WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTIONS

Despite the widespread usage of the word "whistleblowing," there is now no accepted

public definition. The term "whistleblower" is often used to describe an employee who blows the

whistle on the company for what they perceive to be unlawful, unethical, or potentially harmful

practices. It is important that anybody who comes forward with information about significant

misconduct or other matters of public concern be protected by "whistleblowing" legislation and

that their disclosure is appropriately evaluated and investigated. Whistleblowing is defined as

"the act of reporting a concern or sharing information on activities and omissions that pose a

danger or damage to the public interest," according to the Council of Europe, whose declared

objective is to safeguard human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Europe. The role of

whistleblowers is crucial in the fight for openness and responsibility. In recent years, there has

been a growing consensus among politicians, journalists, and other civil society groups that

whistleblowers should be protected because of the value they give. Whistleblowers still worry

about reprisal and whether or not their concerns will be handled, despite growing protections in

many countries. By blowing the whistle on illegal activity or fraud, whistleblowers put

themselves in danger and would benefit from stronger legal protections to encourage them to

continue their important job.

Whistleblowing is defined in various ways in various countries. The criterion for

receiving protection is a notable difference. Some nations, including the United States,

Argentina, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, protect whistleblowers no matter what sector they work

in, whereas others provide narrower protections for public employees. In some nations, only

regular workers are insured, but in others, independent contractors, consultants, and even

volunteers are covered, too.

 The fact that whistleblowers are always in danger for doing the right thing ethically is

evidence in favor of my theory. So many of them get death threats or are themselves victims of

revenge. If the law was on their side, they might feel secure enough to expose corruption without

fear of retaliation (Kwon et al., 2020). As such, whistleblower protection should be a central part

of any system designed to identify and punish corrupt behavior. Persons who disclose corrupt

actions may put themselves, their families, and their coworkers in danger due to the considerable

advantages to the people engaged in corruption and the strong threat of criminal and other

consequences to which these parties are subject. Those who are accused of wrongdoing often

resort to violence or retaliation rather than admitting fault and making amends.

As further proof that my theory is correct, consider the number of lives that have been

spared thanks to the bravery of whistleblowers. For instance, Jeffery Wigand uncovered evidence

that a tobacco corporation was intentionally increasing the amount of carcinogens and addictive

chemicals in its products. Another person who revealed wrongdoing at a mental institution is

Julius Chambers, who did it at Bloomingdale Asylum. Twelve people's lives were saved thanks

to his efforts. There are a plethora of additional instances, such as those who would starve to

death if they lost their employment or money. Individuals and their livelihoods are negatively

impacted by retaliation against whistleblowers, and the programs designed to combat corruption

are put at risk. Human rights may be violated when retribution occurs, such as when

whistleblowers are unfairly fired or face discrimination based on their gender or sexual

orientation (Goel & Nelson, 2014). Therefore, adopting a system for keeping the identities of

those who expose corruption secret while still safeguarding them is an essential part of any

strategy to deal with such allegations. Check out this article for more information on how anti-

corruption efforts might help protect human rights. Whistleblowers should be protected from
retaliation by the appropriate organisation in the event that they reveal corruption via whatever

method. There are, however, situations when it may be argued that offering protection is

inappropriate. For instance, reporting to the media as a first choice is problematic since it doesn't

give the organisation an opportunity to fix the issue (Ouriemmi et al., 2021). As a result,

companies could be less inclined to provide safeguards in these situations, which might lead to

more reports of this kind being made to outside parties. In addition, legal immunity for media

coverage is often granted only under certain conditions.

It's possible that someone may be hurt if this information is made public, which is an

argument against my theory. If, for instance, a document containing people's identities were

leaked, the persons identified in it may be at risk. Even if the purpose of whistleblowing is to

expose wrongdoing, it may have unintended consequences. Many eyes will be on the

whistleblower and the company once they have blown the whistle. The whistleblower may also

suffer career-wise as a result of having to testify in court, giving interviews to the media, or

becoming the subject of an inquiry. A whistleblower may be seen as a hero to the general public

for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but in the eyes of industry insiders and upper

management, they are indiscreet and disloyal for revealing confidential information. There's also

the risk that the whistleblower may be banned for bringing the issue to light, so the media

attention might end up hurting him or her.

