Defining Whistleblowing

Defining Whistleblowing Ruggero Scaturro Research Fellow IACA IACA RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 05 May 2018 IACARESEARCH &SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACADEMY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 05 LEGAL NOTICE Copyright © Ruggero Scaturro/International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA). All rights reserved. Private, non-commercial use is permitted with the scope of copyright law provided that this work remains unaltered, due credit is given to the author, and the source is clearly stated. The work has been produced by the author in the framework of IACA’s research activities. The views expressed therein are the author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of IACA. PUBLISHER International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) Muenchendorfer Str. 2 2361 Laxenburg AUSTRIA +43 (0)2236 710 718 100 www.iaca.int [email protected] Laxenburg 2018 1 INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACADEMY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 05 Defining Whistleblowing - Voice: expressing one’s concern or disagreement. It is the usual way to deal with dysfunctional social and political organisations. In both cases The whistleblowing debate is gaining the means of expression are momentum not only in the anti-corruption mechanisms to relieve the individual’s environment but also outside this traditional discontent and to give signals that circle, attracting actors typically not dealing will allow the organisation to heal with whistleblowers protection and anti- itself. corruption at large. This paper summarizes - Loyalty: a clearly distinct course of how the understanding of the term action which condenses into complete “whistleblowing” has been developing from or partial compliance with its origins to present days. It will do so by questionable behaviours. exploring how the term has been – and is – Presumably, it is the option “voice” that could understood and defined by three categories be understood as the abovementioned “act of of “agents”: academics, international and dissent” and which can be related to a widely regional organizations, and those “outsiders” accepted understanding of whistleblowing who only recently started addressing the provided by Nader in 1971. He described a notion of whistleblowing in the areas that are “whistleblower” as a man or a woman who, not strictly related to corruption. believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he/she serves, blows the whistle that the 1. Academic understandings organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity (Nader, 1971, of whistleblowing p.vii). More recently, Near and Miceli (1985, p.4) defined the act of whistleblowing as the As definitions from around the world differ “disclosure by organization members (former from each other, most scholars tend to agree or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate that a common understanding of practices under the control of their “whistleblowing” has not been reached. This employers, to persons or organizations that is, perhaps, because this term still lacks both may be able to effect action”. Rehg and Van a proper technical connotation and a Scotter (2004) believe such a definition to be unanimous legal definition. In academia, very inclusive, as it permits empirical there are numerous definitions of determination of differences among types of whistleblowing and whistleblower developed whistleblowers. In fact, it refers to over the years. Hirschman (1970) identified whistleblowers who use both internal and whistleblowing with the act of dissent. external channels. According to him, when facing degenerative The reference to internal channels, however, behaviors in organizations, employees might has been criticized by a number of scholars. react in three different ways: Farrell and Petersen (1982), for instance, - Exit: the standard response to perceive whistleblowing as occurring only dissatisfaction with economic entities, when information is leaked to parties outside - for instance, leaving one’s position by the organization. In other words, as seeking a transfer or resigning. explained by King (1999), whistleblowing can 2 INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACADEMY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 05 only occur when parties external to the (Jubb, 1999, p.83). organization are informed of illegal or unlawful wrongdoing within an organization. Some scholars have developed another Further, Boatright (2000, p.109) provides for approach to analyse whistleblowing by a similar definition which still focuses on the employing societal models. In other terms, relevance of external reporting channels: “the the nature and social acceptability of the act voluntary release of non-public information, of whistleblowing might change in response as a moral protest, by a member or former to different cultural backgrounds. For member of an organization outside the instance, Triandis and Gelfand (1998, p.118) normal channels of communication to an propose four types of what they call cultural appropriate audience about illegal and/or “orientation” of society: immoral conduct in the organization or - Horizontal collectivism: all conduct in the organization that is opposed individuals are equal, interdependent in some significant way to the public and share common goals. interest”. Jubb (1999, p.79), instead, not only - Horizontal individualism: all defines whistleblowing as a “deliberate non- individuals are equal but have a obligatory act of disclosure” that “is made by tendency to be self-reliant and do not a person who has or had privileged access to share common goals. data or information of an organization” but - Vertical collectivism: individuals tend also differentiates whistleblowing from the to sacrifice individual goals for the act of informing in general “if the term is to pursuit of loyalty to and respect of a have and convey particular significance”. He hierarchical system. continues by affirming that whistleblowing is - Vertical individualism: individuals distinguishable from some types of informing are self-reliant and tend to move up in because the disclosure is an indictment, as it the hierarchy as a result of identifies perceived wrongdoing, typically a competitions with other individuals. bad news message about misconduct, incompetence, and fraud (Jubb, 1999). Along By further elaborating on this framework, the lines of the Hirschman argument, Jubb most scholars tend to agree on the general agrees with defining whistleblowing as an act assumption that collectivist cultures generally of dissent and further elaborates on a discourage whistleblowing. Collectivists, in concept which can be seen as a “response to fact, avoid directly criticizing a co-worker an ethical dilemma”. The latter typically since it disrupts the unity of an organization contains the following six items: (Brody et al., 1998). On the other hand, in individualistic societies, the act of 1. The act of disclosing damaging news whistleblowing might be seen in a more or information positive way, consistent with the idea that it 2. The whistleblower agent might be a means to move up in the societal 3. A disclosure subject – some potential hierarchy. Regarding the vertical-horizontal wrongdoing dialectic, rather than focusing on the 4. A target organisation that is held relationship between culture and the act of responsible whistleblowing, scholars have focused on 5. A disclosure recipient, for example how vertical and horizontal societies shape the media or ombudsman the way individuals report, and to whom. For 6. An outcome – the disclosure enters example, King (1999) suggests that in the the public domain. presence of vertical structures, individuals 3 INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACADEMY RESEARCH PAPER SERIES NO. 05 tend to avoid internal reporting channels and scandals involving fraud, bribery, abuse of might look for external ones. office, and other forms of corruption identified and exposed by whistleblowers. Setting aside the last paragraph which Huge amounts of money involved in these reviews a specific approach to cases caused the regional and international whistleblowing, based on the analysis above, anti-corruption communities to include in it is possible to conclude not only that most their instruments provisions aimed at not scholars tend to more or less agree with the only preventing the occurrence of such definition provided by Near and Miceli but corrupt acts but also guaranteeing protection also that, as usefully summarised by the U4 to the individuals putting themselves at risk Anti-Corruption Resource Centre (2009), it is by blowing the whistle. possible to identify the four key characteristics of whistleblowing among the This section provides an overview of how the various definitions provided: regional and international anti-corruption communities have progressively been dealing - It typically refers to wrongdoings with – and their understanding of – connected to the workplace. whistleblowing over the last decades. - It can involve a breach of the law, The focus on anti-corruption instruments unethical practices, corruption, does not negate the importance and need of health/safety violations, and in some reporting on environmental, health, and cases, maladministration. human rights violations. Rather, the whistleblowing related debate has been – and - Wrongdoings are usually reported currently is – quite active in the anti- internally or externally. corruption community. This has caused a - As opposed to personal grievance, number of international organizations to there is often a public interest include whistleblower protection in

Load more