case study about whistleblowing

• Mission & History
• Transparency
• 2023 Annual Report
• Join Our Email List
• Major Campaigns of 2024
• Attorney Referral Program
• Find An Attorney
• Who is a Whistleblower?
• What to Know
• Protections and Rewards
• Stop Retaliation
• Climate Center
• Revitalize the IRS Whistleblower Program
• Enact AML Whistleblower Rules
• Save the CFTC Whistleblower Program
• Protect the False Claims Act
• Reform the SEC Whistleblower Program
• Fight Climate Corruption in Banking and Securities
• Strengthen U.S. Whistleblower Laws
• Women’s History Month
• Whistleblower Network News
• Rules for Whistleblowers
• Press Releases
• Contact Form

Case Studies

The National Whistleblower Center has taken a look at several high profile cases in industries with a high risk of fraud in order to highlight the type of fraudulent activities that can occur.

The first climate-change related securities class action against a major oil and gas company, Ramirez v. ExxonMobil Corporation, highlights how whistleblowers can identify potential securities fraud related to climate risks and oil and gas reserves.

The Shell reserves scandal shows that even the world’s oldest and largest oil and gas companies are not immune to the temptation to overstate their reserves.

Using the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act, a group of whistleblowers revealed a nationwide conspiracy by more than a dozen oil and gas companies to systematically defraud the government by underpaying leasing royalties.

Making false statements to obtain a permit, lease, or loan like BP did for the Deepwater Horizon rig falls under a powerful whistleblower provision, known as the reverse False Claims Act.

Chevron’s Gorgon gas project in Australia was supposed to generate enough tax revenue to facilitate personal tax cuts for every Australian. Instead, most of the profits were siphoned off into offshore tax havens.

An investigation into widespread corruption in the oil and gas industry revealed a scheme by six oil and gas companies to use a third party to pay and conceal bribes to foreign officials.

The U.S. government’s first prosecution for mineral-rights leases concerned the collaboration on bids between competing oil and gas companies in Western Colorado.

Oil & gas prices impact nearly every level of our economy, from financial investors to companies producing petroleum products to consumers paying for gas. Fixing prices in commodities markets as was allegedly done in one recent case can harm traders, investors and consumers.

Whistleblowers have successfully used reverse False Claims suits to stop industrial gas companies from dodging customs duties in cases such as Jackson vs. Linde.

A landmark investigation into Occidental Petroleum’s environmental disclosures revealed that major incidents of environmental damage can also help regulators identify equally significant financial fraud in liability disclosures.

Rio Tinto’s Mozambique coal scandal shows how executives under pressure could be tempted to commit fraud – and how internal whistleblowers can reveal the truth.

An investigation into the nation’s largest coal company revealed that it had knowingly not disclosed the full financial risks associated with new environmental regulations to shareholders over a period of several years.

A historic case against Kerr-McGee highlights the potential for a company to understate liabilities to spin them off and how such a scheme can lead to a multibillion-dollar liability.

Lenders have accused Murray Energy of fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as manipulating financial information to avoid violating a bankruptcy financing agreement.

From 2001 to 2011, several Minnesota businessmen solicited major investments in a clean coal machine that they knew didn’t work, committing securities fraud in the process.

FirstEnergy is an IOU headquartered in Akron, Ohio that operates several electricity generation and distribution subsidiaries throughout the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. It has recently been linked to a major bribery & racketeering scandal and is currently under investigation for securities fraud.

In 2016, SandRidge Energy Inc. became the first company to be charged by the SEC for retaliating against an internal whistleblower and one of the first companies to be charged for using illegal severance agreements to block whistleblowers from reporting to the SEC.

A securities class action lawsuit alleged that timber company Rayonier violated federal securities laws by concealing systemic over-harvesting in Washington state.

In a landmark case, U.S.-based Lumber Liquidators was fined $13 million under the Lacey Act for illegally importing hardwood flooring from the Russian Far East.

A recent NGO report alleges that protected timber illegally harvested by Chinese company dodged U.S. conservation laws via numerous middlemen.

A recent case concerning disappearing containers of rare wood from Gabon demonstrates the role that whistleblowers can play in combatting fraud in the timber industry.

Advocates for Justice

Taxpayer money is everywhere. And where there is money, there are people willing to cheat to get more than their fair share. Fortunately, there are also upstanding humans interested in calling out wrongdoers gaming the system and stealing tax dollars. Also fortunately, we have whistleblower rewards!

The primary law used to assist those blowing the whistle on bad behavior is the federal False Claims Act. The SEC also has a whistleblower program that has grown significantly over the past decade. The last year has brought a record number of whistleblower claims under the FCA and SEC programs. In 2020, the SEC received almost 7,000 whistleblower tips—a 31% increase from just two years prior, and a more than two-fold increase since the program’s inception. Stemming from whistleblower lawsuits, the SEC has awarded almost $700 million to over 100 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012. 

How to be a whistleblower? Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action. Awards in a whistleblower case can range from 10 to 30 percent of the money collected when the sanctions exceed $1 million.

Whistleblower lawsuits vary. In every industry, the U.S. government pays private companies for goods or services. In healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid constitute half of payments to providers of medical services and goods. In the defense industry, hundreds of billions of government dollars are paid to private contractors. Beyond those fields, billions of government dollars go to everything from toilet paper and hand soap, to computers, extension cords and software, and everything in between. The government also supports many industries through subsidies, loans, and guarantees.

Below are details regarding the top awards under the FCA and SEC whistleblower programs over the past year. 

• Settlement Date: July 1, 2020
• Defendant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation 
• Allegation: Between 2002 and 2011, violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act by providing doctors with cash payments, luxury travel and meals to induce them to prescribe Novartis cardiovascular and diabetes drugs reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. 
• Total Settlement: $642 million 
• Whistleblower Award: TBD 
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/novartis-pays-over-642-million-settle-allegations-improper-payments-patients-and-physicians

• Settlement Date: October 22, 2020
• Defendant: Undisclosed
• Allegation: Information and assistance led to the SEC’s successful enforcement action and successful related actions by other agencies.
• Total Settlement: Undisclosed 
• Whistleblower Award: $114 million. 
• Want more info about this case? https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/10/22/whistleblower-awarded-over-114-million-by-sec/?sh=61155e343979

• Settlement Date: June 4, 2020
• Allegation: Detailed, firsthand observations of misconduct by a company that resulted in a successful enforcement action and the return of significant funds to investors.
• Total Settlement: Undisclosed
• Whistleblower Award: $50 million (at the time, the largest amount ever awarded to one individual under the SEC’s whistleblower program)
• Want more info about this case? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-126

• Settlement Date: July 10, 2020
• Defendants: Universal Health Services, Inc. and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (collectively, UHS), and a Georgia-based UHS facility, Turning Point Care Center, LLC
• Allegation: Billing federal healthcare programs for medically unnecessary inpatient behavioral health services, failing to provide adequate or appropriate services, and paying illegal inducements to program beneficiaries.
• Total Settlement: $122 million 
• Whistleblower Award: $15.8 million.
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/universal-health-services-inc-and-related-entities-pay-122-million-settle-false-claims

• Settlement Date: April 30, 2020
• Defendants: e-biofuels, LLP, et al.
• Allegation: Making fraudulent transactions in the renewable energy biofuels industry.
• Total Settlement: $69.6 million
• Whistleblower Award: TBD (between 25-30% of what the government collects)
• Want more info about this case? https://whistleblowersblog.org/2020/05/articles/featured-story/court-issues-69-6-million-judgement-in-qui-tam-false-claims-act-whistleblower-case/

• Settlement Date: September 22, 2020
• Defendants: Contractors Bechtel National Inc., Bechtel Corporation, AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc., and Waste Treatment Completion Company, LLC
• Allegation: Overbilling the Department of Energy for work on the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant on craft labor performed by electricians, millwrights, pipefitters, and other skilled trades workers, including billing for unallowable and unreasonable idle time caused by management failures in scheduling work.
• Total Settlement: $57.75 million
• Whistleblower Award: $13.75 million 
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwa/pr/bechtel-aecom-us-department-energy-doe-contractors-agree-pay-5775-million-resolve-0

• Settlement Date: September 9, 2020
• Defendant: Wheeling Hospital, Inc.
• Allegation: Providing referring physicians with compensation above fair market value, based on the volume or value of their referrals, then submitting to Medicare claims resulting from those improper referrals.
• Total Settlement: $50 million
• Whistleblower Award: $10 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/west-virginia-hospital-agrees-pay-50-million-settle-allegations-concerning-improper

• Settlement Date: December 18, 2020
• Defendants: Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP and its affiliate THHBP Management Company LLC 
• Allegation: Requiring the physician-owners doctors of the hospital to have 48 patient-contacts a year in order to maintain their ownership interests.
• Total Settlement: $48 million
• Whistleblower Award: $13.92 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-heart-hospital-and-wholly-owned-subsidiary-thhbp-management-company-llc-pay-48-million  

• Settlement Date: April 27, 2020
• Defendant: Genova Diagnostics Inc.
• Allegation: Billing government healthcare programs for medically unnecessary lab tests, and paying unlawful compensation to phlebotomy vendors.
• Total Settlement: $43 million
• Whistleblower Award: $6 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/testing-laboratory-agrees-pay-43-million-resolve-allegations-medically-unnecessary-tests  

