Search results

The European Union’s Whistleblower Directive (WBD), or formally the “Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting infringements of Union law” seeks to establish a uniform standard for whistleblowing protection across member state jurisdictions. Considering the international reach of the directive, it inevitably confronts divergent national attitudes towards whistleblowing. This paper aims to examine various cultural attitudes which have contributed to the common understanding of whistleblowing, under the directive.

The rhetoric on whistleblowing from a combination of business and national cultures is examined herein. A focus is cast on the information technology sector, which has traditionally protected trade secrecy over whistleblowing, under the guise of protecting of innovation. Moreover, the juxtaposition of American and German employment culture is testimony to the discrepancy in national narratives.

The WBD is both a symptom and a yardstick of modern employment culture in Europe. There are crucial clashes with trade secrecy which the directive has not resolved as well as an acknowledgement of the paradigm of legal thought which the directive pushes.

By reference to both business and national culture, this paper highlights the heterogenous conception of whistleblowing which the directive aims to reconcile. Whilst a vast amount of literature has covered isolated criticism of the WBD, a wider lens has not been cast to consider the pervasive influence of specific aspects on business culture.

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 study is to develop a profile of whistleblowers and to determine whether whistleblowing legislation would encourage those individuals to bring to light some illegal or unethical behaviour that otherwise would remain in the shadows.

Having identified whistleblowing correlation, a survey was carried out in Cyprus of actual whistleblowers and could-have-been whistleblowers.

Males between 46 and55 years of age, regardless of whether they have dependents or hold senior positions in organizations are significantly more likely to blow the whistle. However, could-have-been whistleblowers did not go ahead because they felt that the authorities would not act on their information.

Because of the sensitive nature of the research topic and the fact that only whistleblowers or intended whistleblowers could participate in the study, the sample size is limited as a result. This, in turn, limits both the number of respondents in each category (actual and intended) as well as constrains the statistical analysis that could be carried out on the data.

It remains to be seen whether EU Member States shall implement the European Directive 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union Law, in its entirety by the due date, namely December 2021.

This study provides a literature review of whistleblowing and reports an original survey against the backdrop of the European Directive.

Employment law recognised the value of whistleblowing with the enactment of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, protecting a ‘worker’ against dismissal and victimisation. Whistleblowers are particularly vulnerable in the gig economy as they may fall outside the statutory definition of ‘worker’ for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation. This makes a study of whistleblowing in the gig economy pertinent. This chapter explores the statutory definition of ‘worker’ with regard to the current whistleblowing provisions and considers the barriers it presents for gig workers. Judicial interpretation of the definition is examined through an analysis of recent case law that shows much inconsistency and a conflict of judicial approach. The resulting blurred boundaries of the legal term leave a gig worker uncertain as to the level of their protection for blowing the whistle. The need for reform to protect individuals in a wide range of working relationships is clear. It is argued that the new EU Whistleblowing Directive, in protecting ‘work-related activity’, provides better protection for all whistleblowers. The role of human rights in extending the status of work is also advanced. Finally, the implications of developments in this area for key stakeholders in the gig economy are considered highlighting the importance of creative new approaches to give voice to all workers.

This paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive.

With an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented.

The Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation.

This is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.

This paper aims to analyze the importance and application of whistleblowing in the fight against fraud in Nigeria’s capital market.

Drawing from existing legislation and literature in the area, the paper (by adopting a doctrinal approach), analyzes the application of whistleblowing in the Nigerian capital market.

As a result of an inadequate legislative framework (a structure consisting mainly of mere policy directives and voluntary codes), whistleblowing is seldom used in Nigeria’s capital market.

This paper extends the body of knowledge in the area of whistleblowing in Nigeria’s capital market by not only identifying the non-utilization of the concept but also offers creative suggestions, which will help it is to normalize as a regulatory tool for reducing fraud in this sector.

This study aims to illustrate how bribery and fake news in Eastern European countries can affect businesses across Europe. Countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Hungary represent sizeable and potential markets. Thanks to their European Union membership and low labor costs, these markets could offer many investment opportunities to international managers. Consequently, this study focuses on the challenge of corruption encountered by international managers and the necessary precautions before committing financial resources to these countries.

For this study, 10 informal interviews with presumed providers of illegal services were used to investigate the previously unexplored innovative research question. Informal interviews were conducted with individuals who can be assumed to have experience or knowledge in the field of corruption in multinational corporations.

The results show the potential impact of corruption on international managers in Eastern Europe.

This study contributes to the literature by examining two forms of corruption: bribing journalists to publish fake news to harm commercial rivals and bribing public officials to manufacture legal proceedings against business competitors. The following will also highlight how a corrupt judicial system can have implications abroad and what problems this may raise for mutual legal assistance.