Search results

We review and summarize accounting literature that examines whistleblowing in the accounting context. We organize our review around the five determinants of whistleblowing identified by Near and Miceli (1995). The first determinant is characteristics of the whistleblower. Studies related to this determinant examine whistleblowers’ personality characteristics, moral judgment, and demographic characteristics. Studies related to the second determinant, characteristics of the report recipient, examine characteristics of the individual or individuals who receive the report and characteristics of the reporting channel. The third determinant is characteristics of the wrongdoer. Studies in this area focus on the wrongdoer’s power and credibility. Fourth, accounting studies related to characteristics of the wrongdoing examine factors that affect the dependence of the organization on the wrongdoing and evidence credibility. Studies related to the final determinant, characteristics of the organization, examine organizational perceptions of the appropriateness of whistleblowing, organizational climate, and organizational structure. For each determinant, we first summarize and analyze the findings of prior research, and then we present suggestions for future accounting research in whistleblowing.

Whistleblowers have been credited for uncovering financial scandals in companies globally, including Enron, Olympus Corporation, and WorldCom. Despite increasing support and incentives for whistleblowing, there generally remains reluctance to blow the whistle. Thus, the purpose of this study is to review: (1) the determinants of internal and external whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct, (2) U.S. whistleblowing legislation on accounting-related misconduct and related research, and (3) the effects of whistleblowing on firms and whistleblowers. Within each area, suggestions for future research are offered.

Moral intensity is the degree of feeling we have about the consequences of moral choices, similar, for example, to those perceived for crimes, from petty larceny to murder. Moral intensity is thought to increase moral sensitivity and judgment. Because the accounting professions require members to respond to accounting fraud with more sensitivity and intensity, we examine this response in 220 professional accountants (mostly Certified Public Accountants) under a controlled experiment using two different cases. We examine the first three parts of the Rest (1986) model including ethical evaluation, judgment, and intention to act. We measure moral intensity in the accountant’s perception of overall harm and societal pressure. As in prior research, we find that the degree of moral intensity may be contextual. We find that the ethical evaluations may become affected by perceived overall harm, and whistleblowing intentions by perceived societal pressure. However, in both cases, the professional’s judgments are most affected by moral intensity. Consistent with prior research, whistleblowing intentions may involve many other mitigating variables, such as audit reporting or non-audit reporting limited by codes of conduct. These findings relate to the increasing attention paid by the SEC to finding accounting fraud.

This manuscript makes three important contributions to the existing literature. First, there are few studies in this area and Jones (1991) identifies that moral intensity is issue contingent; therefore, replication studies using different scenarios are needed. Second, Bailey, Scott, and Thoma (2010) have suggested that accounting ethics research has focused too narrowly on Component II of Rest’s Four-Component Model. None of the previous studies looked at all three steps in Rest’s Model; therefore, our manuscript provides an important contribution over the other previous studies. Third, our sample uses professionals and not students as surrogates for professionals.

Research on whistle-blowing has focused on the questions of who blows the whistle, who experiences retaliation, and who is effective in stopping wrongdoing. In this article, we review research pertinent to the first of these questions. Since the last known review (Near & Miceli, 1996), there have been important theoretical and, to a lesser extent, empirical developments. In addition, the U.S. law is changing dramatically, which may serve to promote valid whistle-blowing, and international interest in whistle-blowing is widespread and increasing. Unfortunately, evidence strongly suggests that media, popular, and regulatory interest is far outpacing the growth of careful scholarly inquiry into the topic, which is a disturbing trend. Here, we argue that the primary causes of the underdevelopment of the empirical literature are methodological, and that workable solutions are needed but very difficult to implement. By calling attention to these issues, we hope to help encourage more research on whistle-blowing.

In this chapter, the authors adopt a macrofoundations perspective to explore punishment within institutional theory. Institutional theorists have long focused on a single type of punishment – retribution – including the use of sanctions, fines, and incarceration to maintain conformity. The authors expand the types of punishment that work to uphold institutions, organized by visible and hidden, and formal and informal characteristics. The four types of punishment include (1) punishment-as-retribution; (2) punishment-as-charivari; (3) punishment-as-rehabilitation; and (4) punishment-as-vigilantism. The authors develop important connections between punishment-as-charivari, which relies on shaming efforts, and burgeoning interest in organizational stigma and social evaluations. The authors also point to informal types of punishment, including punishment-as-vigilantism, to expand the variety of actors that punish wrongdoing, including actors without the legal authority to do so. Finally, the authors detail a number of questions for each type of punishment as a means to generate a future research agenda.