• Settlement Date: April 15, 2020
• Defendants: A Florida-based reference laboratory, pain clinic, and two former executives
• Allegation: Automatically ordering urine drug tests for all patients at every visit regardless of need.
• Total Settlement: $41 million 
• Whistleblower Award: $7.79 million  
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/reference-laboratory-pain-clinic-and-two-individuals-agree-pay-41-million-resolve-allegations

• Settlement Date: January 15, 2020
• Defendant: ResMed Corp.
• Allegation: Improperly providing or helping provide free or below cost call center services, patient outreach services, medical equipment and installation, and interest-free loans to suppliers, sleep labs, and other health providers, in exchange for business.
• Total Settlement: $37.5 million 
• Whistleblower Award: $6.2 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/resmed-corp-pay-united-states-375-million-allegedly-causing-false-claims-related-sale  

• Settlement Date: January 20, 2020
• Defendant: Boston Heart Diagnostics
• Allegation: Entering into multiple quid pro quo arrangements with doctors that order its tests, recruiting doctors to have them promise that their patients would never have to pay a deductible or co-payment, and offering free dietician counseling services in exchange for the doctors’ ordering (via Medicare) an expensive panel of laboratory tests.
• Total Settlement: $28 million
• Whistleblower Award: $4.3 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.cpmlegal.com/news-28-Million-Settlement-in-Major-Whistleblower-Suit-Against-Boston-Heart-Diagnostics

Need a whistleblower attorney? Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy is one of the nation’s most successful and well-respected whistleblower law firms, representing individuals retaliated against by employers for raising concerns, and individuals reporting corporate fraud resulting in the waste of taxpayer money. For general information about CPM’s Whistleblower practice, see this link: https://www.cpmlegal.com/practices-Whistleblower-Qui-Tam-False-Claims-California  

Want to learn more? To learn more about the terminology of whistleblower law, including definitions of terms like whistleblower, “qui tam,” “relator” (very different from “realtor”), and the specifics of the timing and scope of governmental investigations, check out this link: https://www.cpmlegal.com/practices-Whistleblower-Qui-Tam-False-Claims-California#FAQs

Sarvenaz (Nazy) Fahimi  is a partner practicing in several areas of litigation, with a focus on high profile cases of fraud, cases involving qui tam  Relators in False Claims Act cases in federal and state courts, and cases ...

• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Follow us on Twitter
• Follow us on Facebook
• False Claims/Whistleblower
• Consumer Protection
• Elder Abuse
• Employment Law
• Personal Injury
• Securities / Financial Fraud
• Class Actions
• Environmental Litigation
• Public Interest
• California Law
• Intellectual Property
• San Francisco Bay Area 650.697.6000
• Los Angeles/Santa Monica 310.392.2008
• New York 212.381.6373
• Seattle 206.802.1272

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use .

Case Studies

People we've helped, filter our case studies by type of concern raised:.

• abuse of vulnerable person
• consumer breach
• exposure to dangerous substances
• financial mismanagement
• food safety
• furlough fraud
• incorrect reporting to client
• maladministration of medication
• misuse of funds
• patient safety
• social work
• unsafe equipment
• unsafe staffing levels
• work safety

When settlement is the preferred outcome

Helena* worked in the distribution factory of a well-known food company. She was an agency worker, so effectively worked for both her agency and the distribution factory as both played a role in determining the terms of her engagement. At work, Helena noticed a culture of racism including racist language being used by senior members of staff, as well as working practices which disadvantaged Muslim workers.

Side effects of speaking up as a social worker

Eleanor* was a social worker, whose work often brought her to her local hospital to support patients. Over time, she grew increasingly uneasy about the inadequate handling of patient safety, and decisions not being taken in the best interests of vulnerable people. She felt that a manager appeared to be discharging patients who weren’t ready to go home.

Reaching out to the regulator

During the course of his job, Oliver realised his company had hired someone who had previous convictions for a serious financial crime. Oliver had been made to do a DBS check when he joined so was shocked this person had been hired.

HSE take action following whistleblower’s safety concerns

Amal* works for a charity providing wellbeing services to vulnerable adults. She called Protect following a serious incident where a service user had physically threatened her. Amal explained that she had raised concerns previously about the charity’s building not being safe for workers following previous incidents. She told us her requests for securing the premises and implementing additional safety measures for staff had been ignored.

Standing Up for Standards: A Police Officer’s Struggle to Address Unqualified Police Trainers 

As a new recruit in the police force, Mary* was shocked to discover what was happening amongst police officers in her area. Mary knows that so-called “trainers” are responsible for teaching police officers how to do their job and issuing licenses to those who have completed their training. However, Mary came across compelling evidence suggesting that more than a hundred trainers themselves were unqualified and lacked oversight of who had completed their training.

Advice for Union Reps supporting migrant whistleblowers

Dentist reaches settlement after victimisation for whistleblowing, health and safety gone mad, the cost of victimisation, poor practice at the practice , charity worker raises furlough fraud concerns, blacklisted – or simply bad luck.

Georgia worked as an electrical engineer on a major transport project. She reported that electrical installations did not comply with health and safety standards. When no action was taken she resigned in frustration and the following year the contractors in question were replaced.

Supermarket worker speaks up about health and safety concerns

Graham (not his real name) worked in a managerial role at a supermarket and became concerned about the supermarket’s health and safety practices. He saw examples of staff working in unsafe conditions, with their own health and safety being disregarded. Food produce regulations were not being followed, such as frozen food being sold after it … Read more

Teacher speaks up over student safeguarding concerns

Food factory worker raises concerns over lack of covid-19 safety measures, accountant speaks up over construction company’s financial malpractice, furloughed restaurant employee had concerns over illegal working ignored, education worker bullied for raising health and safety concerns.

Mary (not their real name) worked at an independent school for children with special educational needs. She was only there only a short time when she started having a number of health and safety concerns about the school. Mary never received any appropriate health and safety training from the organisation, despite being designated the lead … Read more

Mental health worker speaks out over poor patient care

Gillian (not her real name) worked for the NHS for over 20 years. She worked with patients with acute mental illness. Gillian had concerns about poor patient care. This included poor communication, a failure to engage with vulnerable patients, nurses turning up to work late and leaving early, nurses falling asleep on shift, and low … Read more

Finance worker speaks up over fake charges to clients

Patrick worked as an adviser in the financial services industry. He was concerned that his employer had been breaching Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations for a number of years. In particular, Patrick’s firm was charging clients for advice that it had not given and it assessed the performance of its employees by using targets that … Read more

Nurse speaks up over medicine maladministration at care home

Delia (not her real name) worked as a nurse at a care home. Delia witnessed numerous incidents regarding the maladministration of medicine. This included overstocking out of date medication and the administration of overdue and incorrect medication. She raised her concerns with her manager in the first instance, and escalated this to the care home … Read more

Food supplier fails to test food hygiene

Food producer exposes goods to contamination, food manufacturer sells out of date and illegal food, care workers help to stop abuse of vulnerable residents, whistleblower exposed to asbestos speaks up to regulator, unsafe food practices resolved by whistleblower speaking up, social worker speaks up about inappropriate relationship, fraud in family company puts whistleblower in difficult position, manager convicted for theft in care home, protect helps food sector whistleblower agree £100,000 settlement, fraud in charity stopped by whistleblowers, care worker thanked for raising patient safety concerns, our use of cookies.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Whistleblower Aid

Report Government & Corporate Lawbreaking. Without Breaking The Law.

Case Studies

Col. earl matthews' reprisal claim for speaking out about january 6.

Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint on behalf of our client Colonel (COL) Earl Matthews, a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Army Reserve with the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, and former Acting General Counsel of the U.S. Army. 

Prior to engaging Mark Zaid’s law firm and Whistleblower Aid, in December 2021 COL Matthews disclosed to the House January 6 th Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that, among other things, the Director of the Army Staff, Lieutenant General Walter E. Piatt and the Army’s former Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, now-General Charles A. Flynn, had not been completely factual or truthful in their June 2021 oral and written testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee or in their testimony to the DoD OIG. Furthermore, COL Matthews asserted that LTG Piatt had overseen the creation of a misleading, factually flawed, and revisionist recitation of events called the Report of Operations of the United States Army. Subsequently, LTG Piatt provided the factually flawed report to several committees of the U.S. Congress. 

In October 2022, The Washington Post reported that President Biden declined to nominate LTG Piatt for promotion to full General due to concerns over his actions or inaction on and around January 6th. The October 2022 Washington Post article on the President’s decision not to nominate LTG Piatt referenced COL Matthews’ December 2021 disclosure, which had been critical of Piatt’s activities surrounding the events of January 6, 2021. 

As a direct result of COL Matthews’ protected communications, Responsible Management Officials (“RMOs”) associated with the U.S. Army War College retaliated against him by, among other things: 1) falsely accusing him of misconduct and/or unprofessional behavior; 2) by abruptly curtailing a scheduled 12-day reserve duty assignment midway through; 3) by having COL Matthews physically and visibly escorted out of a publicly accessible hotel by security personnel; and 4) by providing COL Matthews’ name and likeness to military police personnel assigned onsite as a person of concern who might attempt to disrupt the military conference that Matthews had previously been assigned to support in his reserve capacity.  In addition to causing him the loss of military pay and reserve retirement points, the retaliatory actions of the Army War College RMOs caused COL Matthews grievous reputational harm, significant personal embarrassment and public humiliation.

