IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ijcgvn/v11y2018i1p45-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Whistle-blower Protection Mechanism of Select Countries

Author

Listed:
  • J. P. Sharma
  • Sunaina Kanojia
  • Shikha Sachdeva

Abstract

Whistle-blower protection mechanisms (WPMs) play a critically significant role in combating corruption through ethics, corporate governance and statutes. This article examines the essence of whistle-blower mechanism existing in the developed and developing countries in order to unearth the legislative structure of countries supporting the whistle blower mechanism and pursuit of ethical conduct for sound corporate governance. The article attempts to identify, evaluate and analyse the attributes of whistle-blower mechanism across nations and finds that despite off-symmetric attributes, the mechanisms are asymmetric specific to the countries’ corporate culture. It has also been found that most significant attribute of a sound whistle-blower mechanism is the level of protection provided to the whistle-blowers followed by coverage of sectors, anonymity and the regulator of whistle-blowing complaints in the country. The attributes vary widely across nations on the basis of coverage of sectors, anonymity withheld and the level of protection, with United States of America delivering the best protection to whistle-blowers trailed by Australian whistle-blower protection laws and then South Africa; India, China and Indonesia lag considerably behind in having a sound whistle-blower mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • J. P. Sharma & Sunaina Kanojia & Shikha Sachdeva, 2018. "Comparison of Whistle-blower Protection Mechanism of Select Countries," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 11(1), pages 45-68, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ijcgvn:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:45-68
    DOI: 10.1177/0974686218769198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0974686218769198
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0974686218769198?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pill, Juri, 1971. "The Delphi method: Substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 57-71, February.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    3. Yining Chen & Kam C. Chan, 2009. "Research on Chinese Accounting Issues: A Review and Synthesis," Chinese Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 98-128, January.
    4. Björn FASTERLING & David LEWIS, 2014. "Leaks, legislation and freedom of speech: How can the law effectively promote public-interest whistleblowing?," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 153(1), pages 71-92, March.
    5. Steen Thomsen & Torben Pedersen, 2000. "Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest european companies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 689-705, June.
    6. Niamh M. Brennan & Jill Solomon, 2008. "Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(7), pages 885-906, September.
    7. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    8. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    9. Ada-Iuliana POPESCU, 2015. "A Critical Analysis Of Whistleblower Protection In The European Union," Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 7(7), pages 135-140, June.
    10. Debadyuti Das & Deepak Barman, 2010. "An AHP framework of supplier evaluation with reference to high-value and critical items: a case study," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(4), pages 465-482.
    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. Shweta Mehrotra & R. K. Mishra & V. Srikanth & Govind Prasad Tiwari & E. V. Mahesh Kumar, 2020. "State of Whistleblowing Research: A Thematic Analysis," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 9(2), pages 133-148, June.
    2. Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim & Anida Mahmood, 2019. "A Survey on Statutory Reform for the Right to Impart Public Sector Information in Malaysia," International Journal of Asian Social Science, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(12), pages 722-734, December.

    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. Stavros E. Arvanitis & Theodoros V. Stamatopoulos & Dimitris Terzakis, 2018. "Is There a Non-linear Relationship of Market Value with Cash and Ownership?," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 68(1), pages 3-25, January-M.
    2. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    3. Yusuf, Fatima & Yousaf, Amna & Saeed, Abubakr, 2018. "Rethinking agency theory in developing countries: A case study of Pakistan," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 281-292.
    4. Christopher, Joe, 2012. "Tension between the corporate and collegial cultures of Australian public universities: The current status," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(7), pages 556-571.
    5. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    6. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    7. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    8. Alpana Agarwal & Divina Raghav, 2023. "Analysing Determinants of Employee Performance Based on Reverse Mentoring and Employer Branding Using Analytic Hierarchical Process," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 48(3), pages 343-358, August.
    9. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Bamiatzi, Vassiliki & Efthyvoulou, Georgios & Jabbour, Liza, 2017. "Foreign vs domestic ownership on debt reduction: An investigation of acquisition targets in Italy and Spain," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 801-815.
    11. Andre Bender & Allan Din & Philippe Favarger & Martin Hoesli & Janne Laakso, 1997. "An Analysis of Perceptions Concerning the Environmental Quality of Housing in Geneva," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 34(3), pages 503-513, March.
    12. Lohwasser, Todor S., 2020. "Meta-analyzing the relative performance of venture capital-backed firms," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 4/2020, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    13. Thi Cam Tu Luong & Ann Jorissen & Ine Paeleman, 2019. "Performance Measurement for Sustainability: Does Firm Ownership Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-35, August.
    14. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    15. Zeineb Barka & Taher Hamza, 2020. "The effect of large controlling shareholders on equity prices in France: monitoring or entrenchment?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 769-798, September.
    16. Md Monjurul Islam & Tofael Ahamed & Ryozo Noguchi, 2018. "Land Suitability and Insurance Premiums: A GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis Approach for Sustainable Rice Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-28, May.
    17. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    18. Otten, J.A. & Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., 2007. "Extending the Managerial Power Theory of Executive Pay: A Cross National Test," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-090-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Kao, Ling-Jing & Chiu, Chih-Chou & Lin, Hung-Tse & Hung, Yun-Wei & Lu, Cheng-Chin, 2024. "Unveiling the dimensions of digital transformation: A comprehensive taxonomy and assessment model for business," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Estrin, Saul & Hanousek, Jan & Shamshur, Anastasiya, 2024. "Does it matter who owns firms? Evidence on the impact of supermajority control on private firms in Europe," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 95(PB).

    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:sae:ijcgvn:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:45-68. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.