Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legislative framework that governs whistleblowing in the UAE.

The paper examines social perceptions and practical challenges related to the act of whistleblowing. It focuses on the effectiveness, limitations and implications of the current legal status of whistleblowing in the UAE.

The UAE does not have a unified legal framework that governs whistleblowing and whistleblower protections like in the case of the USA. Therefore, there is an urgent need for comprehensive federal regulations that will apply to all sectors across the entire UAE. Each emirate and economic zone can then model their whistleblowing regulations against the federal law to ensure consistency and uniformity in application. The UAE will also benefit from public awareness and education programs to address the conservative culture that discourages whistleblowing. Most importantly, corporate governance and culture are central to the success of existing laws considering the overreliance on organizations and employees.

The paper provides a robust and analytical discussion of the whistleblowing laws and regulations in the UAE to dissect current practices and implications for future practice.

The paper aims to respond conceptually, rather then empirically, to policy ignorance. It seeks to examine certain aspects of whistleblower protection offered in the common law countries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK.

The paper provides a four‐country comparison of whistleblower protection laws against 13 characteristics gleaned from the international literature on whistleblower legislation. This analysis is informed by considerations of the common law and corruption and critical state theory.

The conclusion reached is that the whistleblower laws established in the common law countries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK variously contain serious structural deficiencies, particularly with respect to the scope of protection and the construction of corruption. The concern is that whistleblowers seeking protection under these inadequate programs will be hurt and there will be negligible impact on the profile of corruption.

The major weakness in the analysis was the subjective and arbitrary way the disclosure management characteristics were selected to assess the disclosure laws of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK. Future research should seek more objective indictors of performance as well as a consideration of exterior indicators such as the impact of disclosure policies on corruption.

If the findings here are validated in subsequent research, then governments should urgently review their current whistleblower policies in order to improve disclosure protection.

A conceptual framework informed by considerations of corruption, the common law and critical state theory was used to put whistleblower protection in a wider context where state interest competed with the needs of whistleblowers.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the extent of protection available for whistleblowers in South African criminal cases.

This paper first provides a brief background of crime in South Africa and argues that the concept of the whistleblower is just a buss word or collective noun. The methodology of this paper consists of a literature review of whistleblowers and relevant laws that can be used to protect whistleblowers in South African criminal cases.

This paper concludes that the existing law as primarily contained in the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides appropriate protection for whistleblowers in South African criminal cases.

Whistleblowers provide information on criminal, civil and disciplinary wrongdoings. This study focuses on the protection of whistleblowers pursuant to mainly the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

The originality of this paper lies in the approach to the handling of whistleblowers in South African criminal cases. This is the first research done with the emphasis on the use of mainly the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 to protect whistleblowers in South African criminal cases. The contribution of the study is that, by using this approach, it can provide protection and save lives, and it may enhance the willingness of whistleblowers to blow the whistle, which will be beneficial to the community of South Africa as a whole.

This paper aims to explore the nature and the scope of whistleblowing in Kuwait and in the UK. Whistleblowing is when a person, usually an employee, in a government agency or private enterprise, discloses information to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption or other wrongdoing. Due to the unpredictable consequences of whistleblowing, it is probable that many employees who witness wrongdoing do not consider blowing the whistle, because they fear the impact of such action on their relationship with their employers.

The author evaluated the whistleblowing systems in different countries. He first tackled the nature of whistleblowing in general, proceeded to analyse whistleblowing in Kuwait with mentions from other countries and finally evaluated the whistleblowing process in the UK.

The whistleblowing situation in the UK is clearer than that in Kuwait. Recent improvements have been made in the UK to protect whistleblowers. In the UK, the whistleblowing law under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 came into force in July 1999 to protect whistleblowers. Kuwait also has had some improvements, which were seen to offer legal protection for those raising concerns about corruption under Law no. 24 of 2012. However, the author recommends that the Kuwaiti Government should give more protection to whistleblowers, and there is a need to protect the whistleblowers.

Potential whistleblowers might feel discouraged from disclosing information against their organisation, fearing a backlash against them. This is where the law and the rights of employees must be clarified. This paper will, therefore, evaluate the system of whistleblowing in the UK under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and examine this against the whistleblowing law in Kuwait under the Whistleblowing Act no. 24 of 2012.

The purpose of this paper is a holistic assessment of the impact of whistleblowing policy adopted by the Nigerian Government in fighting corruption and an evaluation of the whistleblowing and witness protection bill.

This paper is a critical analysis of the whistleblowing policy and the draft whistleblowing and witness protection bill. The paper combines both qualitative and quantitative methods. It is conducted through the study of the policy and the draft bill and the critical examination of the data released by the federal Ministry of Finance. Moreover, the personal experience of the authors in the civil service and in formulating and implementing the whistleblower policy account significantly.

The whistleblowing policy adopted by the Federal Republic of Nigeria is promising in controlling corruption and other economically motivated crimes. However, while efforts to give whistleblowing a legal backing will strengthen the fight against corruption in Nigeria, the National Assembly must subject the bill to rigorous debate to avoid having many lacunas in would be act.

The use of whistleblowing in combatting corruption in Nigeria is still at its infancy. A policy document backs implementation of the policy – there is no legislation or case law to consider. Thus, analysis is based on the policy document, the bill, statistics from the FMF and personal experience of the authors.

