bl

Whistle blowing:

Introduction:

No one can answer whether whistle blowing is good or bad. The problem is that the good and bad effects are in equal measures. A whistle blower draws the attention of people to any wrong thing doing in the office environment or society and just about anywhere. Sometimes this aspects cause more problems than good.

In an office environment whistle blowing is considered as wrong. If there is an issue that has to be addressed, then it has to be focused through the right authorities like an ombudsperson. If a whistle blower continues to talk to people about the wrong thing doing of somebody, then the whole office environment gets affected. Even in society this could lead to common people taking some extreme measures to control the wrong thing doing.

Also, the claims of whistle blowers are not always good and genuine and sometimes a person may be doing it for their selfish reasons. However, a lot of people get dragged into it unnecessarily. Especially in medical field, whistle blowing makes severe problems to that the field and the field has to deal with law suits and false claims.

In a wide sense, whistle blowing is alerting relevant persons to some moral or legal corruption, where “relevant persons” are those in a position to act in response, if only by registering protest. In this sense, an individual need not be a member of an organization in order to blow the whistle on it. Journalists, politicians, and consumer groups may learn of corruption in organizations they do not work for and blow the whistle on them by publishing articles or informing regulatory agencies. Our main interest in this section, however, will be in whistle blowing by present and former employees.

            In a narrower sense, whistle blowing is sometimes defined as making public accusations about misconduct by one’s organization. Yet not all whistle blowing involves public statements outside the organization. Sometimes the whistle is blown   within organization, whether in bypassing approved organizational channels or by going against the desires of one’s supervisor or others.

            Whistle blowing has not an official meaning, probably because there is not a shared and common knowledge on the matter so that, in each country, jurists and economists have different views of the problem and different perspectives about its application. The word whistleblower comes from the practices of English Bobbies whistle blowing when noticing somebody committing a crime, making law enforcers, and public in general, and alert. This is the origin of the word and for this reason it refers to an activity that must be intended in a positive path and not as a sort of betrayal and disloyalty toward the organization or the company which whistleblowers belong to. The expression “blowing the whistle” refers also to the action of a football referee when he stops the match because a foul has been committed.

However in the last years things have changed both from a cultural and a legal point of view, Whistle blowing issues concern each employee or person and all the organizations; every company and anybody in public can take risk that something goes wrong: a poisoned food, polluted Water or air, some unsafe means of transport or an incompetent doctor are just a few examples of the risks that can rise from the daily process of any organizations. Who are the first to discover these hazardous situations, besides who usually work in or for the organizations? The problem is that the employees, who are in the best position to reduce or remove the risks, are also the ones who can lose most of things from whistle blowing. To solve this problem the first step should be taken by the organizations which must establish the ideal conditions for the employees, letting them believe that raising personal concerns about possible wrongdoing inside the company is safe and acceptable, without the risk of victimization, lost of the job or any other possible damage to the career. When this does not happen, the workers will face a conflict between personal interest and a public’s one: while seeing their own career harmed, passengers, they won’t consider a priority a possible damage to consumers, shareholders, patients, and everyone else who can have a relationship with the organization or company.

It’s the important thing to consider the faith that public opinion involved toward the organizations that is why the recent scandals had a terrific effect on fiduciary markets. The public needs to receive a transparent communication, without any breakdown, particularly in the accounting field. The contrast with the culture, present law and practice across the world is clear and, unfortunately, this climate strongly discourages common and respectable people from questioning about wrongdoing they come across. Employees follow only a short-term personal interest instead of the long-term community’s one. The problem is enlarged due to the fact that this culture even marks the behavior of these employees in their life outside the company, for example keeping them quiet when noticing a crime.

The person incurring in a wrongdoing on his working place has four different choices: he can stay silent, he can blow the whistle externally or he can disclose the information anonymously, he can blow the whistle internally.

Whistle blowing grows his value as thanks to the variety of options available for the employee, because he should be free to choose the most suitable path of disclosing according to the circumstances. Whistle blowing is a positive process because it doesn’t regard personal

grievances but it refers to the disclosure of wrongdoing which damages or threatens other

people besides the employee. Therefore the real aim of whistle blowing is not a personal revenge but it is to make different possible addressees aware about some harm or risk, so that it could be reduced or removed.

