public organisations should encourage staff report misconduct and corruption as part of their legal and professional duty. Protecting whistleblowers from retaliation or reprisal is a central strategy for achieving this objective. A positive management approach based on securing the organisation's best interests, rather than ethics alone, is the key to success.
Whistleblowing promoting the fight against corruption and frauds from the inside
CORRUPTION AND MALPRACTICES HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. IN THE FIRST PART OF THIS WORK WE REVIEWED THE EXISTING LITERATURE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THIS PHENOMENONS, THE MOTIFS AND OPPORTUNITY WHICH CAN LEAD TO MISBEHAVIOUR IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, HOW THEY BECAME THE NORM AND THE EFFECT THEY CAN PRODUCE, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AS WELL. WE DID NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE ROLE OF AUTHORITY IN THIS CONTEXT, LOOKING AND SCHIEN'S FIVE MECHANISMS. THE SECOND PART IS THE CORE OF THIS THESIS. WE WANTED TO AFFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF WHISTLEBLOWING; WHICH HAS IN MORE AND MORE OCCASIONS PROVED TO BE ONE OF THE KEY INGREDIENTS TO FIGHT AND PREVENT THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF MALPRACTICES. AFTER DISCOVERING WHAT WHISTLEBLOWING IS AND WHO ARE THESE "MODERN HEROES" WE LOOKED AT HOW DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (U.S., JAPAN AND E.U.) DECIDED - OR PROPOSED - TO PROTECT THEM FROM ACTIONS LIKE RETALIATION TO ASSURE THAT THEIR VOICE WILL BE HEARD. THE LAWS WE PRESENTED ARE NOT WITHOUT CRITICISMS. EVENTUALLY, WE STUDIED THE ROLE THAT THE GOVERNANCE - MANAGERS AND AUDITORS - HAVE IN SHAPING AN OPEN ENVIRONMENT, WHERE THE REPORTS FROM WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE NOT SOMETHING TO BE AFRAID OF, A SIGN OF BETRAYAL, BUT A TOOL TO IMPROVE THE ORGANIZATION'S PERFORMANCES AND ITS EXTERNAL PERCEPTION.
Need of the Hour: Reformation in the Scope of Whistleblower Policies and Protection
SSRN Electronic Journal
The world has seemingly taken a step back from when Time Magazine declared it to be the year of "Whistleblowers" in 2002. Even if the best legislations are in place, the status of a whistleblower will inevitably receive a hard blow. While employers can't retaliate directly, there is no check on unfair appraisal and deliberate over-burdening. There is lack of protection due to the restrictive nature of the definition of a whistleblower and the complicated process of "whistleblowing" that dissuades whistleblowers from coming forward. This paper analyses cases in which there has been inadequate protection of whistleblowers and throws light on scandals, political and economic, that could have been avoided if the laws in place were efficient. While the guidelines and checklist put-forth by the OECD on protection of whistleblowers from retaliation is well received, it has underperformed in expanding the scope, restricting itself to employees and the corporate world. The updated UN Whistleblower Policy 2017, addresses similar issues but faces the same pitfall of a restricted approach. This paper recognizes the need for a tradeoff between privacy and societal welfare, which is the ultimate goal of whistleblowing. The process followed for whistleblowing in the classified system is also in need of change. Activity tends to be hidden here. Intelligence committees should establish a direct and secure system for intake in order for whistleblowers to confidentially disclose information while unclassified reports could be released on what action has been taken for whistle blower complaints. Sarbanes Oxley provides for protection but there are procedural and substantive issues; problems of timelines obedience, one-sided submission, accessing witnesses and the mandatory arbitration agreement that provides as another obstacle making protection unsuccessful. Amendments to the act are recommended. A comparison is made between whistleblowing mechanisms worldwide to draw parallels and bring out loopholes to be looked into, to ensure protection of whistleblowers. However, the paper recognizes the vice of false-complaints and the current judicial trend of awarding a percentage of the fraudulent company's pecuniary penalty to the whistleblower and how it may feed other employees' propensity to complain. The paper calls for a change in the name of "Whistleblowers" itself. It has a patrioteer connotation; a simple Google search offers, "snitch" as the synonym. The study brings out the importance of an effective mechanism for protection, and questions whether the law has the capacity to bring about a change in societal perception of whistleblowers.
Speech is silver but silence is gold is an age old proverb. But is silence always gold? There are times when cost of silence can be very high and may cost innocent lives too! In such grave situations, some people show the courage to stand up and speak out and save others from wrongdoing and injustice. Whistleblowers are such brave people who blow the lid off malpractices, corruption and wrongdoing happening around them. Whistleblowing refers to reporting of illegal, unethical, immoral or illegitimate practices within an organization to appropriate authorities for a corrective action. The purpose of this paper is to review existing literature on whistleblowing and study what consequences whistleblowers normally face. An attempt has been made to examine the legislation prevalent in different parts of the world for whistleblower protection. It also highlights some prominent cases across the world to suggest the strong need for increasing the legal protection to whistleblowers and some suggestions for effectiveness. As Albert Einstein has rightly said, " The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing! " As such, it is very important to speak up in the face of wrong doing and not just being a silent spectator.