Related Media

• “Army officer alleges reprisal for his account of Capitol riot response” - The Washington Post
• “‘Absolute liars': Ex-D.C. Guard official says generals lied to Congress about Jan. 6” - Politico
• “Former Guard Official Says Army Retaliated for His Account of Jan. 6 Delay” - The New York Times
• “Army Colonel alleges retaliation after whistleblower complaint regarding January 6th” - CNN

Capitol Police Intelligence Officer Warnings on Known Threats of Violence before January 6 Ignored

Mark Zaid, with support from Whistleblower Aid, represented Julie Farnam, then the Assistant Director of Intelligence with the U.S. Capitol Police. With counsel support, Ms. Farnam disclosed to the USCP Inspector General and then later the January 6th Committee evidence that she and her intelligence team had previously warned Capitol Police senior leaders of an impending threat of violence which ultimately became the January 6th insurrection.

• “Ex-Capitol Police Chief Faults Intelligence Officials and Military in Jan. 6 Attack” - New York Times
• “Capitol Police official says she warned of potential violence before riot” - CNN
• “Exclusive: Inside the Capitol Police intelligence unit overhaul that caused confusion ahead of January 6” - The Hill
• “Capitol Police intelligence official says she sounded alarm about potential violence days before January 6 riot” - CBS
• “Inside the Capitol Cops’ Jan. 6 Blame Game” - Rolling Stone
• “Farnam interview with the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack” - House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack (Contributed by Project on Government Oversight)
• “The Capitol Police Weren’t Ready on Jan. 6, and They Aren’t Ready Now” - The Daily Beast

How Whistleblower Aid Helped Raise the Alarm About Data Security At Twitter Even Before Elon Musk's Takeover

When the former head of security at Twitter, Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, wanted to speak out about security, privacy and infrastructure failures at the company even before Elon Musk’s takeover, he turned to Whistleblower Aid for support. We and our co-counsel at Katz Banks & Kumin filed disclosures with the SEC, DOJ and FTC as well as relevant Congressional committees and generated media coverage around the globe.

Given Twitter’s prominence and its continuing role as an essential platform for public discourse around the world, we expect our client, with his extraordinary expertise, to continue to receive media coverage and to continue to inform regulators here and abroad on effective enforcement strategies in the public interest.

“When other avenues were exhausted, and I realized I would have to become a legal whistleblower to fulfill my obligations, I was very concerned with making sure that I did things in the most responsible and ethical way possible. Whistleblower Aid was invaluable in helping figure out how to fulfill my obligations through legal avenues. Knowing that my family and I had Whistleblower Aid on our side helped us navigate a very stressful, complicated, and important process.”

• “Former security chief claims Twitter buried ‘egregious deficiencies” - The Washington Post
• “Ex-Twitter exec blows the whistle, alleging reckless and negligent cybersecurity policies” - CNN
• “The Twitter Whistleblower Needs You to Trust Him” - Time
• “Twitter whistleblower alleges major security issues” - NBC
• “Twitter whistleblower alleges execs misled board and public on spam, security” - CNBC
• “Twitter misled U.S. regulators on hackers, spam, whistleblower says” - Reuters
• “A former employee accuses Twitter of big security lapses in a whistleblower complaint” - NPR
• “Twitter Whistleblower Peiter Zatko Has Warned of Cyber Disasters for Decades” - The Wall Street Journal
• “Twitter Whistle-Blower Will Be Star Witness In Congress” - Bloomberg

How We Helped Tell The Real Story About Hate and Violence on Social Media

Frances Haugen, a member of Facebook’s Civic Integrity team, became front page news around the world in 2021 when she showed how the company was misrepresenting its progress on containing the spread of hate, violence, and psychological damage to teenage girls exposed to unrealistic expectations about their bodies. Whistleblower Aid helped Haugen disclose thousands of internal company documents and helped organize hearings in Congress and other national legislatures.

On the media side, our team managed the exclusive public launch of this case with the Wall Street Journal and 60 Minutes which generated a torrent of local, national, and international coverage – that continues today.

We continue to be a resource as Facebook has come under scrutiny from federal law enforcement agencies, state Attorneys General, and class action lawsuits. Policymakers at home and abroad rely on our expertise as they craft new legislation, including the recent Kids Online Safety Act, introduced by Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn. Ms. Haugen’s testimony and recommendations played a key role in shaping the legislation according to Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Haugen’s testimony before the European Union was credited for playing a pivotal role in the passing of the EU’s Digital Marketing Act and Digital Services Act.

Frances Haugen’s case was a watershed moment in the public’s understanding of how decisions made by Facebook and its parent company Meta can affect our daily lives.

• “The Facebook Whistleblower, Frances Haugen, Says She Wants to Fix the Company, Not Harm It” - The Wall Street Journal
• “Whistle-Blower Unites Democrats and Republicans in Calling for Regulation of Facebook” - The New York Times
• “Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen: The 60 Minutes Interview” - 60 Minutes
• “Inside Frances Haugen's Decision to Take on Facebook” - TIME
• “Frances Haugen: ‘I never wanted to be a whistleblower. But lives were in danger” - The Guardian
• “Here are 4 key points from the Facebook whistleblower's testimony on Capitol Hill” - NPR
• “Whistle-Blower Says Facebook ‘Chooses Profits Over Safety” - The New York Times

Whistleblower Aid Stands with High-Profile Witness Leading to Trump’s First Impeachment

When a member of the intelligence community felt compelled to report on a phone call in which President Trump attempted to parlay foreign aid to Ukraine into an investigation into his political rival, Whistleblower Aid attorneys Andrew Bakaj and Mark S. Zaid jumped in to represent them. The lawful, protected complaint they filed triggered multiple investigations into the President’s use of his office to engage in election interference and ultimately resulted in the first impeachment of then President Donald Trump. The reason we know about Trump’s illegal misconduct is only because a civil servant had the courage to speak out . 

Whistleblower Aid was critical in providing funding, physical security, technological support, and encrypted communications for the legal team who represented the unnamed whistleblower. We continue to protect their identity. 

• “Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress, former officials say” - The Washington Post
• “Whistleblower claimed that Trump abused his office and that White House officials tried to cover it up” - The Washington Post
• “Washington at war: Dems aim for speedy impeachment push as Trump threatens whistleblower” - CNN
• “Whistleblower report complains of White House cover-up on Trump-Ukraine scandal” - Reuters
• “Read the full text of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint” - NBC
• “Whistleblower claims White House abused power, tried to cover up details of Ukraine call” - PBS Newsletter
• “READ: House Intel Committee Releases Whistleblower Complaint On Trump-Ukraine Call” - NPR
• “The Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint, explained” - Vox

Anonymous Whistleblower calls out Persistent Threat

When then-CEO Parag Agrawal initiated a campaign to discredit renowned cybersecurity chief, Mudge Zatko’s, disclosures about the true state of Twitter, anonymous whistleblower known as Jack Spratt, came forward with documentary evidence demonstrating just how easy it is to impersonate users on Twitter.  When Spratt dug into how and why multiple methods for tweeting as others existed, Twitter’s answer was a game of semantics. Changing the name of one capability from “GodMode” to “PrivilegedMode” as a “solution” to the fact that every Twitter engineer was given GodMode upon entry to the company did nothing to limit the exposure to users. Even after Elon Musk took over, anyone with access to Twitter’s engineering code base could easily Tweet as any user without leaving a record of foul play.

Spratt’s disclosures to the SEC, FTC and others submitted by Whistleblower Aid, both substantiated Mudge’s warnings on privacy, security and national security concerns – and exposed the bad faith anti-whistleblower tactics by Twitter leadership.

Working with Whistleblower Aid has been an exceptional experience; their professionalism, empathy, relationships and stewardship has provided a significant peace of mind for myself and my family. WBA recognizes that it is a huge step and risk to speak up, and having worked with them, their dedication, attention and care to the individual and their message is treated with the utmost care and diligence. They truly make you the North Star, and help champion your observations to ensure that they are communicated with the right stakeholders.” – Anonymous Twitter Whistleblower

• “Ex-Twitter engineer tells FTC security violations persist after Musk” - The Washington Post
• “Twitter engineers can still use 'GodMode' to tweet as any account, claims whistleblower” - Engadget
• “Twitter Still Has Security Flaws After Musk Takeover, Whistleblower Alleges” - CNET
• “New Twitter Whistleblower Says Privacy Lapses Continued Into Musk Era” - Bloomberg
• “Twitter ‘GodMode’: Whistleblower Reveals this Allows Engineers to Tweet as Anyone, But is it Legit?” - Tech Times

Whistleblower Aid Exposes Police Department That Protected a Serial Rapist

A former special federal prosecutor revealed that the Johnson City (TN) Police Department (JCDP) was protecting an alleged serial rapist – and Whistleblower Aid stepped up to represent her. The JCPD refused to investigate multiple, credible allegations that a suspect was drugging and raping women spanning more than a decade. Two of the victims were critically injured or died following their encounters with him. 