A whistle blower lawsuit can cost a company millions of dollars and sometimes it may have been spent unnecessarily. By the time the company tries to prove its innocence or justify the case, they would have already spent a lot of dollars dealing with the case. Only the lawyers get to make the money in the bargain.

Example cases:
Case 1:

In March 2003, the U.K. was embroiled in a controversy regarding a civil servant declaring to a journalist that the PM's Office had 'glamorized' information in a dossier which would be later used as a reason to go to war with Iraq. Dr. David Kelly, a government expert on weapons of mass destruction, particularly in Iraq, admitted to a BBC reporter that he felt that PM Tony Blair's advisors had exaggerated the threat Iraq posed to the western world in a dossier that had been presented by the security services.

Kelly alleged that the document was 'doctored' to serve the government's political end. When the story broke, it caused great controversy, and the government carried out an investigation into who was behind these allegations. Once Dr. Kelly was found to be the source of the comments, his name was leaked to the press and certain elements from the civil service set out to destroy his professional reputation. Being in the eye of the political storm was too much pressure and tension for the doctor, after two weeks the story first broke, he committed suicide. The after this shock affair has been severely felt in the U.K., with the government being heavily criticized over its presentation, but also having a hand in a whistle-blower taking his own life.

Case 2:

In January 2004, the RCMP launched a full criminal investigation against former privacy commissioner George Radwanski and some of his officials. Radwanski resigned his job in June 2003 for hospitality allegations, including claims that he and his officials scam the money almost 500,000 dollars in travel expenses and hospitality departments, during a two year period. Other concerns that were raised revolved around two improper advances of 15,000 dollars and claim that Radwanski's staff scams the amount of 100,000 dollars worth of vacation leave that they already taken that amount. It was widely reported at the time that Radwanski threatened to end the career of the "rat who squealed to MPs" if he ever found out who it was. This case and the threats made to the whistle blower increased pressure on the government to do more to protect those who disclose information for the goodness of public.

Case 3:

New York utility National Fuel Gas sacked corporate lawyer Curtis Lee after he alleged NFG's chief executive and president had ordered him to increase their remuneration by backdating stock options on forms submitted to the SEC. NFG then successfully sued Lee for the return of documents that might have provided proof and in 2002 persuaded a local court that he was in contempt of court, prohibiting him from repeating the allegations and scam. The court notoriously ruled that he undergo psychiatric treatment. The SEC investigation was frustrated by the death of the chair of NFG's compensation committee.

Whistle blowing in BRIC nations:

The executive brief of BRIC is Brazil, Russia, India, and China forms the so-called BRIC countries.

The BRIC countries are also realizing their unique potential and collective standing in the global marketplace. In 2008, meeting of the foreign ministers of the BRIC countries in Yekaterinburg, Russia, was their first formal independent meeting and signals the four countries’ potential trade and political association. In a joint statement, the BRIC countries urged the creation of "a more democratic international system founded on the rule of law and multilateral diplomacy.” Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said “We are changing the way of the world order is organized,” in the meeting. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said “new quality cooperation” in the quadripartite format in the meeting. India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said BRIC as a “unique combination of mutually complementary economies”. It was stressed by China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi who said that BRIC as a "our cooperation will not be aimed against other nations.” However, for international business and trade purposes, the four countries are totally different. For example, Goldman Sachs predicts that Brazil and Russia will become top in the world economy as suppliers of raw materials. India and China will be prosperous global suppliers of manufactured products and services.

Economic and Population Changes in BRIC nations

Brazil:

In 1994, the real plan of Brazil has out of recession; growth has been sluggish at around 3% yearly compared with the other BRIC countries. Internal and external constraints have challenged more rapid growth for income. Current population growth rates are similar to that in the U.S. Infant mortality rates have also been improving in the last decade.

Russia:

After the economic collapse of 1998, Russia has experienced strong growth of late. A devalued ruble and relatively high oil prices helps the Russian economy growth. On other side, Russia is experienced in declining fertility rates and resulting in declining population of about yearly percentage of 0.5. The decline in the population has implications for both labor force and the productive capacity of the country.