The fact that whistleblowers often resort to criminal means to get information is another

point that might be used against my claim. For many, the argument goes, we shouldn't utilize the

exposed information since we can't trust it if it was obtained illegally. While most

whistleblowers do what they do with the best intentions of helping society as a whole in mind,

they may nonetheless face obstacles as a result of their efforts. In an effort to discover a story,
the media will often investigate the whistleblower further. The legal procedure or litigation might

be complicated, leading the whistleblower to consider hiring legal representation

(Vandekerckhove, 2021). Moreover, the whistleblower may face threats from all sides, including

former coworkers and superiors. Taken together, these factors might add up to a stressful

situation that can have negative effects on health and relationships.

Cases of corporate malfeasance are particularly amenable to whistleblowing. Rewards for

whistleblowers are possible. However, the details they provide often result in the capture of

criminals. Whistleblower information uncovers around 40 percent of workplace fraud. Thus, it is

crucial to promote whistleblowing in order to reduce fraud and corruption and its impacts. There

are three ways that whistleblowing might assist avoid misconduct. First, the culpable parties may

be identified and arrested, or at least given sufficient punishment. This may include firing them

or demoting them from the position that facilitated their crime. In each case, the corporation is

able to fix the "cause." An other method that whistleblowing discourages unethical behaviour is

via the domino effect it creates. As a result of seeing the repercussions of misconduct, coworkers

learn to steer clear of it themselves. Finally, when everyone is aware that wrongdoers be

punished because whistleblowing is a possibility, such acts are curtailed. Most workers feel

compelled to report any signs of problems they see at work, and managers should encourage this

natural tendency. That's far preferable than the alternative, in which workers don't care to report

problems. There are many other types of dangers that may be uncovered with the support of a

strong culture of whistleblowing, some of which may not even be related to employee

wrongdoing, such as cybersecurity issues.

It will cost more to fix a problem if it has been going on for a while. It doesn't matter

whether the wrongdoing is a criminal breach of the law (such bribing government officials),
harassment in the workplace that might result in civil litigation, or simple mistakes that put the

company at danger (poor cybersecurity defenses). When employees who have concerns about

business finances feel safe coming forward, the organisation benefits in the long run. Third

Lieutenant Richard Marven, midshipman Shaw played a pivotal role in the adoption of the first

whistleblower statute in the United States, which was enacted by the Continental Congress.

While serving in the Continental Navy, the two men reported their superior, Commodore Esek

Hopkins, for abusing British prisoners of war. In 1778, the Continental Congress passed a statute

protecting employees who blow the whistle. Additionally, it said that the United States will

provide legal representation for the two in Hopkins' libel complaint. On the other hand, the

jurisdiction in which the whistleblower resides might have a significant impact. For instance, the

United States has had whistleblower protection laws on the books since 1978, and the Dodd-

Frank Act of 2010 placed all businesses trading on the New York Stock Exchange subject to

regulations providing incentives for anonymous disclosures and barring whistleblower

retaliation.

In conclusion, encouraging a culture of disclosure is substantial enough to warrant its

own article. In conclusion, the two reasons we highlighted above for why workers are hesitant to

speak up need to be addressed in order to effectively develop a whistleblower culture. That

includes showing that the corporation responds to reports and taking steps to safeguard those

who make them. Whistleblower protection may be ensured by a combination of technology

safeguards, formalized procedures, and educated employees. Who should be protected, and when

and why, has varying definitions depending on the groups concerned and the laws of the nation.

Political climate and cultural views on a whistleblower's worth also play a role in determining

whether or not institutions would intervene to safeguard such behavior. Whistleblowing rules are
not a perfect fix to challenges encountered by whistleblowers. A necessary first step, however, is

to draught such regulations. Both employers and workers must be made aware of the rules. Staff

members should get ethics training to help them understand the special challenges their business

faces in this area.

Reference

Vandekerckhove, W. (2021). Is it freedom? the coming about of the EU directive on

whistleblower protection. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(1), 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04771-x

Ouriemmi, O., Ben Khaled, W., & Fanchini, M. (2021). Whistleblowers or offenders? A judicial

approach to whistleblowing – the luxleaks case. M@n@Gement.

https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v24.5449

Whistleblower protections. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 14, 2022, from

https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Inspector-General/Whistleblower-Protection-Act-

WPA

Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (2014). Whistleblower laws and exposed corruption in the United

States. Applied Economics, 46(20), 2331–2341.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.894633

Kwon, M., Jeon, S. H., & Ting, Y. (2020). The impact of predisposed traits and organizational

factors on the U.S. federal employee perception of whistleblowing. Public Personnel

Management, 50(2), 258–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020938828