This is an ongoing investigation and Whistleblower Aid is working diligently with co- counsel and regional media to identify victims, connect them with appropriate legal representation, and hold the JCPD accountable. 

“I was so grateful when [Whistleblower Aid] took on my case and helped me navigate the process of whistleblowing. It can be an overwhelming and isolating experience, so having such a knowledgeable team step in was a huge relief. I was impressed not only by their legal expertise, but by their compassion for their clients who are in difficult and stressful situations. Their dedication to the truth and protecting whistleblowers who come forward is admirable.” – Kateri Dahl

• “Former federal attorney’s lawsuit: JC police chief fired her in retaliation after she pressed for rape investigations” - WJHL Channel 11 News
• “Whistleblower Aid: Evidence for DOJ complaint growing in JCPD ‘Voe’ case” - WJHL Channel 11 News
• “Prominent whistleblower group steps into JC police allegations, seeks additional information from people” - WJHL Channel 11 News
• “Former Federal Prosecutor Sues Johnson City over Botched Serial Rapist Case” - The Tennessee Star
• “Johnson City Police sued by former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney: Case alleges police ignored repeated allegations of rape and allowed the suspect to escape” - The Tennessee Lookout

Protecting the Most Vulnerable Caught in Political Crossfire

Our clients revealed that Facebook had deliberately blocked pages of Australian government fire and safety agencies, among others, during brush fire season and health institutes days before the Covid-19 vaccine rollout in a strategically executed blackout that was only supposed to include news sites. They revealed it was a premeditated effort to strong-arm the Australian government and influence precedential legislation on how much it and other tech companies should pay news outlets for the use of journalistic content.

Whistleblower Aid helped our clients lawfully disclose their evidence to members of Congress, the United States Attorney General Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, the DOJ Criminal Division, and the California US Attorney. We continue to protect their identities.

Shortly after our clients made their submission, The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission began investigating our clients’ claims. During an October 2022 Legislative Hearing by the Canadian Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Whistleblower Aid and our clients’ disclosure were directly cited while debating Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada . Many European nations are also considering our client’s disclosure as they move to adopt similar legislation.

• “Facebook Deliberately Caused Havoc in Australia to Influence New Law, Whistleblowers Say” - The Wall Street Journal
• “Facebook Accused of Deliberately Causing Havoc in Australia Over News Content Law” - CNET
• “Facebook whistleblowers allege government and emergency services hit by Australia news ban was a deliberate tactic” - The Guardian
• “Whistleblowers claim Facebook’s chaotic Australia news ban was a negotiating tactic” - The Verge
• “Facebook accused of deliberately disrupting Australia emergency services” - BBC

Whistleblower Aid Exposes Hate and Human Rights Abuses Facebook Ignored

Joohn Choe hunted bad actors for Facebook.  His directive was to find and report hate groups, inciters of violence, and illegal use of the platform according to their community standards and federal regulations. What he found, and  alerted senior executives to, was evidence that sanctioned, pro-Russian rebels were using the platform to identify and imprison dissidents in early 2021. Despite his efforts, Facebook did not act on Mr. Choe’s reports and continued to allow the sanctioned rebels to use the platform to spread misinformation and publicly hunt and persecute people fighting for human rights in the country. Whistleblower Aid helped Mr. Choe to safely disclose his findings to the DoJ and the FBI. 

Mr. Choe continues to identify companies that are violating US trade and business restrictions and he shares these tips with the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control. Many of his tips involve businesses illegally supporting Russia and president Vladimir Putin. These sanctions will support international democracy and help protect those who fight against the unjust invasion of Ukraine.

Furthermore, Mr. Choe transmitted his research on hate groups and violent inciters to the January 6th Committee.   

“Before Whistleblower Aid, honestly, I felt… like I was way over my head and I didn’t have adequate preparation… [Whistleblower Aid] provided the support that I needed to come forward and provide my truth to the world – to become a whistleblower myself.” – Joohn Choe

• “Pro-Russia rebels are still using Facebook to recruit fighters, spread propaganda” - The Washington Post
• “Whistleblower alleges Meta violated US sanctions law by permitting pro-Russia rebels’ accounts” - The Hill
• “Sanctioned Russian Facebook Accounts Still Used for Recruitment! Rumors Claim They Remain Active” - Tech Times
• “The age of the work-from-home whistleblower” - Business Insider

Whistleblower Aid Details Former LA Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Lies to Congress

Two months after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved Eric Garcetti’s nomination as the next U.S. ambassador to India, Whistleblower Aid filed a disclosure accusing Garcetti of lying under oath. He had denied being aware that his top aide had for years engaged in a pattern of persistent sexual harassment and abuse, even though multiple witnesses in a lawsuit filed against the City of Los Angeles had testified that he had in fact seen it with his own eyes on multiple occasions. One of those witnesses, a former communications director to Garcetti named Naomi Seligman, became a Whistleblower Aid client and together we met with the staff of more than two dozen Senators, both Republican and Democrat, to lay out the evidence against Mayor Garcetti and to argue that enabling and attempting to cover up sexual abuse made him unfit to serve.

Whistleblower Aid filed follow-up disclosures and made sure the issue received consistent media coverage. In response, Senator Chuck Grassley directed his Judiciary Committee staff to investigate the issue themselves. Not only did they conclude that Garcetti either did or should have known about the harassment; they also uncovered more witnesses than had previously spoken out.

Two years after the original Whistleblower Aid disclosure, Garcetti remains unconfirmed as ambassador. Ms. Seligman, meanwhile, has joined the staff of Whistleblower Aid as Vice President of External Affairs. With Garcetti’s nomination still pending, we are continuing to support Ms. Seligman with congressional briefings and local and global media reporting . 

“I have dedicated my career to holding officials responsible when they violate the public trust. Whistleblower Aid was my invaluable support when I came forward myself to denounce a pattern of enabling sexual harassment and abuse in the Los Angeles mayor’s office and made sure that the facts prevailed even when my former colleagues sought to undermine me.”

• “Mayor Garcetti’s former top spokeswoman wants him charged with perjury” - Los Angeles Times
• “Los Angeles Mayor’s Path to U.S. Ambassadorship Is Constricting” - The New York Times
• “Garcetti Ambassador Nomination Stalled in Senate Over Questions About Former Aide’s Conduct” - The Wall Street Journal
• “GOP senator places hold on Garcetti nomination, citing new whistleblower claims” - Los Angeles Times
• “Grassley privately investigating Garcetti, wants nomination held” - Politico
• “Garcetti ‘likely knew or should have known’ about alleged harassment, Senate report finds” - The Hill
• “Garcetti, you're still here?” - Politico
• “US senator delays India post as Los Angeles mayor denies ignoring abuse” - The Hindustan Times
• “Garcetti’s Path to US Ambassadorship to India further narrows down” - The Print (India)

Whistleblower Aid Shuts Down International Pay-To-Spy Scheme

Gary Miller, a mobile phone security expert, disclosed that the surveillance company NSO Group Technologies offered to give representatives of an American mobile-security firm “bags of cash” in exchange for access to global citizens’ private texts messages, phone calls, and geolocation information.

NSO Group Technologies is an Israeli technical surveillance company that makes Pegasus, a program on smartphones – allowing operators to track the user’s locations, listen to calls, retrieve pictures and monitor social media activity – often used by repressive governments to spy on journalists, dissidents, and activists. Pegasus has been found on the phones of murder victims including prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi who was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.  Whistleblower Aid helped Mr. Miller share his lawful disclosure with the DOJ and members of Congress. We worked with The Washington Post to support their breaking news coverage.

• “NSO offered ‘bags of cash’ for access to U.S. cell networks, whistleblower claims” - The Washington Post
• “NSO offered US mobile security firm ‘bags of cash’, whistleblower claims” - The Guardian
• “US Whistleblower Alleges NSO Offered 'Bags of Cash' to Access Global Mobile Networks” - The Wired
• “How Whistleblowers Navigate a Security Minefield” - Wired

Whistleblower Aid Takes On Harvey Weinstein and Notorious Spy Company

Harvey Weinstein spied on journalists reporting on his sexual crimes in an attempt to identify and harass their sources using an elite, Israeli private intelligence agency called Black Cube. As an investigative subcontractor to Black Cube, Igor Ostrovskiy soon realized he was inadvertently assisting Weinstein while endangering himself and many others. 

Whistleblower Aid helped Mr. Ostrovskiy separate from Black Cube and provided secure communications for his use to shield him from retaliation. We helped Mr. Ostrovskiy disclose the surveillance to the journalists reporting on Weinstein and assisted the DoJ in their investigation of Black Cube. We guided Mr. Ostrovskiy through the process of sharing his story with the world with the help of one of the very journalists targeted by Weinstein in an exposé featured in The New Yorker . 

Whistleblower Aid is proud to have helped hold Harvey Weinstein accountable for his crimes and to support our nation’s journalists. 

