An exploratory empirical study of whistleblowing and whistleblowers
| Date | 06 May 2020 |
| Pages | 755-770 |
| Published date | 06 May 2020 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-03-2020-0042 |
| Author | Maria Krambia-Kapardis |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial crime |
An exploratory empirical study of
whistleblowing and
whistleblowers
Maria Krambia-Kapardis
School of Management and Economics, Cyprus University of Technology,
Lemesos, Cyprus
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to develop a profile of whistleblowers and to determinewhether
whistleblowing legislation would encourage those individuals to bring to light some illegal or unethical
behaviourthat otherwise would remain in the shadows.
Design/methodology/approach –Having identified whistleblowingcorrelation, a survey was carried
out in Cyprus of actual whistleblowersand could-have-been whistleblowers.
Findings –Males between46 and55 years of age, regardless of whether they have dependentsor hold senior
positions in organizations are significantly more likely to blow the whistle. However, could-have-been
whistleblowersdid not go ahead because they felt that the authorities wouldnot act on their information.
Research limitations/implications –Because of the sensitive natureof the research topic and the fact
that only whistleblowersor intended whistleblowers could participate in the study, the sample size is limited
as a result. This, in turn, limitsboth the number of respondents in each category (actual and intended)as well
as constrainsthe statistical analysis that could be carried out on the data.
Practical implications –It remains to beseen whether EU Member States shall implement theEuropean
Directive 2019/1937on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union Law, in its entirety by the due
date, namelyDecember 2021.
Originality/value –This study provides a literature review of whistleblowing and reports an original
survey againstthe backdrop of the European Directive.
Keywords Whistleblowing, European Directive, Profile of Whistleblowers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Blowing the whistle on secretiveinformation concerning some act that one considers illegal,
unethical or not correct within a private or public organization has existed since time
immemorial. In ancient times, the Greeks pretended they had stopped their siege of Troy
and left Ulysses’a“gift horse”behind in which soldiers were concealed. The Trojans took
the “gift”into their city. However,a Trojan by the name of Laocoon was not fooled, he blew
the whistle, was not believed by his compatriotsand Troy fell to the Greeks [1]. Of course, a
whistle blower may well face seriousconsequences. To illustrate, in Egypt, a former lawyer,
police officer and auditor by the name of HishamGenena stated he had access to documents
that proved the army was involved in stirring bloodyviolence following the 2011 uprising;
he was detained by the authorities ahead of general elections [2]. The whistleblowing
phenomenon has historical, sociological, psychological and legal aspects. In response to it,
governments have legislated to protect whistle-blowers, and corporations have issued
guidance and codes of practiceto their employees.
In England and Wales, the guidance for whistleblowing of the Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills (2015) in England and Wales defines “whistleblowing”as “the term
Whistleblowing
and
whistleblowers
755
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.27 No. 3, 2020
pp. 755-770
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-03-2020-0042
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-0790.htm
used when a worker passes on information concerning wrongdoing”, it is termed in the
guidance “making a disclosure”or“blowing the whistle”usually about something theyhave
witnessed at work. Furthermore, to be covered by whistleblowing law [3], a worker who
makes a disclosure mustreasonably believe:
that he/she is acting in the public interest; and
that the disclosure tends to show past, present or likely future wrongdoing falling
into one or more of the following categories: criminal offences, failure to comply
with a legal obligation, miscarriages of justice, placing someone’s health and safety
into danger, damage to the environment and finally covering up wrongdoing in the
categories mentioned.
Whistleblowing is a measure in addressing unethical and/or illegal wrongdoings, but it is
essential in the fight against corruption. It has been advocated that whistleblowers
protection legislationcan be an effective anti-corruption mechanism and a powerfultool that
helps in deterring fraud, violations and malpracticeswithin organizations, corporations and
the public sector. Moreover, through its use, an entity’s top management can correct and
eliminate specific wrongdoings by certain members/employees, thus enabling them to
develop and implement the correct ethical culture and work environment. Goel and Nelson
(2013:16) illustrated that “greater whistle-blower awareness results in more observed
corruption coming to light and being successfully prosecuted.”Furthermore, the same
authors argue that “internet awareness about corruption seems relatively more effective at
exposing corruption than the quantity and quality of whistle-blower laws themselves”
(p. 17). The same authors found that government resources allocated to controlling
corruption and legislativemeasures in preventing whistleblowers are complementary.
Since two-thirds of companies in the USA are both affected by fraud and loose
approximately 1.2% of revenue each year and have reputational damage and other costs
associated with the investigationand remediation of the fraudulent or corrupt activity, Libit
(2014) proposed the use of whistleblowinghotlines.
Research in the field of whistleblowing has concentrated on the reasons for
whistleblowing (Vandekerckhove and Commers, 2004); financial bounties (Pope and Lee,
2013); effectiveness of whistleblowing (Near and Miceli, 1995); whistleblowing being a
prosocial behaviour (Gundlach et al., 2008) with a psychological perspective (Heyes and
Kapur, 2008) and consequences (Miceli et al., 2009); protecting shareholder interest
(Dasgupta and Kesharwani, 2010, fairnessvs loyalty, Vandekerckhove and Commers,2004;
Dungan et al.,2015;Waytz et al.,2013) and that it can save lives and billions of dollars of
public funds (Worth, 2013).However, what is meant by “whistleblowing”?
Whistleblowing is largely conceived of as “the process by which insiders “go public”
with their claims of malpractices by, or within, powerful organizations”(Perry, 1998:235).
However, various definitionshave been put forward in the literature. Near and Miceli (1985)
defined it as “the disclosure by organizational members (former or current) of illegal,
immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or
organisations that may be able to effect action”(Near and Miceli, 1985:4; Cited by Johnson,
2002). They describe the act of whistleblowingas having four elements:
(1) the whistleblower;
(2) the whistleblowing act;
(3) the person to whom the complaint is made; and
(4) the organisation against whom the complaint is made.
JFC
27,3
756
To continue reading
Request your trial