Search results

The importance of auditors blowing the whistle when they encounter a situation of perceived wrongdoing cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, however, the initial report of wrongdoing is often insufficient to remedy the situation. Thus, this chapter investigates auditors’ whistleblowing persistence, measured as the number of times an auditor is willing to repeatedly report the wrongdoing, if he/she is not satisfied with the initial and/or subsequent responses received. Specifically, this chapter examines auditors’ persistence when reporting the wrongdoing of a peer auditor on the same audit team. Results show communication medium utilized within the audit team (instant message vs video) and client importance (high vs low) influence persistence in a 2 × 2 experiment. The manipulation for communication medium uses actual prerecorded videos and instant messages. Results related to one of our four hypotheses show that whistleblowing persistence is affected by client importance; that is, auditors are more likely to persist in reporting when working on a less important client. Furthermore, the findings suggest that client importance and communication medium interact such that communication medium affects persistence on more important clients, but not less important clients. Specifically, when working on a more important client, auditors are more likely to persist in reporting when interacting with their peers via video compared to via instant message. Given that whistleblowing persistence is often necessary to obtain a satisfactory resolution to the issue at hand, our results suggest avenues to encourage whistleblowing persistence should be further explored.

Through state-of-the-art insights on whistleblowing in India, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing.

A review of literature on wrongdoing and whistleblowing in India revealed various aspects of the national context pertinent to different stages of the phenomenon. Thematic analysis of these dimensions, allowing for a nomothetic approach, resulted in identifying six sociocultural themes common across wrongdoing and whistleblowing.

Sociocultural dynamics impacting the emergence, persistence and recognition of wrongdoing, the decision to blow the whistle, engagement in whistleblowing and the outcomes of whistleblowing encompass social relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense of propriety and fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. These factors coexist with international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and individual orientation. The presence of wrongdoing and the trajectory of whistleblowing in India are affected by the aforementioned factors.

The paper is based on secondary data rather than empirical endeavours.

By underscoring the relevance of contextual dynamics, in particular sociocultural factors, in the whistleblowing process, the paper indicates an important basis for appropriate interventions to manage wrongdoing and encourage whistleblowing while protecting whistleblowers and ensuring attention to rectifying wrongdoing and sanctioning offenders.

Apart from providing a contemporary and comprehensive overview of whistleblowing in India, the paper uncovers the significance of sociocultural factors which have been overlooked so far in the substantive area. Moreover, a contextualised process model of whistleblowing is proposed based on the analysis. In subsuming temporality, context and outcomes for all stakeholders, the model displays complexity and causality, emphasising holism.

Given the conflicting attitudes that people have toward those who report wrongdoing and a lack of empirical research specifically examining subsequent hiring, it is an open question as to whether accounting professionals would want to work with former whistleblowers. The authors examine this question using an experimental design, in which participants evaluate an employment candidate before and after the person discloses having been a whistleblower. Four manipulations of whistleblowing are used in both a within-subjects and a between-subjects manipulation. The authors’ results demonstrate that accounting professionals’ intentions to recommend a candidate for hire decrease after they are informed that a strong candidate has a whistleblowing past. A candidate is viewed most negatively, however, when discovering malfeasance and electing not to blow the whistle internally. Moreover, when the whistle is blown internally and the superior takes no action, the candidate who remained silent and chose not to continue to push the issue is viewed more negatively than the candidate who proceeded to blow the whistle externally. Although a candidate having a whistleblowing past appears to pose a cautionary signal in the interview process, participants reacted more harshly when the candidate failed to act or lacked the durable moral courage to see the matter through to completion.

This paper compares how the two interacting themes of “Whistleblowing” or “Speaking Up” and the duty of candour (DoC), which are both concerned with safety and quality improvement in health care, got onto the agenda of the British National Health Service (NHS).

It uses the approach of multiple streams and the methodology of interpretive content analysis in a deductive approach that focusses on both manifest and latent content. It examines official documents that discuss the DoC or whistleblowing or cognate terms in connection with the British NHS from 1999 to 2019.

The main conceptual finding, which mirrors many previous studies, is that it seems difficult to operationalise many of the sub-components of the multiple streams approach. The main empirical finding points to the “focusing event” of the Francis Report into the Mid Staffordshire Trust of 2013 and the importance of its Chair, Sir Robert Francis, as a policy entrepreneur.

This is one of the first studies to focus on both issues of whistleblowing and the DoC and the first to compare them through the lens of the multiple streams approach. It has two main conceptual advantages over most previous studies in the field: it compares whistleblowing and the duty of candour rather than the dominant approach of a single case study and explores the different outcomes of failed as well as successful couplings of the streams.

