Protecting whistleblowers at work

Abstract

PurposeThe paper proposes to compare the relative success of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (UK) and the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 (South Africa) in providing protection for whistleblowers in the UK and South Africa.Design/methodology/approachThe assessment is conducted in the light of case law in both countries and empirical research previously conducted.FindingsThe most important feature of the relevant statutes in both countries is that they recognise the need to protect workers who disclose in the public interest. Although the current provisions are important first steps, it is believed that much more needs to be done.Practical implicationsIn the light of this research, 14 suggestions are made for change.Originality/valueThe article makes proposals for reform to the legislation in both countries. It also attempts to provide guidance to practitioners by identifying good practice in handling concerns about wrongdoing.

The roles of whistleblowing system and fraud awareness as financial statement fraud deterrent

“…When it comes to processes for follow-up on reports, the organisation or people in authority stipulates the requirements on confidentiality, response times, competence of persons receiving the reports, communication with the whistle-blower and feedback on how the case is being processed. This study has similar findings to previous research, for example, conducted by Lewis and Uys (2007). They document that the whistleblowing system will be useful if the organisation provides a guarantee that every complaint will be considered or followed up for further clarification.…”

“…the case is being processed. This study has similar findings to previous research, for example, conducted by Lewis and Uys (2007). They document that the whistleblowing system will be useful if the organisation provides a guarantee that every complaint will be considered or followed up for further clarification.…”

“…Many individuals may choose to keep silent towards malpractice or fraud because the suspected fraudster is often someone sitting in the top line management. Our study is similar to Lewis and Uys (2007), studying a comparison of the impact of whistleblowing system protection in British and South African. The study finds that besides the needs for whistle-blower protection, the easy and difficulty of raising concerns are also critical features that should be carefully considered by the organisation.…”

“…The study finds that besides the needs for whistle-blower protection, the easy and difficulty of raising concerns are also critical features that should be carefully considered by the organisation. As such adequate internal reporting systems must be compatible with employees' contractual obligations and guide who should be approached if an individual continues to have concerns and when and how the whistleblowing procedure should be invoked (Lewis and Uys, 2007).…”

The courage of whistleblowing of prospective accountants: evidence from Saudi Arabia

“…Alleyne et al (2013) argue that whistleblowing is an effective response to countries' failure to develop appropriate public accountability mechanisms for companies. If whistleblowing is given appropriate consideration in companies, it will lead to some kind of accountability for those who are responsible for preparing the financial statements (Dyck et al, 2010;Lewis and Uys, 2007). The presence of whistleblowing policy in the company increases the effectiveness of corporate governance mechanisms and thus, improves corporate performance (Al-Absy et al, 2019;Sunday, 2015;Bowen et al, 2010).…”