IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v52y2016icp1-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When do employers benefit from offering workers a financial reward for reporting internal misconduct?

Author

Listed:
  • Stikeleather, Bryan R.

Abstract

Some employers offer workers financial rewards for reporting internal misconduct that harms the employer, and recent press articles suggest more employers should adopt this practice to increase the rate of internal whistleblowing. However, rewards are costly, and no consensus exists about whether employers ultimately benefit from offering them. I analyze the cost-benefit tradeoff facing employers as they decide whether to offer whistleblowing rewards and find that as the pre-existing rate of internal whistleblowing increases, the incremental expected cost of offering a reward increases relative to the incremental expected benefit. Consequently, the net expected economic effect of offering a reward is a function of the current rate of whistleblowing in the firm. I predict and, using an experiment, find that the level of fixed compensation paid to workers and the extent to which they believe reporting internal misconduct constitutes a moral obligation affect the pre-existing rate of internal whistleblowing, with the rate increasing as these two factors increase. Further, I also predict and find that an increase in either factor tempers the net economic benefit of offering a whistleblowing reward. My results suggest that certain types of employers are more likely than others to benefit economically from offering a financial reward for internal whistleblowing, which can help explain the variation observed in practice with respect to employers’ use of this approach. I discuss this and other implications of my findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Stikeleather, Bryan R., 2016. "When do employers benefit from offering workers a financial reward for reporting internal misconduct?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:1-14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2016.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368216300538
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2016.06.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    3. Janet Adams & Armen Tashchian & Ted Shore, 2001. "Codes of Ethics as Signals for Ethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 199-211, February.
    4. Brennan, Niamh & Kelly, John, 2007. "A study of whistleblowing among trainee auditors," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 61-87.
    5. Cooper, Russell & DeJong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Ross, Thomas W., 1996. "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 187-218, February.
    6. George A. Akerlof, 1982. "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(4), pages 543-569.
    7. Call, Andrew C. & Kedia, Simi & Rajgopal, Shivaram, 2016. "Rank and file employees and the discovery of misreporting: The role of stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 277-300.
    8. Marcia P. Miceli & Janet P. Near & Charles R. Schwenk, 1991. "Who Blows the Whistle and Why?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 45(1), pages 113-130, October.
    9. Seifert, Deborah L. & Sweeney, John T. & Joireman, Jeff & Thornton, John M., 2010. "The influence of organizational justice on accountant whistleblowing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 707-717, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heungsik Park & Wim Vandekerckhove & Jaeil Lee & Joowon Jeong, 2020. "Laddered Motivations of External Whistleblowers: The Truth About Attributes, Consequences, and Values," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(4), pages 565-578, September.
    2. Schmolke, Klaus Ulrich & Utikal, Verena, 2016. "Whistleblowing: Incentives and situational determinants," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 09/2016, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics, revised 2016.
    3. Sebastian Oelrich, 2019. "Making regulation fit by taking irrationality into account: the case of the whistleblower," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 175-207, April.
    4. Paolo Candio, 2023. "On the role of cost-effectiveness in accounting," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(2 Suppl.), pages 215-225.
    5. Hanvedes Daovisan & Thanapauge Chamaratana, 2018. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Assets That Influence Informal Garment Workers’ Livelihood Security in Laos," Societies, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-11, June.
    6. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, 2019. "‘Whistleblowing Triangle’: Framework and Empirical Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 189-204, November.
    7. Paolo Buccirossi & Giovanni Immordino & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2021. "Whistleblower rewards, false reports, and corporate fraud," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 411-431, June.
    8. Sebastian Krügel & Matthias Uhl, 2023. "Internal whistleblowing systems without proper sanctions may backfire," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(8), pages 1355-1383, October.
    9. Nyreröd, Theo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2017. "Myths and Numbers on Whistleblower Rewards," SITE Working Paper Series 44, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, revised 27 Apr 2018.
    10. Lee, Gladys & Xiao, Xinning, 2018. "Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 22-46.
    11. Spenser G. Seifert & Ethan G. LaMothe & Donna Bobek Schmitt, 2023. "Perceptions of the Ethical Infrastructure, Professional Autonomy, and Ethical Judgments in Accounting Work Environments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 821-850, January.
    12. Waseem Yousaf & Raheel Jamil, 2020. "Does Moral Intensity Affect the Whistleblowing Intentions?," iRASD Journal of Management, International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 2(2), pages 84-99, December.
    13. Olayinka Erin & Omololu Adex Bamigboye, 2020. "Does whistleblowing framework influence earnings management? An empirical investigation," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(2), pages 111-122, September.
    14. Jef De Mot & Murat C. Mungan, 2024. "Whistle‐blowing and the incentive to hire," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(3), pages 1292-1308, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee, Gladys & Xiao, Xinning, 2018. "Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 22-46.
    2. Tetsuo Yamamori & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2023. "Wage claim detracts reciprocity in labor relations: experimental study of gift exchange games," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 18(3), pages 573-597, July.
    3. Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2016. "How Do Agents React to Dynamic Wage Increases? An Experimental Study," IZA Discussion Papers 9855, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.
    5. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    6. Bogliacino, Francesco & Rodríguez González, Nicolás, 2020. "Two-worker competition in gift-exchange: assessing intention-based reciprocity and inequity aversion," MPRA Paper 99055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Maas, Victor S. & Yin, Huaxiang, 2022. "Finding partners in crime? How transparency about managers’ behavior affects employee collusion," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    8. Kocher, Martin G. & Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "Testing a forgotten aspect of Akerlof’s gift exchange hypothesis: Relational contracts with individual and uniform wages," Discussion Papers in Economics 12816, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    9. Kim, Jeongbin & Putterman, Louis & Zhang, Xinyi, 2022. "Trust, Beliefs and Cooperation: Excavating a Foundation of Strong Economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Brownback, Andy & Kuhn, Michael A., 2019. "Understanding outcome bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 342-360.
    11. Blumkin, Tomer & Pinhas, Haim & Zultan, Ro’i, 2020. "Wage Subsidies and Fair Wages," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    12. Hasson, Reviva & Löfgren, Åsa & Visser, Martine, 2010. "Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 331-338, December.
    13. Takafumi Yamakawa & Yoshitaka Okano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2016. "Detecting motives for cooperation in public goods experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 500-512, June.
    14. Kurt A. Ackermann & Ryan O. Murphy, 2019. "Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    15. Blanco Mariana, 2015. "Piqueteros: An Experimental Analysis of Direct vs. Indirect Reciprocity," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 37-57, January.
    16. Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse & Ingo Menrath & Pablo Emilio Verde & Johannes Siegrist, 2014. "Unfair Pay and Health," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 715, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Simon Gächter & Armin Falk, 2002. "Reputation and Reciprocity: Consequences for the Labour Relation," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 104(1), pages 1-26, March.
    18. Simon Gaechter & Armin Falk, 2001. "Reputation or Reciprocity? An Experimental Investigation," CESifo Working Paper Series 496, CESifo.
    19. Boosey, Luke & Goerg, Sebastian, 2020. "The timing of discretionary bonuses – effort, signals, and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 254-280.
    20. Johannes Becker & Daniel Hopp & Karolin Süß, 2020. "How Altruistic Is Indirect Reciprocity? - Evidence from Gift-Exchange Games in the Lab," CESifo Working Paper Series 8423, CESifo.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:1-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.