This study aims to examine the antecedents of company secretaries’ behaviour and their relationship and effect on intended whistleblowing with the role of neutralisation as a moderating factor on an individual’s ethical decision-making in whistleblowing.

Using a modified version of the theory of planned behaviour as a framework and a quantitative research approach, a Likert-type scaled, self-administered questionnaire was conducted on a non-probability sample, totalling 208 company secretaries, currently working for various consultancy, audit and secretarial firms in Malaysia. The data obtained were analysed through structural equation modelling.

Findings indicated that attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, ethical obligation as well as self-identity were found to be predictors in a company secretary’s intended behaviour to whistle-blow. However, neutralisation was proved not to be a contributing factor in whistleblowing between intention and behaviour.

The quantitative measures of intention and behaviour are incompatible based on their levels of specificity or generality. Also, there may be an existence of social desirability bias among the respondents, indicating the need for a wider sample.

The study offers valuable knowledge by providing organisations and regulators with several insights into improving the company secretaries’ whistleblowing behaviour, including the need to strengthen whistleblowers’ support and alleged malpractice investigation and analysis systems. It also enables company directors and regulators to implement whistleblowing policies as an internal control mechanism, thus realising an individual’s intention to highly engage in whistleblowing.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first research that has empirically tested the relationship and effect of antecedents of company secretaries’ whistleblowing intention and behaviour using a modified version of the theory of planned behaviour, thus adding to the stock of literature on this topic and showing that “neutralisation” had an insignificant effect on the possibility of fraudulent reporting.

In line with the current literature, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of whistleblowing procedures and their influence on overall organisational quality. To this end, institutional, organisational, and cultural barriers to whistleblowing implementation have been investigated.

A qualitative analysis based on three explorative case studies investigates and compares different whistleblowing practices implemented in health care organisations, operating within the Italian National Health Service (INHS).

INHS organisations have implemented whistleblowing procedures in different ways, despite the fact that the procedures are laid down by law. These differences are mainly due to cultural, administrative, organisational, and process barriers, which have a deep impact on whistleblowing integration in managerial practices and their influence on the overall quality of health processes and services.

This research paper was limited by the analysis of three Italian public health care organisations, which did not allow the generalisability of findings. Therefore, the study offers interesting insights on the way effective whistleblowing systems should be implemented in order to support managers to improve organisation’s management and service quality.

The paper represents one of the first attempts to structurally analyse the practice of whistleblowing in an Italian healthcare system. Therefore the study has mainly focussed not only on the analysis of whistleblowing practices, but also on their impacts on the improvement of organisational processes’ quality and, subsequently, on social well-being.

The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act sets new whistleblowing standards for internal accountants and external auditors who fail to resolve differences internally with top management on financial reporting matters. Whistleblowers are eligible to receive a financial reward under Dodd-Frank if they “voluntarily” provide “original” information and meet other criteria. Interpretation 102-4 of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code establishes reporting obligations for external auditors to meet the requirements of Dodd-Frank. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the standards to better understand the whistleblowing process. A review of the literature identifies areas of concern in deciding whether to blow the whistle. The paper contributes to the literature by integrating thoughts, ideas, and issues raised by prior researchers and considerations specific to the whistleblowing process. The analysis results in the proposal of specific unanswered questions about the process that can guide future researchers.

This paper investigates the challenges and opportunities for the deployment of whistleblowing as an accountability mechanism to curb corruption and fraud in a developing country. Nigeria is the institutional setting for the study.

Adopting an institutional theory perspective and a survey protocol of urban residents in the country, the study presents evidence on the whistleblowing program introduced in 2016. Nigeria’s whistleblowing initiative targets all types of corruption, including corporate fraud.

This study finds that, even in the context of a developing country, whistleblowing is supported as an accountability mechanism, but the intervention lacks awareness, presents a high risk to whistleblowers and regulators, including the risk of physical elimination, and is fraught with institutional and operational challenges. In effect, awareness of whistleblowing laws, operational challenges and an institutional environment conducive to venality undermine the efficacy of whistleblowing in Nigeria.

The study presents a model of challenges and opportunities for whistleblowing in a developing democracy. The authors argue that the existence of a weak and complex institutional environment and the failure of program institutionalization explain those challenges and opportunities. The authors also argue that a culturally anchored and institutionalized whistleblowing program encourages positive civic behavior by incentivizing citizens to act as custodians of their resources, and it gives voice to the voiceless who have endured decades of severe hardship and loss of dignity due to corruption.