“[Whistleblower Aid] guided me through the process… It was a relief. It felt safe. It felt like I’ll be able to continue to do the right thing and I’m not going to jeopardize myself. I don’t know where I would be without Whistleblower Aid.” – Igor Ostrovskiy “I was lucky to have the support of [Whistleblower Aid], a nonprofit law firm that offers pro bono legal services to [w]histleblowers. They are a hero of our time, representing many national interest [whistleblower] clients for free.“ – Igor Ostrovskiy

• “The Black Cube Chronicles: The Private Investigators” - The New Yorker
• “Catch and Kill” - HBO Docuseries

Whistleblower Aid Bolsters Case Against Hate and Violence Campaigns on Facebook

Our client, Matthew Schissler, a sociocultural anthropologist who formerly lived and worked in Myanmar, provided groundbreaking evidence of Facebook/Meta’s culpability in a campaign of hate and organized violence against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

He documented Facebook’s choice to ignore how the platform was being used to promote violence against ethnic minorities in Myanmar. Mr. Schissler’s disclosure, which Whistleblower Aid filed with the DOJ, highlights Meta’s failure to moderate non-English hate speech and take actions to prevent the deaths and displacement of millions. 

Current litigation against Facebook for its role in the Rohingya genocide and complementary work by Amnesty International are using Mr. Schissler’s evidence to hold Meta accountable and prevent similar atrocities.

• “The country where Facebook posts whipped up hate” - BBC
• “Facebook has continued to fail Myanmar. Now its people have to pay the price.” - Media Matters

Whistleblower Aid Defends Right to Expose Corrupt Dealmaking

A former Department of Energy (DOE) photographer Simon Edelman  made public photos that showed that then-Secretary Rick Perry was crafting U.S. energy policy to fulfill coal baron Robert Murray’s “wish list”. Mr. Edelman published his photos – which show the two men hugging and discussing an “action plan” for overhauling federal energy regulations — when Perry publicly claimed he did not have a relationship with Murray. He was illegally fired and ordered to destroy the photographs. 

Whistleblower Aid filed Mr. Edelman’s complaint with the US Office of Special Counsel, alleging that he was fired from the DOE for sharing “evidence of criminal corruption, obstruction of justice, and ethics violations” with the press.

As a direct result of Mr. Edelman’s disclosures, Perry’s proposed rule before the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, needlessly subsidizing the coal industry, was voted down unanimously.

“…[T]here’s a great organization called Whistleblower Aid who’s there to protect people who want to expose law breaking without breaking the law. And they helped me out pro bono and they’re there for anybody else who wants to speak up and is afraid to. And this isn’t just a government issue, this is a private sector issue, too. If you see wrongdoing in any sector, you should feel free to speak up because you have the right to do so and there’s protections that can do that.” – Simon Edelman

• “He Leaked a Photo of Rick Perry Hugging a Coal Executive. Then He Lost His Job.” - The New York Times
• “A Whistle-Blower Alleges Corruption in Rick Perry’s Department of Energy” - The New Yorker
• “DOE staffer claims retaliation over photos of secret meeting” - Associated Press News
• “DOE staffer claims retaliation over photos of secret meeting” - CBS News
• “Rick Perry Hugged A Coal Baron. Photographer Got The Picture. Then He Was Placed On Leave.” - The Washington Post

Join our mailing list

Stay informed by email. Do NOT use your work email.

" * " indicates required fields

Media Contact: [email protected] Follow us on X @wbaidlaw

Latest News:

• Statement on Behalf of Whistleblower Aid Client Shannon Van Sant
• Response from Whistleblower Aid CEO Libby Liu to Harvard Kennedy School Statement
• Harvard Gutted Initial Team Examining Facebook Files Following $500 Million Donation from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Whistleblower Aid Client Reveals
• Los Angeles City Council Awards $1.8 million Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, Vindicating Former Garcetti Aides Who Chose to Tell the Truth  
• Reports of Horrifying Photos and Videos of Sexual Assaults of 50+ Victims Including an Infant by Serial Predator Underscores Urgent Need for Accountability and Reform of Tennessee Police Department  
• Independent Audit of Johnson City Police Department Affirms Allegations of Kateri Dahl – former Special Assistant United States Attorney and Whistleblower Aid Client  

PRIVACY POLICY

Truth Be Told: Unpacking the Risks of Whistleblowing

In 2018, HBS associate professors Aiyesha Dey and Jonas Heese wrote a case about a whistleblower at a multi-national gambling company who exposed financial misstatements, first to his manager and later to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The case focused on the company’s response to the complaint, but the class discussion turned to the motivations of the man who revealed the wrongdoing.

Have you ever thought about blowing the whistle? Dey asked her students. Their response: We’ve thought about it, but it is so costly.

At a time when regulators and employers alike are increasingly relying on whistleblowers to prevent and investigate fraud, the professors realized, there is little understanding about the real risks faced by an employee who steps forward. Dey and Heese set out to study the experiences of about 2,400 whistleblowers who filed lawsuits under the False Claims Act, which rewards whistleblowers who report fraud against the federal government with a percentage of the money recovered. “We need to understand the costs,” explains Heese, “and how to empower the people who have important information to share that information.”

April White : Do you think regulators have the necessary tools to encourage people to come forward with information?

Jonas Heese : Our research focuses on specific legislation known as the False Claims Act, which was the first cash-for-information whistleblower law in the world. It goes back to the Civil War, and it has been adopted by modern regulators, such as the SEC whistleblower program [a similar program authorized in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act], the DOT’s Motor Vehicle Safety whistleblower program, and more recently the Treasury’s anti-money-laundering whistleblower program that was passed into law in 2021.

"A lot of whistleblowers are fired. Some may need to move to another state or another industry to find a job, and they may not find a job at the same level."

The big thing is that “cash for information” may not be the right way to talk about it, because it comes across as if someone is making a lot of money without any costs. It’s more like an insurance payment. Whistleblowers incur a lot of costs and get some money as compensation. That changes how we think about whistleblower incentives; it isn’t a reward.

White : Is there abuse of these statutes?

Aiyesha Dey : The debate is about whether it is frivolous, disgruntled employees going to regulators for financial motives, or whether people are coming forward when it is needed and they just get compensated for some of the cost they incur.

Heese : The concern in most countries around the world, in many different types of whistleblower regimes, is that you will get all of these frivolous tips. Regulators and politicians are more willing to talk about laws prohibiting retaliation. But we can show that it’s very difficult to prevent retaliation just with provisions that say you are not allowed to retaliate. Ultimately, the most effective way to protect whistleblowers is to compensate them financially for the costs they incur. We also found that cash-for-information regimes do not increase the number of frivolous tips filed with regulators or change the probability that the employee whistleblower will first report the issue internally.

White: What risks do whistleblowers face?

Dey : There are social and emotional consequences, and there are also career consequences. A lot of whistleblowers are fired. Some may need to move to another state or another industry to find a job, and they may not find a job at the same level.

But when we expanded to a longer term, looking at a variety of consequences over time, we found that the amount of money whistleblowers get seems to compensate, on average, for the financial costs. When they receive financial compensation, the costs are not as high. A slight caveat is that our main findings are for lower-level employees, where the compensation for whistleblowing is a larger percentage of their lifetime earnings.

White : Why do whistleblowers contact regulators?

Heese : In our research, the reason that someone went to the regulator was not a financial motive. It was because their allegation was ignored. In almost two-thirds of the cases, the company just ignored the complaint. In another 10 percent of cases, the company is actually engaging in a cover-up. And then on top of that, some companies retaliate against the whistleblower, with firing being the most severe form of retaliation.

White : Should companies do more to encourage employees to report misdeeds internally?

Heese : Companies have to understand that their employees can be a big source of information for them, too. Whistleblower is a loaded term, but essentially what we’re talking about is how a company can create a culture where an employee feels comfortable telling a boss, “Oh, I just observed that no one is wearing a helmet in the factory. Maybe we should change that.” The upside for the organization when someone speaks up is that it can prevent additional costs or bigger fraud events.

"The problem is that the current structure incentivizes employees to report issues where the penalty is high."

Dey : There are a lot of issues that well-meaning managers and boards may not know about. There may be something bad going on in one subsidiary, or one factory, or with one supervisor. If there is a way that the firm can know about such things, they can resolve it internally more quickly and in a more efficient way than if it goes to regulators.

Although we don’t study this, I think it could also empower employees to feel ownership of the company because they’re helping in the overall growth and productivity of the firm. On the flip side, it could create—again, we haven’t tested this—distrust among employees. But, in general, having employees with the right ethics and values, who come forward when they see something, can actually help companies overall.

White : How could these statutes and policies be improved?

Heese : These statutes are effective in terms of getting the right information in a financially sound way. The problem is that the current structure incentivizes employees to report issues where the penalty is high. For a workplace safety violation, the penalty can be as low as $5,000. A percentage of that may not be enough to encourage an employee to report it. At the same time, we know that thousands of workers still die or get injured due to workplace safety violations. But in securities fraud or tax fraud, where the penalties can be in the millions, it makes more sense.

White : What is next in your research?

Dey : It would be interesting to understand the other avenues of motivating employees to come forward. To do that, we would need to study to what extent the environment within a company or specific society plays a role. What elements of corporate culture could empower employees to take ownership and report possible fraud? What kinds of internal control levers, employee training programs, or perhaps even internal (nonfinancial) rewards and recognitions lead to a greater number of internal whistleblower reports? Subject to data availability, we would also be interested in studying the types and levels of financial and nonfinancial incentives that can encourage whistleblowing at the senior management levels.

