utes WHAT IS WHISTLE-BLOWING? The term whistle-blowing probably arises by analogy with the referee or umpire who draws public attention to a foul in a game by blowing a whistle,478 Business Ethies and Corporate Governaneg ‘as in soccer. Some trace out its emergence from the practice of English Bobbie, who would blow their whistle when they noticed the commission of a crime. Th, blowing of the whistle would alert both law enforcement officers and the genera public of danger. In simple words, whistle-blowing is an act by a member or former member of an organization to disclose wrongdoing in or by the organization. [ot us consider some important definitions of whistle-blowing that will help us better understand the meaning of ‘whistle blowing’. According to Boatright (2003: 104), “Whistle-blowing is the release of information by a member or former member of an organization that is evidence of illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organization that is not in the public interest.” Sekhar (2002: 179) defines whistle-blowing as “an attempt by an employee or a former employee of an organization to disclose what he proclaims to be a wrongdoing in or by that organization.” According to Koehn (2003: 4567), “Whistle-blowing occurs when an employee informs the public of inappropriate activities going on inside the organization.” R. M. Green (1994: 145-146) has given a simpler definition of whistle-blowing: “A whistle-blower is an employee who, perceiving an organizational practice that he believes to be illegal or unethical, seeks to stop this practice by alerting top management, or, failing that, by notifying authorities outside the organization.” Considering the above definitions together, whistle-blowing can now be defined in a long-winded manner as the voluntarily disclosure of non-public information, as a moral protest by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communications to outsiders who can correct the wrongdoing opposed to the public interest. Salient Characteristics Following are some salient characteristics that flow from above definitions of whistle-blowing: 1. There must be real information to release to be called ‘whistle-blowing. That is merely to dissent publicly with an employer without the real information is not in itself to blow the whistle. Whistle-blowing necessarily involves the release of misdemeanor to the public. Thus, whistle-blowing is different from sounding the alarm in the sense that the former releases the information that the public do not know because it has been kept secret, while the latter tries to get people alarmed about the facts that are already known to the public. 2. The information is an evidence of wrongdoing on the part of organization. The matters that cause harm to the public interest usually fall under the purview of whistle-blowing. Thus, the matters that merely influence the course of action but are not contrary to the public interest are not commonly treated as ‘whistle-blowing” =owing: Listening fo the inner Vo ice pistle must be blown wi 3. times, Members of an con Moral m, nerefore, information eenization may g “Y 80 public for all 7 all sorts of reasons. F lease, goes not constitute whistle-bh’ 0 public y lowing, with a motive to take revenge jstle against . . his rae Fi wrongdoing of a va men ; es ormer member. | a organization ¢ orsnitched by an internal men nou awe ‘al Member Riowing,” It, then, means blow 88 orBanization i ae Henization eters TB whistle eae is called ‘whistle- ora not considered whist € a journalist, social a wrongdoings of an 4 istle blowing. The oe activist political leader, : son is that such informers Otive to correct some wrongdoing. : an be blown only b: ati y by ‘on about wrongdoings informed som making it public. But, the situation i izati aie , are aware of wrongdoings in their organizations. That is emplo e, they also have obligations to determined and agreed directives, zo thro Pes eens eae act in manner that benefits the on as ‘ough the defined procedures, and action that takes place within an ae ries Whistle-blowing is, thus, an jt must be clear to wl , . Hiown. Only then a pape ard wrongdoing is to be Merely revealing information about orrection can be brought about. ae vot necessaril a out wrongdoing to an outside party ; cessarily constitute whistle blowing but simply an instance of ordinary snitching. The information about the wrongdoing in the organization must be released outside through normal channels of communication prescribed by the organization. In many organizations, an established procedure is to be followed by the employees to report instances of wrongdoings to their immediate superiors or to the designated officials, like ombudsman in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, following an established procedure for reporting wrongdoings is not called ‘whistle-blowing.” Though, whistle-blowing does not necessarily involve “going public’ and releasing wrongdoing outside the organization, “going public” is found often effective because the information ultimately reaches the appropriate authorities who can correct the wrongdoing. ; Jeased voluntarily. However, | Information about wrongdoing mus) be released é Information about wre antec nfomiationslies YONA ; Ee forced legall constitute whistle-blowing or not . "Philosopher creep Bowie (1980) contend that te Ci one istify the whistle-blowing: . al motive 1. Tkis done based on an aP nr ls of di 2 Theindividual has exhausted al internal channels . = is based on 3. The individual's belief regarding the inappropri? e evidence that would persuade a responsible person. js different for employees who, their organizations, but, at the 5: ws x480 Business Ethics and Corporate Governance 4. The individual has carefully analysed the situation to determine the seriou nature of the violation, the immediacy of the violation. : 5. The individual’s action is commensurate with responsibility for avoidin and/or exposing moral violation. 4 [EEE tees oF wuisTLe-BLowine Depending on who and whom the wrongdoing is disclosed, researchers have classified whistle-blowing into several types (James 1993). These are: © Internal: When the whistle-blower reports the wrongdoing to the officials at higher position in the organization, itis called ‘internal whistle-blowing.’ In this case, the very purpose of whistle is to get the wrongdoings investigated as per the procedures of the organization in this regard. The usual subjects of internal whistle-blowing are disloyalty, improper conduct, indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience, etc. © External: Where the wrongdoings are reported to the people outside the organization like media, public interest groups or enforcement agencies, it is called ‘external whistle-blowing’. While some favour outside whistle blowing, others oppose on the ground of morality and loyalty on the part of the employee toward his/her organization. © Alumni: When the whistle-blowing is done by the former employee of the organization, it is called ‘alumni whistle-blowing.” 5 © Open: When the identity of the whistle-blower is revealed, itis called ‘open whistle-blowing.’ | @ Anonymous: When the identity of the whistle-blower is not revealed, itis called ‘anonymous whistle-blowing.’ © Personal: Where the organizational wrongdoings are toharmone personally, disclosing such wrongdoings is called ‘personal whistle-blowing.’ Though this is not justified morally, itis desirable only when there is danger toone's _ freedom or dignity or esteem. © Impersonal: When the wrongdoing is to harm others, itis called ‘impersonal whistle-blowing.’ © Government: Where a disclosure is made about wrongdoings or unethical practices adopted by the officials of the Government, itis called ‘government whistle- blowing.’ © Corporate: When a disclosure is made about the wrongdoings in a bu: corporation, it is called ‘corporate whistle-blowing. isiness [EI CAUSES OF WHISTLE-BLOWING Be that as it may be, whistle-blowing by disclosing wrongdoings of an organization to outsiders causes harm of one type or other to the organization: Hence, whistle-blowing isnot welcome. This, then, means that organizations nee3 ie BIOWINS: Listening to the Inner Voice yyoid whistle-blowing to tak 0 am gactive than reactive in the Place. It is always bette ce Per and cheaper than cure On of whistle-blowin een eb nowledge about what act ne Way to be proactive int ee amie actually causes whistle ant this regard is to have stle-blowing in an organization. ine Ke rs (Nad ers (Nader et.al. 19 esearch eerie 972 and Dandekar 1993) causes of whistle-blowing in organizati 3) have listed the following as the Zavions: suse of official fur . Offetl powers sed 2 for private Purpos an Private gain. Discrimination by age, race, or sex, Corruption. Dumping of industrial pollu i 7 Deceptive advertising, pollutants causing harm to public. Non-enforcement of laws. Adulteration. Sexual harassment. ). Monopolist price-rigging. 11. Use of official funds for political campaign. In case of India, items 2, 4, 9 and 11 are the more common causes of whistle- blowing. 484 sual es, een anee ps S