What is Whistleblowing?

Internal and External Whistleblowers

The early definitions of whistleblowing considered only employees as potential whistleblowers. For example, (Near and Miceli 1985) defined whistleblowing as “the disclosure by organizational members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organisations that may be able to effect action”. A similar definition was provided by (Ravishankar 2003). Other researchers have disagreed with this perspective since it does not “adequately portray the whistleblower” (Ayers and Kaplan 2005) and meaningful information may derive from external whistleblowers (Kagias et al. 2023) (based on ACFE 2022a, 2022b insights). Moreover, (Dworkin and Baucus 1998) suggested that reports from external whistleblowers provide “greater evidence of wrongdoing, and they tend to be more effective in changing organizational practices”. Modern whistleblowing initiatives (ISO 2022; TI-NL 2019; US Accountability Project 2015) and researchers (Culiberg and Mihelič 2017) do not exclude external whistleblowers.

Whistleblower versus Whistleblowing

Other definitions have concentrated directly or indirectly on the virtues of the whistleblower rather than on the act of whistleblowing itself. For example, (Alford 2002) defined whistleblowing as “a heroic act of virtuous individuals” or “an avenue for maintaining integrity by speaking one’s truth about what is right and what is wrong” (Berry 2004). These definitions hypothesize that the whistleblower is a highly moral individual with the courage to overcome the threat of retaliation. However, the motivations of whistleblowers may not always be altruistic. Recognizing this perspective, (Henik 2015) distinguishes whistleblowers into three categories: the “strategic moral guardians” who are ethical individuals characterized by accountability and bravery against retaliation, “fed up vigilants” who are motivated by anger and revenge, and “servants of two masters”, who struggle to uphold commitments and conflicts of value but choose to remain silent even though they may at times feel post-decisional shame. In addition, the definitions of (Near and Miceli 1985; TI-NL 2019) emphasize that, in certain cases, it can be reasonably assumed that the objectives of an organization regarding whistleblowing are to prevent or identify wrongdoing in a timely manner, to assist the recovery of losses, or to achieve another outcome. Lastly, (Fleming et al. 2018) point out that internal auditors or fraud examiners are not psychologists, criminologists, or experts in the scientific study of human behavior, and that it is not practical to identify the motivations of wrongdoers. It can reasonably be assumed that this is also applicable for whistleblowers as well. Of course, when the reports are anonymous, is almost impossible to make such hypotheses. Therefore, in the context of fraud prevention and deterrence and internal auditing, the motivations for reporting are irrelevant. Therefore, the definition of whistleblowing in the context of internal audit, fraud investigation and deterrence should emphasize internal control (whistleblowing) rather than the whistleblower and their personal characteristics or incentives.

• Cite  Kagias, P.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I.; Kyriakogkonas, P.; Sariannidis, N. Whistleblowing Based on the Three Lines Model. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050083