While there appears to be consensus amongst policy makers that legislation to protect whistleblowers is needed, the emerging policy question addresses what institutional framework is most fit to implement whistleblowing legislation. However, the institutions to whom whistleblowers report-which are in the literature addressed as internal or external recipients of whistleblowing concerns-have been given limited scholarly attention. Research has instead focused on motives, behaviour, and experiences of whistleblowers on the one hand, and whistleblowing legislation on the other. Particularly the role of external agencies, like ombudsmen, anti-corruption agencies, and Inspector General offices, in dealing with whistleblowing concerns has been under-studied. With the aim of starting to fill this research gap, this paper reports the findings of a comparative study of governmental whistleblowing agencies (other than courts) and non-governmental whistleblowing protection organizations (NGOs), as important examples of external recipients of whistleblowing concerns, in 11 countries with whistleblowing legislation. The study aimed to find similarities and differences between these agencies, and to identify challenges and dilemmas that the installation of whistleblowing agencies bring about. Data collection was done by means of 21 interviews with academic experts and high-ranking officials within the selected countries, and in-depth analysis of available (policy) documents and reports. This paper finds that in the studied countries, there is a trend to install governmental whistleblowing agencies that combine various tasks to implement whistleblowing legislation (e.g., advice, psychosocial care, investigation of wrongdoing or retaliation, and prevention of wrongdoing). When such agencies are absent or considered weak, NGOs may step in to fill the need. Whereas most governmental whistleblowing agencies have investigative tasks, in Belgium and in the Netherlands, investigations of wrongdoing and retaliation are done within the same department for the reason that these issues cannot be easily separated. Other agencies have separated these tasks to avoid conflict of interest or because different expertise is claimed to be needed for both. Further research is needed to analyze the effects of each institutional approach, and how to avoid conflict of interest, particularly the risk of partial investigations of wrongdoing. Our study also shows that while not many countries provide government funds for specific psychosocial care for whistleblowers, most governmental whistleblowing agencies do give advice to whistleblowers and invest in the prevention of wrongdoing or training of those who implement whistleblowing legislation. While providing important insights into the role of whistleblowing agencies in 11 countries, this study also develops questions for further research.
2019
This report presents key findings and actions flowing from the research project Whistling While They Work 2: Improving managerial responses to whistleblowing in public and private sector organisations-one of the world's largest studies into whistleblowing, and the first large-scale project to focus on management of whistleblowing across business and government. Coinciding with the roll-out of new corporate requirements in Australia, and proposals for further reform of whistleblower protection laws by governments from New Zealand to the European Union, the research helps pinpoint key actions which will make the difference for successful implementation of whistleblowing policies-at organisational and whole-of-government levels. This guide works as a companion to new regulatory requirements, guidance and proposed standards for whistleblowing policies, programs and reform. Whistleblowing is a vital pillar in the integrity, governance and compliance systems of every organisation, and healthy, corruption-free institutions across society as a whole. These key findings and actions identify what needs to be done, at practical and policy levels, to ensure this positive role is realised for all our benefits.
Politics and Governance, 2021
This article analyses how transparency became a buzzword in the European Union (EU) and its predecessors. In order to do so, it examines how the European Parliament (EP), the European Commission, the Court of Justice, and earlier European institutions responded to whistleblowing, between 1957 and 2002. In 2019, the EP agreed to encourage and protect whistleblowers. However, whistleblowing is far from a recent phenomenon. Historical examples include Louis Worms (1957), Stanley Adams (1973), and Paul van Buitenen (1998). Based on policy documents and parliamentary debates, this article studies the attitudes and reactions within European institutions towards whistleblowing. Their responses to unauthorized disclosures show how their views on openness developed from the beginning of European integration. Such cases sparked debate on whether whistleblowers deserved praise for revealing misconduct, or criticism for breaching corporate and political secrecy. In addition, whistleblowing case...
The Management of Whistleblowing
Encyclopedia of Criminal Activities and the Deep Web, 2020
Corporate scandals have cost organizations and economies billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs. Whistleblowing has often been underutilized as a disclosure mechanism for rooting out and managing such illegal and unethical business practices due to the high personal costs on the whistleblower. However, once such issues are managed, whistleblowing has the potential to be a powerful tool in the management of corporate wrongdoing. This article examines the role of whistleblowing in the management of corporate wrongdoing and presents a managerial framework to maximize the effectiveness of whistleblowing. The usefulness of the managerial framework is assessed, and recommendations are made to enhance the effectiveness of whistleblowing.