When reporting wrongdoing internally, whistleblowers are confronted with the dilemma of weighing up their loyalty toward the organization (e.g., ethical standards) and their co-workers (e.g., the social norm of not snitching on peers). However, the role played by peers in the whistleblowing decision process and in the aftermath has rarely been addressed in existing reviews. We therefore perform a systematic review that identifies seven thematic clusters of peer factors, offering researchers an informative overview of (a) the peer factors that have been examined to influence the whistleblowing decision, and (b) the extent to which the whistleblower experiences adverse consequences from peers in the aftermath of whistleblowing. As peer factors seem to be important to explain and predict internal whistleblowing, researchers are encouraged to address in future works the research gaps our review unraveled.

This paper aims to explore the key factors which influence whistleblowing intentions of teachers working with higher education institutions (HEIs) in India. Both internal and external whistleblowing intentions of the HEI teachers are studied by examining their relative intentions to report a potential wrongdoing to the authorities within the management of the institution and to the external statutory bodies. The reporting intentions of the HEI teachers are measured through the use of three vignettes related to academic frauds. Whistleblowing intentions are proposed to be determined by the individual, organizational and situational factors.

Survey method of descriptive research design has been used to obtain the primary data regarding the individual, organizational and situational variables deemed to influence HEI teachers’ internal and external whistleblowing intentions. A self-administered structured questionnaire is used as survey instrument for primary data collection. The respondents’ internal and external whistleblowing intentions are measured through the use of three vignettes related to academic frauds. Non-parametric tests such as Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test and Spearman correlations have been used to test the research hypotheses.

The study has found that the HEI teachers are more likely to blow the whistle internally if there is a proper communication channel in their organization for reporting wrongdoings. However, they do not hesitate to blow the whistle externally in the absence of internal reporting channel, especially in those cases of wrongdoings where they perceive the cost of reporting to be high. The high status of the wrongdoer and high costs of reporting discourage the teachers to blow the whistle internally. However, if the wrongdoer holds a very powerful position in the organization, then the teachers prefer to report his wrongdoing to external agencies as they are afraid of the likely negative repercussions of reporting against him internally. In case of serious wrongdoings, the teachers intend to blow the whistle within the organization rather than going to external agencies probably because they do not want to spoil the image of their organization in the external world.

The first limitation is that because of the unavailability of pre-tested vignettes in the context of academic frauds, the study has used three vignettes which have been developed on the basis of few case studies. Second, the results showed the existence of social desirability bias across all the three vignettes. Also, the study has been conducted among teaching professionals; therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to the professionals of other sectors.

The findings of the study may bring awareness to the board of management of HEIs, regarding the importance of whistleblowing in their educational institutions. They should encourage the teachers working with their institutions to report the wrongdoings internally as external reporting may cause damage to their institute’s reputation. Proper reporting mechanisms should be designed and shared with the employees as a part of institutional culture.

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2011 should be amended to include the private sector employees, especially the teachers working in higher education sector. This will encourage the HEI teachers to report the academic frauds fearlessly which will put a serious check on the growing number of frauds and wrongdoings in the education sector.

Previous research studies have discussed the factors influencing whistleblowing intentions in the context of various non-academic organizations. However, existing research has not adequately provided a better understanding of the influencing factors of whistleblowing intentions in higher education sector. The present paper addresses this gap by empirically examining the key factors which influence HEI teachers’ intentions of blowing the whistle and reporting the wrongdoings occurring in their institutions, in Indian context. An attempt has been made to identify the influencing factors of both internal and external whistleblowing intentions by using three different vignettes related with academic frauds.

This paper attempts to find the essence of whistleblowing in organizational structures, to reflect on whistleblowing mechanism and the perception of whistleblowing in the working class of a country. Whistleblowing is exhibited as one of the quintessential elements of corporate governance to prevent or detect inundating corporate frauds. This study examines the whistleblowing intentions and its precursors with the knowledge of repercussions, in context of Indian employees.

Primary data has been analysed herein using a structured questionnaire from 396 Indian employees of public and private sector companies of India using, multiple regression analysis.

It provides evidence that personal factors like organizational commitment, locus of control impact whistleblowing intentions vary by the type of fraud the employee encounters. The study presents a case for variation of considerable extent in non-financial fraud and financial fraud. Further, the kind of organization the employee is working in is an essential antecedent for whistleblowing behaviour of an employee. It highlights higher the perceived power or status held by the wrongdoer; higher would be an employee’s intentions to blow the whistle against him.

It would help managers in developing an environment which would encourage the employees by creating a self-check mechanism in the organization for improved conduct and better corporate governance. The shreds of evidence show that locus of control plays a vital role in moderating the impact of other antecedents on whistleblowing intentions of the employees.

Organization’s expectation from the employees to blow the whistle against wrong doing also makes the organization responsible for protecting the employee from the retaliation, which could follow after the act of whistleblowing. Also, prompts for imbibing ethical conduct throughout the organizational hierarchy.

February 5, 1969 Damages — Personal injuries — Assessment — Pension — Compulsory contribution — Police pension fund — Policeman disabled in accident — Assessment of lost earnings and pension rights — Whether pension deductible.