This article originally appeared in the HBS Alumni Bulletin .

[Image: iStockphoto/mustafagull]

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• 02 Apr 2024
• What Do You Think?

What's Enough to Make Us Happy?

• 25 Jan 2022
• Research & Ideas

More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

• 01 Apr 2024
• In Practice

Navigating the Mood of Customers Weary of Price Hikes

• 25 Feb 2019

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

• Values and Beliefs
• Corporate Accountability

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Advertisement

What Makes You a Whistleblower? A Multi-Country Field Study on the Determinants of the Intention to Report Wrongdoing

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 25 March 2022
• Volume 183 , pages 885–905, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Hengky Latan 1 ,
• Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6143-4924 2 , 3 ,
• Murad Ali 4 ,
• Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour 3 , 5 &
• Tan Vo-Thanh 6  

9607 Accesses

7 Citations

19 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 07 April 2022

This article has been updated

Whistleblowers have significantly shaped the state of contemporary society; in this context, this research sheds light on a persistently neglected research area: what are the key determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies? Taking a unique methodological approach, we combine evidence from two pieces of fieldwork, conducted using both primary and secondary data from the US and Indonesia. In Study 1, we use a large-scale survey conducted by the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Additional tests are conducted in Study 1, making comparisons between those who have and those who do not have whistleblowing experience. In Study 2, we replicate the survey conducted by the MSPB, using empirical data collected in Indonesia. We find a mixture of corroboration of previous results and unexpected findings between the two samples (US and Indonesia). The most relevant result is that perceived organizational protection has a significant positive effect on whistleblowing intention in the US sample, but a similar result was not found in the Indonesian sample. We argue that this difference is potentially due to the weakness of whistleblowing protection in Indonesia, which opens avenues for further understanding the role of societal cultures in protecting whistleblowers around the globe.

Similar content being viewed by others

Public Trust in Local Government: Explaining the Role of Good Governance Practices

Taye Demissie Beshi & Ranvinderjit Kaur

Inaction and public policy: understanding why policymakers ‘do nothing’

Allan McConnell & Paul ’t Hart

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Pamela K. Lattimore

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

A number of government scandals that have emerged in the news media over the past several years have involved whistleblowers who spoke out against perpetrators of wrongdoing, leading to such wrongdoing being widely recognized by both the public and stakeholders. For instance, evidence that whistleblowers played an important role in letting the world know about the gravity of the coronavirus outbreak in China reveals the unique way in which whistleblowers are shaping contemporary society. Another example is the affair known as the Trump-Ukraine scandal, which occurred in the US and involved an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who reported an abuse of power in the form of an attempt to encourage an investigation into Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent in the 2020 US presidential election. Another famous instance of whistleblower activity is the case of Edward Snowden, who leaked a number of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents that were meant to be kept secret (Archambeault & Webber, 2015 ; Latan et al., 2018 ).

However, a recent study conducted by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) in 2020 reported that occupational fraud occurring in government and the public administration sector has increased dramatically, especially cases of corruption, followed by white collar crime, conspiracy, money laundering, abuse of power and others (ACFE, 2020 ). To date, little attention has been devoted to studying this area. Previous studies by Roberts et al. ( 2011 ) have provided a guide for managing internal reporting of wrongdoing in the public sector, while the work of Brown and Lawrence ( 2017 ) has reported on the strength of organizational processes for responding to staff wrongdoing concerns in the public sector. However, the persistent gap regarding the determinants of whistleblowing in government agencies remains to be fully explored (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005 ; Miceli & Near, 2005 ). Given that whistleblowing plays a pivotal role in facilitating the reform of government agencies and is often seen as consistent with serving the public or society at large (Caillier, 2017b ; Cho & Song, 2015 ), it is important to investigate the relevant factors that encourage whistleblowers to speak up upon observing wrongdoing. Therefore, this research aims to fill this persistent gap and examines the determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies.

As highlighted in a number of recent studies synthesizing the relevant literature (Culiberg & Mihelič, 2017 ; Gao & Brink, 2017 ), there is a large number of existing studies that have investigated individual, situational and organizational factors associated with whistleblowing in the private sector and for-profit organizations (e.g., attitude, personal responsibility, sense of morality, perceived seriousness of wrongdoing, motivation to obtain monetary reward, organizational support, retaliation, wrongdoer power, etc.). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether these factors will have similar or different effects in relation to blowing the whistle when applied in the public sector and non-profit organizations (Cassematis & Wortley, 2013 ; Nayır et al., 2018 ; Scheetz & Wilson, 2019 ). Furthermore, as indicated in previous studies, there are several critical missing links regarding the relationships between these variables that have not yet been studied thoroughly, which has resulted in a lack of insight in this area and calls for further investigation. As far as we are aware, little attention has been paid by whistleblowing scholars to the overlapping nature of factors such as perceived organizational protection (POP), public service motivation (PSM), perceived seriousness of wrongdoing (PSW) and whistleblowing education (WHE) in influencing observers to speak up about misconduct within government agencies.

Although whistleblowers are often regarded as ‘heroes’ for defending the public interest, they are not infrequently also considered ‘traitors’ for revealing wrongdoing in an organization. A study conducted by Miceli and Near ( 2013 ) reports that the involvement of whistleblowers in uncovering misconduct in government agencies has tended to increase over time (Miceli & Near, 2005 ). Unfortunately, retaliation against whistleblowers has followed the same pattern (Near & Miceli, 2016 ), with most observers of wrongdoing admitting that they have experienced retaliation. Several studies have documented retaliation against whistleblowers, with consequences ranging from mild to severe, such as being treated unfairly, bullying from co-workers, experiencing verbal harassment and being laid off from work, all of which disturb the mental health of whistleblowers (Latan et al., 2021 ; Park & Lewis, 2018 ; Rehg et al., 2008 ; van der Velden et al., 2019 ). However, one factor that has not been well studied with regard to mitigating such retaliation is organizational protection (Chordiya et al., 2020 ). We define perceived organizational protection (POP) as the efforts made by an organization to protect its members from various potential threats when they have decided to blow the whistle. On one hand, an observer will feel comfortable and confident in blowing the whistle when he or she believes that they will be protected after speaking out. On the other hand, when protection is weak or non-existent, an observer may choose to remain silent when considering the potential risks that threaten his or her personal and professional life (Izraeli & Jaffe, 1998 ; Latan et al., 2021 ; MacGregor & Stuebs, 2014 ). Hence, POP can be seen as a security system which increases whistleblowing intention (WBI).

Furthermore, there are other related questions which arise, such as why whistleblowers decide to sacrifice themselves for the public interest, and what motivates them to expose wrongdoing in government agencies? According to Roberts ( 2014 ), motivational factors related to the public interest are prominent within government agencies; this includes public service motivation (PSM) and desire to help victims as a result of the perceived seriousness of wrongdoing (PSW) (e.g., fraud, theft, breaches of code of conduct, misuse of allowances or falsification of records). We define PSM as an individual’s orientation toward providing services to people with the aim of serving the public and the wider community. With regard to whistleblowing, PSM can trigger an individual to reveal wrongdoing when it is related to others’ survival. PSM is often associated with an altruistic motive that plays a pivotal role in explaining the intention behind whistleblowing (Caillier, 2017b ; Cho & Song, 2015 ; Ugaddan & Park, 2019 ). In certain situations, PSM encourages observers to sacrifice themselves for the public good. We define PSW as an observer’s assessment of the magnitude of the consequences generated by illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices (Latan et al., 2021 ; Rehg et al., 2008 ). In this regard, the higher the potential impact of wrongdoing on the wider community, the higher the likelihood of observers speaking up. More precisely, whistleblowers often speak up about misconduct which is deemed to have a significant negative impact on the public (e.g., to preserve valuable resources, protect people’s rights and lives or enforce the rule of law). In other words, more serious wrongdoing has greater potential to be reported.

According to the ACFE ( 2020 ) report, whistleblowing education (WHE) has received little attention from stakeholders in various organizations, including government agencies. This suggests the possibility that an observer who has witnessed misconduct in the workplace may not know how or to whom to report it (Culiberg & Mihelič, 2017 ; Vandekerckhove & Lewis, 2012 ). As Caillier ( 2017a ) argues, scant attention has been devoted to dealing with WHE, and it is still unclear how this factor relates to the intention to blow the whistle. We argue that the lack of WHE has serious implications for whistleblowers’ understanding (WHU) and intention to report wrongdoing. In addition, WHE is considered a vehicle that speeds up the whistleblowing process. WHE can help observers when faced with ethical dilemmas; that is, when wrongdoers hold positions of power in organizational structures (such as supervisors or top-level management). In this context, WHE guides observers regarding how to report their findings without fear of retaliation (e.g., using anonymous channels). Therefore, the existence of WHE has the potential to trigger observers to blow the whistle within government agencies.

