The aim of this article is to study the role of judges and their impact on the retaliation processes initiated by organisations against whistleblowers. More specifically, we question the normative logics used by judges to validate or invalidate such processes. To this end, we cross-check and analyse judicial data from the LuxLeaks case (2010–2018). Our results firstly enable us to establish a relationship between, on the one hand, the interpretative power of judges and their profile and, on the other, the attitude that judges may have at the end of the retaliation process towards whistleblowers, that is, retaliatory actors or protective actors. Our results also explain the normative dynamics that permeate the judicial retaliation process. They show that judges can challenge existing legal norms, clarify and operationalise others, and create new norms regulating ethical behaviour in organisations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.