The author analyses different systems of whistleblowing from a criminal point of view. After giving a short overview of different systems of legislation dealing with whistleblowing, the author focuses on the question, under which circumstances the whistleblower commits a crime, an offence or a misdemeanour in the German law system by going outside, revealing wrongdoing. The examination ends with an addendum about questions concerning German criminal procedure law.
The aim of this chapter is to take a general account of the past and current practices, experiences and challenges of whistleblowing legislation and whistleblower protection in Hungary. The emphasis will be put on the critical analysis of the currently effective regulatory environment of whistleblowing and whistleblower protection in Hungary, with specific regard to labour law aspects. Furthermore, the context, prospects and basic requirements of the future implementation of the EU Directive will also be highlighted. In this vein, Section 2 sketches the historical, societal and constitutional context. Section 3, as the central part of this study, examines in detail the currently effective legislative framework of whistleblowing in Hungary. Section 4 deals specifically with the labour law-related aspects of whistleblowing, while Section 5 takes a brief look into other related fields of law (including anti-discrimination, criminal law, and trade secrets). Section 6 considers recent and relevant critical opinions and motions for reform. Section 7 looks into the possible challenges and the main tentative tasks of the upcoming transposition of the Directive into Hungarian law. Finally, Section 8 draws some broad, general conclusions. ; The project is co-financed by the Governments of Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia through Visegrad Grants from International Visegrad Fund. The mission of the Fund is to advance ideas for sustainable regional cooperation in Central Europe.
"Whistleblowing" has entered the scholarly and the publicdebate as a way of describing the exposure by the memberof an organization of episodes of corruption, fraud, or generalabuses of power within the organization. We offer acritical survey of the main normative theories ofwhistleblowing in the current debate in political philosophy,with the illustrative aid of one of the epitomic figures of awhistleblower of our time: Edward Snowden. After conceptuallyseparating whistleblowing from other forms ofwrongdoing disclosures, we introduce and discuss two familiesof normative views of this practice: the "Extrema Ratio"and the "Deontic" views. We show how the two views canbe usefully considered in tandem to offer an all-roundassessment of the moral justification of whistleblowingeither as an extraordinary individual conscientious act ofindictment or as an ordinary dutiful organizational practiceof answerability that enables the capacity of self-correctionof an organization.
his article attempts to bring coherence to the confusion of state whistleblower causation standards by: (1) explaining the causation standards presently used in federal whistleblower protection statutes; (2) identifying the proliferating causation standards used in whistleblower claims brought under state law; (3) assessing the most commonly used causation standards, including exploring the tort causation doctrine and theory that underlie some of these standards; and (4) proposing a uniform standard for causation in state whistle- blower litigation.
This Article examines the relationship among whistleblowing, corporations, and international peace. The Author attempts to establish that whistleblowing is a vital part of transparency and good government. In Part II, the Author examines the rationale for whistleblowing. Part III addresses the cultural dimensions of whistleblowing and its practicability for global organizations. Finally, the Author looks at the advantages of whistleblowing in relation to both corporations and peace efforts.
Penultimate version accepted for publication ; Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information from a public or private organization in order to reveal cases of corruption that are of immediate or potential danger to the public. Blowing the whistle involves personal risk, especially when legal protection is absent, and charges of betrayal, which often come in the form of legal prosecution under treason laws. In this article we argue that whistleblowing is justified when disclosures are made with the proper intent and fulfill specific communicative constraints in addressing issues of public interest. Three communicative constraints of informativeness, truthfulness and evidence are discussed in this regard. We develop a 'harm test' to assess the intent for disclosures, concluding that it is not sufficient for justification. Along with the proper intent, a successful act of whistleblowing should provide information that serves the public interest. Taking cognizance of the varied conceptions of public interest, we present an account of public interest that fits the framework of whistleblowing disclosures. In particular, we argue that whistleblowing is justified inter alia when the information it conveys is of a presumptive interest for a public insofar as it reveals an instance of injustice or violation of a civil or political right done against and unbeknown to some members of a polity. ; Project: 'Change of Direction. Fostering Whistleblowing in the Fight against Corruption' co-funded by the Internal Security Fund of the European Union (Grant Agreement Number: HOME/2014/ISFP/AG/EFCE/7233); SFRH/BPD/108669/2015 ...
New federal legislation now makes it mandatory for auditors to disclose observed mis-conduct to outside agencies. This article examines this legislation and presents data from a national sample of 353 auditors to explore the level of support for these new regulations. The vast majority of auditors are found to oppose the legislation, but there are also major differences in opinion for different groups of auditors. The implications of these survey results are then discussed.
Those interested in this Ebook may like to know some of the background to its publication. In June 2009 a conference was held at Middlesex University to mark the fact that whistleblowing legislation had been in force in the UK for a decade. This event included a public lecture and attracted delegates from a range of backgrounds, including academics, legal and management practitioners, trade unionists, whistleblowers and students. At the end of the conference the decision to establish an International Whistleblowing Research Network (IWRN) was taken. People can join this network simply by consenting to their email address being put on a list and used for distribution purposes. At the time of writing, October 2015, there are over 150 members of the network. The current convenor of the network is David Lewis who can be contacted via d.b.lewis@mdx.ac.uk. Another outcome of this conference was the preparation of an edited book based on the papers presented. This was published by Edward Elgar in 2010 under the title "A global approach to public interest disclosure: what can we learn from existing whistleblowing legislation and research?" Following the IWRN London conferences in 2011 and 2013, an Ebook (entitled "Whistleblowing and Democratic Values") and a special issue of the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies were produced respectively. Thus this Ebook, which uses material presented at the June 2015 IWRN conference held in Sarajevo, maintains the network's tradition of disseminating research papers. Of course, there are other important publications on the subject and the reader's attention is drawn in particular to the "International Whistleblowing Research Handbook" published by Edward Elgar in 2014.