Motivated by the aforementioned context, we conducted two original field studies, using employees working for government agencies as a sample. We took samples from two countries—the US and Indonesia—with the aim of potentially increasing the generalizability of our findings. In Study 1, we used data from a large-scale survey conducted by the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The aim of Study 1 is to empirically test the determinants of whistleblowing in US government agencies (i.e., POP, PSM, PSW and WHE). Specifically, the MSPB data allow us to examine relationships between variables that have not been explored in previous studies. As has been shown in previous studies in this field (Miceli & Near, 1984 , 1989 , 2002 ), the MSPB survey has significant consequences for the reform of government agencies in the US. In Study 2, we replicated Study 1’s format, in order to examine relationships between variables that have not been explored by previous studies using primary data from an Indonesian sample. We found a slight difference between the two sample groups, indicating unexpected findings which can be explained by differences in societal culture and whistleblowing protection acts (WPA).

Our study extends the state-of-the-art research in the field of whistleblowing and provides new insight for this body of knowledge in two ways. First, our research broadens the scope of whistleblowing in the fields of government and public administration, as reported by several previous scholars (Brown & Lawrence, 2017 ; Miceli & Near, 2002 ; Roberts et al., 2011 ). Specifically, this is one of the first empirical studies to consider the latest MPBS survey in examining the relationships between variables using a very large sample size. To our knowledge, recent studies that have used datasets from the MPBS survey are relatively scarce. We note that studies by Ugaddan and Park ( 2019 ), Dungan et al. ( 2019 ), Caillier (2017ab), and Cho and Song ( 2015 ) have used the MBPS survey; however, these works do not fully explore its potential for exploring relationships between variables. For example, Dungan et al. ( 2019 ) and Caillier ( 2017a ) only consider ‘simple relationships’ between variables (i.e., between predictors and outcomes). In addition, the studies by Ugaddan and Park ( 2019 ), Caillier ( 2017b ) and Cho and Song ( 2015 ) only consider a selection of variables individually.

Second, the present research does not depend on a single study. Based on our best knowledge, the use of multiple studies in whistleblowing research is relatively rare. In contrast to previous studies, which rely solely on the MPBS survey, our study uses two field studies to enrich our findings (Miceli & Near, 2002 ). Therefore, our results provide external validity and a higher potential for the generalization of findings. In addition, this work also answers recent calls by Vandekerckhove et al. ( 2014 ) and Latan et al. ( 2021 ) to conduct cross-cultural comparative studies; in our case between the US and Indonesia.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the theoretical background and development of hypotheses, followed by the research methodology. Following this, the empirical results are presented. Finally, the results are discussed and implications for both academics and practitioners are given.

Theoretical Background and Development of Hypotheses

Whistleblowing in the public sector.

Recently, whistleblowing has come to receive attention from many organizations, including governments and the public administration sector. Although previous studies have noted the virtuousness of whistleblowing and its positive impacts for society at large (Apaza & Chang, 2017 ; Lewis et al., 2014 ; Miceli et al., 2008 ; Vaughn, 2012 ), recent developments indicate that ‘blowing the whistle’ has not been an easy feat in the public sector (Brink et al., 2017 ; Miceli & Near, 2013 ). Taking whistleblowing action against government agencies, who are some of the largest employers and also those who hold the most power in a given country, is undoubtedly not always an easy decision to make (Lewis, 2015 ; Vandekerckhove & Lewis, 2012 ). However, the important role played by whistleblowing in the public sector has several arguments in its favor. First and foremost, within a good system of governance, the public sector can be the most important part of a country’s economy and affects the overall life of the society. Therefore, disclosure of wrongful activities in public sector organizations has the potential benefit of saving people’s lives. In addition, this type of action helps to stop the damage caused by wrongdoing and restore public trust. In some cases, whistleblowing actions can help Presidents, Congresses, agency leaders and/or other decision makers to improve existing systems and identify weaknesses in government agencies. Second, since the public sector is involved in providing services to citizens, disclosure of illegal, immoral and illegitimate acts helps to improve the effectiveness of services (Miceli & Near, 2013 ). In this regard, such disclosure can mean protecting millions of dollars and reducing service costs to create good governance.

The public sector has certain specific characteristics that should be taken into account when understanding the act of whistleblowing. This sector tends to be more centralized and to have a more hierarchical management structure than the private sector. This characteristic may influence the willingness of public sector employees to speak out against wrongdoing. Another feature of the public sector is the degree of political control over this sector, which may influence bureaucratic behaviors and thus, perhaps, public employees’ whistleblowing decisions. Thus, it is important to conduct research considering the public sector, due to its particular characteristics (Lee, 2020 ).

As Miceli and Near ( 2013 ) argue, the whistleblowing process in the public sector may involve a different route and scope from the private sector. However, based on a broad definition, whistleblowing constitutes the disclosure by members of an organization (including former members and job applicants) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices (including omissions) by the employer, to persons or organizations who may be able to effect action (Near & Miceli, 1985 ). We argue that the above definition can be applied in both the private and public sectors. In the public sector, the whistleblowing process may involve many stages, and the disclosure of wrongdoing in this sector is specifically regulated by federal law and controlled by the relevant authorities. Furthermore, the scope of wrongdoing may differ in the public sector, given the differences in workplace activity. For example, according to the ACFE ( 2020 ) report, misconduct that occurred in the private sector included the misappropriation of assets and fraudulent financial statements. Meanwhile, misconduct that occurred in the public sector included corruption, embezzlement, abuse of power and others. In certain instances, governmental dishonesty or the illegal behavior of government agencies may in fact encourage whistleblowing action.

On the other hand, whistleblowing in the context of the public sector is often associated with a prosocial perspective; that is, behavior which is intended to benefit others as well as oneself (Alford, 2001 ; Dozier & Miceli, 1985 ).

Different countries have taken different approaches toward incentivizing the act of speaking out. For example, there are more than 40 pieces of legislation concerning whistleblowing provisions across many jurisdictions in the US, showing that whistleblowing is a widespread cultural phenomenon in this country. However, in other countries, such as Indonesia, there is a lack of law enforcement related to retaliation against whistleblowers. In addition, in countries such as Indonesia, whistleblower protection systems and laws relating to whistleblowing have not been fully regulated. Although government agencies in Indonesia do already have a whistleblowing system in place, it is limited to internal cases. Thus, it is pertinent to consider whether the whistleblower protection measures in place in a given country may relate to whistleblowing intention (WBI). In other words, it is relevant to assess the situation in different countries in terms of whistleblower protection and cultural aspects of the sample context, as in this article.

Perceived Organizational Protection Affecting Whistleblowing

According to the prosocial organizational behavior model (Dozier & Miceli, 1985 ) and the social information processing model (Gundlach et al., 2003 ), whistleblowers will go through several considerations before deciding whether or not to blow the whistle (Latan et al., 2019 , 2021 ; Near & Miceli, 2011 ). Often, the whistleblower’s attention is directed toward the potential benefits and threats arising from the act of blowing the whistle. Recently, more attention has been paid to threats and reprisals against whistleblowers. As noted by Rehg et al. ( 2008 ), retaliation against whistleblowers is common, and is a form of revenge by an organization or wrongdoer. Given this situation, observers often feel anxious, insecure or depressed as a result of disclosing wrongdoing within an organization. To mitigate this impact, scholars have recently called for increased perceived organizational protection of whistleblowers and research into how these risks or threats can be minimized. A study conducted by Chordiya et al. ( 2020 ) concludes that perceived organizational protection for whistleblowers is driven by the ethical climate, legal awareness, ethical leadership and structural provisions. When organizations have a code of ethics, training related to ethics and ethical leadership, this leads to the creation of an ethical climate in the workplace that fosters organizational protection for whistleblowers. In addition, ethical awareness related to whistleblowing law also helps in removing these obstacles. Under such conditions, an observer will feel protected in the act of blowing the whistle and feel comfortable and confident in revealing wrongdoing in the organization.

As Alleyne et al. ( 2018 ) and Latan et al. ( 2018 ) argue, organizational support encourages observers to speak up upon observing wrongdoing. In addition to motivating observers, organizational support also plays an important role in determining how wrongdoing is reported. Under highly protected conditions, observers can report wrongdoing through internal channels. Conversely, in conditions of weak protection, observers usually choose external or anonymous channels (Alleyne et al., 2018 ; Latan et al., 2018 ). Hence, the crucial role of POP is needed in preventing harmful behavior by organizations. We argue that the existence of POP will influence whistleblowers’ understanding (WHU) in selecting reporting channels and this will encourage their intention to be involved in whistleblowing. A study conducted by Cho and Song ( 2015 ) indicates that POP has a positive effect on WBI. Prior studies from Ugaddan and Park ( 2019 ) and Caillier and Sa ( 2017 ) have found that ethical leadership and organizational justice have a positive effect on WHU and intention to report wrongdoing. Other studies by Alleyne et al. ( 2018 ) and Latan et al. ( 2018 ) report that organizational support has a positive effect on the WBI of public accountants. Based on the above discussion, our concomitant hypotheses are:

Perceived organizational protection has a positive effect on whistleblowing understanding.

Perceived organizational protection has a positive effect on whistleblowing intention.

Perceived organizational protection has a positive indirect effect on whistleblowing intention through whistleblowing understanding.