India:

Increasing service exports and foreign investment have been India’s main vehicles of growth in

the economy. This strengthening of the economy is a function of a stronger focus on literacy and education. These factors help to explain the rising GDP growth. But, the population growth may be an issue in the future. The country is growing its population at about 1.6% annually,    now it’s having a population around 1.1 billion.

China:

 Comprehensive reforms in the financial and corporate sectors have facilitated China’s superb

economic growth rates. In addition, an increasing focus on industrial exports and monetary transparency have led to increased foreign investment and also serve as drivers of China’s economic expansion. China’s population exceeds 1.3 billion, making it the most populous country in the world but growth rates are decreasing due to China’s one child policy.

Whistle blowing policy in BRIC nations:

Whistle blowing policy:

Generally whistle blowing Policy is followed by some other nations. It is intended to assist individual employees to disclose internally and at a high level, information which the individual believes shows malpractice or impropriety. It is not designed to further any personal disputes, business decisions or question financial taken by government of that nation and should it be used to reconsider any staff matters which have been addressed under the grievances procedure already in place. Whistle blowing matters may include but are not confined to:

• Breach of legal or regulatory requirements

• Criminal offences, breach of civil law and miscarriage of justice

• Malpractice, impropriety or fraud relating to internal controls, accounting, auditing and financial matters

• Endangerment of the health and safety of an individual

• Damage caused to the environment

• Violation of the rules and regulations of the Company.

• Improper conduct or unethical behavior likely to prejudice the standing of organization.

          • Deliberate concealment of any of the above.

Whistle blowing in Brazil:

In Brazil, order to enhance good governance and transparency, the Bank has a Whistle-blowing and Complaints Handling Policy, whose aim is to provide an avenue for raising concerns related to, Fraud or Corruption any other Misconduct by third parties, Bank Personnel, and development partners.  Those who disclose information relating to corruption, fraud and any other misconduct will be protected from Retaliation.

The Office of the Auditor General is designated as the Advocate for whistle-blowers and is authorized to implement the Policy.  The Integrity and Anti-Corruption Division in the Office of the Auditor General is responsible for undertaking investigations under the Policy.

Whistle blowing in Russia:

Russia has had a difficult history with corruption. Whistle blowing was at times mandated by the state, and it is not popular today because of distrust on the part of the population towards the state which was in the role of oppressor for the 70-plus years of the Soviet rule, as well as prior to that during the Szarist period. Hence, there is much resistance towards whistle blowing on the part of Russians. However, spurred by European lawyers, a new form of whistle blowing has emerged in modern-day Russia - environmental whistle blowing. This paper will examine the impact of international lawyers and law on altering Russian national resistance towards whistle blowing.

Whistle blowing in India:

At present India does not have any law to protect whistleblowers, though a bill for the purpose is in the pipeline. The issue of protection for whistleblowers caught the attention of the entire nation when National Highways Authority of India engineer as a government official Satyendra Dubey was killed after he wrote a letter to the office then PM A.B Vajpayee detailing corruption in the construction of highways.

In the letter, he had asked specifically that his identity be kept secret. Instead, the letter was forwarded to various concerned departments without masking Dubey’s identity. Dubey’s murder led to a public outcry at the failure to protect him. As a result, in April 2004, the Supreme Court pressed the government into issuing an office order, the Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informers Resolution, 2004 designating CVC as the nodal agency to handle complaints on corruption

However, over a year later, Manjunath Shanmugham, a sales manager of the IOC was murdered on Nov 19, 2005 for exposing the racket of adulteration of petrol and the mafia behind it. This brought renewed focus on need for a law to protect whistleblowers — but five years after the last episode; there is still no law in India.

Whistle blowing in China:

In china responsible departments for whistle blowing is Auditing and Risk Control Department of Messer China, Human Resource Department of Messer China. They handling the principle of whistle blowing, the principles are

1.      The responsible department will organize an investigation timely on receiving a report on misconduct;

2.      The investigation will attempt to describe the facts clearly and to provide effective clues or evidence.

3.      During the investigation process, all information has to be kept confidential to avoid obstruction of the investigation and retaliation to the whistleblower caused by a disclosure.

4.      No body has the right to intervene or disclose any information related to the reported for misconduct without proper report and authorization.

We encourage whistle blowing for country’s development and also encourage the whistleblower to disclose his/her name and valid contact information. The responsible department will disclose the investigation result to the whistleblower.