IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v8y2018i3p30-d156383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whistleblowing from an International Perspective: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Arrangements

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Loyens

    (School of Governance, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Wim Vandekerckhove

    (Department of Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim Loyens & Wim Vandekerckhove, 2018. "Whistleblowing from an International Perspective: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Arrangements," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:3:p:30-:d:156383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/3/30/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/3/30/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcia Miceli & Janet Near & Terry Dworkin, 2009. "A Word to the Wise: How Managers and Policy-Makers can Encourage Employees to Report Wrongdoing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 379-396, May.
    2. Marcia P. Miceli & Janet P. Near & Charles R. Schwenk, 1991. "Who Blows the Whistle and Why?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 45(1), pages 113-130, October.
    3. Björn FASTERLING & David LEWIS, 2014. "Leaks, legislation and freedom of speech: How can the law effectively promote public-interest whistleblowing?," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 153(1), pages 71-92, March.
    4. Janet P. Near & Terry Morehead Dworkin & Marcia P. Miceli, 1993. "Explaining the Whistle-Blowing Process: Suggestions from Power Theory and Justice Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 393-411, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Judith Van Erp, 2018. "The Organization of Corporate Crime: Introduction to Special Issue of Administrative Sciences," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Laura William & Wim Vandekerckhove, 2023. "Fairly and Justly? Are Employment Tribunals Able to Even Out Whistleblowing Power Imbalances?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(2), pages 365-376, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim Loyens, 2013. "Towards a Custom-Made Whistleblowing Policy. Using Grid-Group Cultural Theory to Match Policy Measures to Different Styles of Peer Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 239-249, May.
    2. Lee, Gladys & Xiao, Xinning, 2018. "Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 22-46.
    3. Barbara Culiberg & Katarina Katja Mihelič, 2017. "The Evolution of Whistleblowing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(4), pages 787-803, December.
    4. Sheng-min Liu & Jian-qiao Liao & Hongguo Wei, 2015. "Authentic Leadership and Whistleblowing: Mediating Roles of Psychological Safety and Personal Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 107-119, September.
    5. Shani Robinson & Jesse Robertson & Mary Curtis, 2012. "The Effects of Contextual and Wrongdoing Attributes on Organizational Employees’ Whistleblowing Intentions Following Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(2), pages 213-227, March.
    6. P. Cassematis & R. Wortley, 2013. "Prediction of Whistleblowing or Non-reporting Observation: The Role of Personal and Situational Factors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 615-634, October.
    7. Seifert, Deborah L. & Sweeney, John T. & Joireman, Jeff & Thornton, John M., 2010. "The influence of organizational justice on accountant whistleblowing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 707-717, October.
    8. Logan L. Watts & M. Ronald Buckley, 2017. "A Dual-Processing Model of Moral Whistleblowing in Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 669-683, December.
    9. Kaptein, S.P., 2009. "From Inaction to External Whistleblowing: The Influence of the Ethical Culture of Organizations on Employee Responses to Observed Wrongdoing," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-047-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Brennan, Niamh & Kelly, John, 2007. "A study of whistleblowing among trainee auditors," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 61-87.
    11. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, 2021. "To Blow or Not to Blow the Whistle: The Role of Rationalization in the Perceived Seriousness of Threats and Wrongdoing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 517-535, March.
    12. Hayden Teo & Donella Caspersz, 2011. "Dissenting Discourse: Exploring Alternatives to the Whistleblowing/Silence Dichotomy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 237-249, December.
    13. Franziska Zuber, 2015. "Spread of Unethical Behavior in Organizations: A Dynamic Social Network Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 151-172, September.
    14. Wim Vandekerckhove, 2022. "Is It Freedom? The Coming About of the EU Directive on Whistleblower Protection," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 1-11, August.
    15. Saera R. Khan & Lauren C. Howe, 2021. "Concern for the Transgressor’s Consequences: An Explanation for Why Wrongdoing Remains Unreported," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(2), pages 325-344, October.
    16. Valentine, Sean & Godkin, Lynn, 2019. "Moral intensity, ethical decision making, and whistleblowing intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 277-288.
    17. Sebastian Krügel & Matthias Uhl, 2023. "Internal whistleblowing systems without proper sanctions may backfire," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(8), pages 1355-1383, October.
    18. Shimon Udovik, 2011. "Fear and Anxiety: effective managerial tools or harmful and jeopardizing factors?," Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, Far East Research Centre, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, November.
    19. Thomas Olesen, 2022. "The Birth of an Action Repertoire: On the Origins of the Concept of Whistleblowing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 13-24, August.
    20. Dilek Nayir & Christian Herzig, 2012. "Value Orientations as Determinants of Preference for External and Anonymous Whistleblowing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 197-213, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:3:p:30-:d:156383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.