There is no comprehensive study on the adoption of and efforts to give legal backing to, the whistleblowing policy adopted in Nigeria. This paper is of value to the Nigerian Government and the National Assembly considering the latest efforts to institutionalise whistleblowing in Nigeria.

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the motivation behind whistleblowing, the tussle between internal and external whistleblowing and the extent whistleblowing laws in the UK and the USA are able to provide protection to whistleblowers. While employees need to be protected against unfair retaliations for making legitimate disclosure, employers seek to prevent irreparable damage from abusive disclosure of sensitive corporate information.

A mix of legal examination and case study analysis of recent whistleblowing cases in the financial services sector is used in this study. It ergo relies mainly on primary data from recent applicable legislations and secondary data available in the public domain, journal articles, media reports and related academic texts.

The study’s findings and analysis suggest that whistleblowing law in the UK, namely, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 appears unable to promote effective whistleblowing awareness among working adults and adequate protection to whistleblowers. The situation is broadly similar in the USA with reports of serious employer retaliations though bounty awards available there have brought some relief to whistleblowers. Consequently, whistleblowing to help safeguard public interest is not appropriately encouraged and protected, suggesting the need for further reform initiatives.

The research mitigates the limits of primary secondary data analysis through triangulation of different sources of data and from the use of different perspectives. This paper suggests that whistleblowing laws in the UK and the USA, while assuring protection for workers for reporting wrongdoings internally or externally to prescribed regulatory agencies, can in theory help the early detection of corporate wrongdoings like those witnessed in the 2007 global financial crisis as employees are likely to first witness such activities. In practice, because of fear of employer reprisals and other social and economic costs, whistleblowers frequently hesitated until way too late. The findings suggest that business corporations missed such occasions to beef up their internal controls and demonstration of their commitment to ethical governance; and ergo would need to address such issues more effectively.

The paper contributes insights from a combined corporate management and legal analysis perspective. It suggests that this type of approach and analysis of whistleblowing would be helpful to employers, employees, policymakers and regulators, as whistleblowing is a complex process involving not just the law, but social, psychological and economic considerations. The paper, by providing further insights on the motivations behind whistleblowing including other considerations as well as the impact of current whistleblowing laws in the UK and the USA, supports earlier suggestions on the lack of whistleblowing contributions to various current financial scandals until way too late and the need to review these laws and current internal corporate controls reporting practices.

To describe the new EU Whistleblowing Directive and its implications.

Describes organizations to which the Directive applies, the scope of reportable whistleblowing concerns, whistleblowers’ reporting channels and mechanisms, whistleblower protections, how organizations should respond to whistleblower reports and how organizations should prepare for the new rules.

The new Directive will require Member States to create rules for organizations with more than 50 workers, will mandate such organizations to implement whistleblowing hotlines for reporting a broad range of EU law violations, and will contain minimum standards on how to respond to and handle any concerns raised by whistleblowers.

Organizations in the EU can and should start taking initial steps to prepare for the new rules as soon as possible. There will likely be some differences among whistleblower rules in individual EU Member States.

Practical guidance from experienced corporate, technology, media, telecommunications and compliance lawyer.

Whistleblowers are individuals who detect and report misconduct in an organization. They help to mitigate organizational misbehavior and resulting damages effectively and relatively quickly. Whistleblower protection has not been systematically required in the European Union (EU), leaving many large organizations unregulated. This study aims to get in-depth insights into how unregulated organizations design, handle and view whistleblowing with the advent of a novel EU Whistleblowing Directive.

The authors conducted 17 semistructured interviews with a diverse group of organizations headquartered in Germany and inductively analyzed them following Grounded Theory. Linking the Grounded Theory to the legal endogeneity model, they developed seven perspectives that help to explain how organizations view whistleblowing.

In trying to make sense of the role of whistleblowing in the organization’s governance, organizations and their managers assume different perspectives. These perspectives guide their approach to whistleblower protection in the context of evolving regulation with little regulatory guidance. Perspectives vary in the degree of supporting whistleblowing regulation, from viewing whistleblowing as a natural, everyday governance tool to denying it and fearing denunciation. Most organizations exhibit several perspectives.

Little is known about day-to-day whistleblowing practices from the perspective of organizations. The authors fill this research gap by providing initial evidence on how organizations approach whistleblowing and the EU Whistleblowing Directive. Identifying organizations’ perspectives may help us understand how ineffective or noncompliant whistleblowing systems emerge and how organizations can improve.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and map out various aspects and key elements, which are necessary to strengthen an effective and systematic whistleblowing system (WBS) and ensure adequate protection in accordance with the characteristics typical of Indonesia.

This research emphasizes the extensive use of literature review and previous research that analyze whistleblowing as an issue and ethical challenge in public institutions. This research also reviews documents pertaining to the formulation and implementation of existing WBS. Additionally, this research also analyzes some cases experienced by a number of whistleblower figures in Indonesia as a contribution and recommendation to parties interested in formulating a more effective and systematic WBS.

An effective and systematic WBS, assuring adequate protection, needs a number of key elements which will be identified and mapped out in this research and, subsequently, categorized into several aspects covering human and ethical culture; policy; legal protection; organizational structure; and procedures and process in accordance to Indonesia’s specific characteristics.

The paper can be a source to explore anti-corruption policy and the prevention approach of corruption based on Indonesian perspectives.

This paper is a significant undertaking aimed at raising public trust in public institutions and providing adequate protection to whistleblowers. It also contributes by encouraging the public organization to prevent corruption and other wrongdoing, which, nowadays, are common in Indonesia.