This study investigates the whistleblowing environment in Indonesian financial institutions from Indonesian employees perspective. Using primary data extracted from questionnaires this study to address two issues: investigate and explore the factor that encourages and discourages Indonesian employees to whistleblower in the Indonesian financial industry; and investigate and explore the Indonesian financial companys environment that affects whistleblowing activity. Results were consistent with previous research by Martens and Kelleher (2004), Curtis (2006), Hwang, Staley, Chen and Lan (2008), Dandekar (1991) and Worth (2013) in their relative domains. The Indonesian employees and financial institutions are less influenced by confusion culture (guanxi) which provides some variations in findings from prior research. Generally in Indonesia Financial Institutions there is a positive sign towards whistleblowing activity, where companies create a positive environment to support the activity although more could be done by government to regulate and enforce compliance to encourage trust in protecting employees when whistleblowing.
In October 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on protecting persons reporting breaches of European Union law, commonly known as the "Whistleblower Protection Directive" (EU Directive). The protection of national policies is beyond the scope of the Directive, as its sole purpose is to encourage people to report "breaches of EU law", ie, to strengthen "enforcement of the Union law and policies in specific areas". The Directive is not concerned with the protection of workers or employees. The Directive treats whistleblowers as an instrument for reporting irregularities. Another proof of the instrumental approach adopted in the Directive is the lack of any financial incentives for whistleblowers. This article's basic thesis is that despite dynamic and multifaceted changes in the economy of individual countries, the accepted model of whistleblowing in the European Union will depend on repeated multidimensional analysis of the principle of the lawyer's loyalty to the organization. The research presented below aims to prove the validity of the adopted thesis.
In October 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on protecting persons reporting breaches of European Union law, commonly known as the "Whistleblower Protection Directive" (EU Directive). The protection of national policies is beyond the scope of the Directive, as its sole purpose is to encourage people to report "breaches of EU law", ie, to strengthen "enforcement of the Union law and policies in specific areas". The Directive is not concerned with the protection of workers or employees. The Directive treats whistleblowers as an instrument for reporting irregularities. Another proof of the instrumental approach adopted in the Directive is the lack of any financial incentives for whistleblowers. This article's basic thesis is that despite dynamic and multifaceted changes in the economy of individual countries, the accepted model of whistleblowing in the European Union will depend on repeated multidimensional analysis of the principle of the lawyer's loyalty to the organization. The research presented below aims to prove the validity of the adopted thesis.
Whistleblowing by administrative employees in local governments can bring critical knowledge about misconduct and failed policy outcomes and priorities to the attention of politicians. This article examines whether (1) whistleblowing to politicians is considered acceptable among politicians and administrative employees, (2) politicians receive whistleblowing cases and how those who do so handle the case, and (3) contact patterns between politicians and administrative employees influence the whistleblowing activity and the action taken by the politicians to address wrongdoing. The article departs from the theory of pillars of institutions and the tensions between and within institutional pillars to analyse unique data from a survey based on the vignette method and actual whistleblowing among politicians (N = 400) and employees (N = 373) from 20 Norwegian municipalities. The analysis shows that the degree of contact between politicians and administrative employees is correlated with positive perceptions of whistleblowing and constructive handling of wrongdoing reports by the politicians. ; publishedVersion
Bis zum 17. Dezember 2021 war die EU-Whistleblower-Richtlinie (WB-RL 2019/1937) in nationales Recht umzusetzen. Diese Richtlinie will Whistleblower in den Mitgliedstaaten besser schützen. Einigen Mitgliedstaaten ist die fristgemässe Umsetzung gelungen, aber bei weitem nicht allen. Voraussichtlich in diesem Jahr werden die nationalen Gesetze in der EU nach und nach in Kraft treten. Auch Schweizer Unternehmen sind dann gefordert, Whistleblower in ihren EU-Töchtern besser zu schützen. Gefragt ist ein Whistleblowing-System und das schon in Unternehmen mit 50 Mitarbeitenden. Lesen Sie hier, was eine solche Meldestelle bedeutet und wie Sie diese implementieren.
Whistleblowing is one of the tools used by anti-corruption agencies in Singapore and Indonesia to support the prevention and implementation of an anti-corruption culture. The implementation of Whistleblowing in Indonesia and Singapore has complied with the standard of application, but there are several things that are still obstacles to implementation, including the absence of a law that guarantees the confidentiality of the reporter. This study uses a qualitative descriptive analysis method to explain the differences in the application of Whistleblowing at the KPK and CPIB Singapore corruption eradication institutions. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that CPIB Singapore applies Whistleblowing with complete content and independent application because it has a centralized structure while at the Corruption Eradication Commission, the application of Whistleblowing is not centralized because it is derived from central government institutions and local governments.