Public Service Motivation Affecting Whistleblowing

PSM has been widely defined as an individual’s predisposition to respond positively with regard to the public interest; this motive is commonly found in government agencies (Perry & Wise, 1990 ). PSM is generally associated with an altruistic motivation to serve the public interest, which is different from a prosocial perspective (Perry et al., 2010 ). Therefore, employees with high levels of PSM are less dependent on monetary rewards, while showing a higher loyalty toward bureaucracy (Caillier, 2017b ; Cho & Song, 2015 ). Several studies have documented the relationship between PSM and public employees’ attitudes to work, for instance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, commitment to the organization and commitment to society at large (Christensen et al., 2017 ; Liu & Perry, 2016 ). According to Perry and Wise ( 1990 ), PSM can be divided into three categories of motives: rational, norm-based and affective.

First, rational motives involve actions grounded in individual utility maximization (e.g., capability to blow the whistle). The concept of utility is here associated with the understanding and rationalizing individuals undertake before taking action. Second, norm-based motives refer to actions generated by efforts to conform to norms (e.g., revealing wrongdoing to uphold social justice). These motives generally relate to individual beliefs and values held. Finally, affective motives refer to behavioral triggers that are grounded in emotional responses to various social contexts (e.g., moral anger related to social importance). This category relates to individual feelings when faced with challenging ethical situations.

Perry et al. ( 2010 ) revisit the above motivational bases of public service and conclude that PSM reflects self-sacrifice, altruism and prosocial behaviors. In relation to the act of whistleblowing, PSM can trigger an individual to react after observing wrongdoing. On the one hand, PSM invokes a sense of personal responsibility, adherence to ethical norms and the desire of individuals to enact virtuous values. On the other hand, whistleblowers often sacrifice themselves to achieve a higher purpose; that is, serving the public interest, regardless of whether or not they will suffer reprisals. Therefore, PSM facilitates WHU and individuals’ behavior in response to wrongdoing. Several previous studies have indicated a positive relationship between PSM and various outcomes (Christensen et al., 2017 ). Specifically, Cho and Song ( 2015 ) found a positive relationship between PSM and intention to report wrongdoing in government agencies. Another study by Caillier ( 2017b ) found a positive relationship between PSM and whistleblowing intentions, mediated by the seriousness of wrongdoing. Based on the above discussion, our concomitant hypotheses are:

Perceived seriousness of wrongdoing has a positive effect on whistleblowing understanding.

Perceived seriousness of wrongdoing has a positive effect on whistleblowing intention.

Perceived seriousness of wrongdoing has a positive indirect effect on whistleblowing intention through whistleblowing understanding.

Perceived Seriousness of Wrongdoing Affecting Whistleblowing

Miceli et al. ( 2008 ) argue that the whistleblowing process goes through three phases. The first phase begins with an individual observing activities that are considered questionable and labeling them as wrongful. At this stage, the observer will make an assessment of suspected wrongful activities based on moral standards. In the second phase, once the wrongful activity has been established, the observer will react and respond to it. Usually, an observer will consider the seriousness of the wrongdoing and how wide-ranging the consequences and the potential harm to victims and society at large are. In this regard, before taking whistleblowing action in the third phase, the observer will make an assessment of whether an activity or behavior can be classified as wrongful and/or harmful; this aims to measure the degree of seriousness of the wrongdoing (Ayers & Kaplan, 2005 ; Rehg et al., 2008 ). Finally, the observer decides to report their findings through the available reporting channels. The selection of reporting channels will be determined by the degree of seriousness of the wrongdoing, and is therefore related to WHU. In fact, wrongful activities that are considered very serious tend to be reported anonymously, in order to avoid retaliation.

For example, Edward Snowden, who leaked confidential documents from the NSA, considered the seriousness of wrongdoing of the illegal practices he had witnessed (i.e., telephone tapping) and the widespread harmful consequences for society before deciding to blow the whistle. In line with this, we argue that greater seriousness of wrongdoing increases the likelihood of whistleblowing. Greater seriousness of wrongdoing creates greater potential harm, and because of this, it is more likely that a decision will be taken to act on the situation (Keil et al., 2018 ; Latan et al., 2021 ). To support this logic, several previous studies have indicated that seriousness of wrongdoing tends to encourage potential whistleblowers to speak up (Ayers & Kaplan, 2005 ; Keil et al., 2018 ; Latan et al., 2021 ). Moreover, PSW can be viewed as based on the magnitude of the consequences (Alleyne et al., 2017 ; Chen & Lai, 2014 )—a component of moral intensity related to the ethical decision-making process. The magnitude of the consequences can be understood as the amount of loss or damage that will result from the wrongdoing. In the face of challenging ethical situations, the magnitude of the consequences often becomes a determinant in ethical decision-making (e.g., deciding to blow the whistle). Several previous studies have found a positive relationship between PSW and intention to report wrongdoing (Andon et al., 2018 ; Caillier, 2017b ; Keil et al., 2018 ; Latan et al., 2021 ; Near & Miceli, 1986 ). Notably, a study by Casal and Bogui ( 2008 ) found that an observer would prefer to remain within the organization and blow the whistle, rather than leave the organization after perceiving serious wrongdoing. Based on the above discussion, our concomitant hypotheses are:

Whistleblowing Education Affecting Whistleblowing

According to organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986 ), organizations generally care about the welfare of their employees, value their work efforts and want to meet their social-emotional needs with assurance that aid will be available from the organization when it is needed. There are numerous examples of organizational support, including empowerment, top management commitment, various programs related to career advancement, training and workshops, as well as whistleblowing education (WHE). Organizational support aims to make work practices effective and help those in challenging ethical situations. While a plethora of studies has proven the relationship between organizational support and a number of desirable outcomes, such as individual performance or job satisfaction, it has also been identified as an explanatory variable for the intention behind whistleblowing (Alleyne et al., 2018 ; Latan et al., 2018 ). More specifically, the manifestation of organizational support in government agencies relates to WHE. In general, government agencies that have a WHE program educate their employees about how to report wrongdoing. This includes learning about the reporting channels available to them, together with the pros and cons of each option chosen. In addition, WHE also informs employees about relevant whistleblower protection acts (WPA) and associated laws.

Furthermore, Cho and Song ( 2015 ) argue that WHE can provide a road map to the whistleblowing process when someone decides to blow the whistle. With regard to whistleblowing, WHE can affect understanding of whistleblowing and related decisions, which can in turn trigger an individual to blow the whistle. When perceived organizational support is received by employees through WHE and disclosure of wrongdoing is fully supported, this enhances the likelihood of employees engaging in whistleblowing. Several previous studies have found a positive relationship between WHE and intention to report wrongdoing (Caillier, 2017a ; Cho & Song, 2015 ; Near & Miceli, 1986 ). In fact, a study by Jeon ( 2017 ) indicates that whistleblowing education is effective for both channels—that is, internal and external—and encourages employees to engage with whistleblowing. Based on the above discussion, our concomitant hypotheses are:

Whistleblowing education has a positive effect on whistleblowing understanding.

Whistleblowing education has a positive effect on whistleblowing intention.

Whistleblowing education has a positive indirect effect on whistleblowing intention through whistleblowing understanding.

Whistleblowing Understanding Affecting Whistleblowing

We define WHU as the set of knowledge possessed by individuals or observers about everything related to the process of whistleblowing, its reporting and impact, which helps them in deciding whether or not to blow the whistle. An observer who possesses good WHU knows how to respond to wrongdoing (Miceli et al., 2008 ; Vaughn, 2012 ). When wrongdoing has the potential to threaten the whistleblower, WHU works to minimize this impact. In such cases, reporting of misconduct can be made anonymous. Moreover, the observer can request protection from the relevant authorities. A person who has a high level of WHU usually does not experience difficulties when faced with wrongdoing. Generally, he or she knows how to behave, which therefore promotes the likelihood of engaging in whistleblowing. Meanwhile, a person with a lower level of WHU may experience confusion when faced with a challenging ethical situation. In this situation, he or she does not know what action to take when observing wrongdoing, and therefore may choose to remain silent (Latan et al., 2021 ; MacGregor & Stuebs, 2014 ). A study conducted by Dungan et al. ( 2019 ) found that WHU increased employees’ intention to blow the whistle in government agencies. Based on the above discussion, our fifth hypothesis is:

Whistleblowing understanding has a positive effect on whistleblowing intention.

Figure  1 portrays the research framework empirically tested in this work.

Theoretical framework for understanding whistleblowing intention

Whistleblowers have significantly shaped the state of contemporary society; in this context, this research sheds light on a persistently neglected research area: what are the key determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies? Taking a unique methodological approach, we combine evidence from two pieces of fieldwork, conducted using both primary and secondary data from the US and Indonesia. In Study 1, we use a large-scale survey conducted by the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Additional tests were conducted in Study 1, making a comparison between those who have and those who do not have whistleblowing experience. In Study 2, we replicate the survey conducted by the MSPB, using empirical data collected in Indonesia. The following sections present each of these two studies.

Sample and Data Collection

In Study 1, we used the dataset of the 2010 Merit Principles Survey (MPS) conducted by the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). These data are archival in nature and available in the public domain ( https://www.mspb.gov/studies/surveys.htm ). For details on the survey and the sampling frame, see Appendix A in the supplementary material, available online.

At the end of the data collection process, MSPB had received 43,162 returned questionnaires; 1142 of these were excluded due to being invalid, giving a final response rate of 58.53%. According to Near and Miceli ( 2008 ), the response rate from MPS surveys over time has been very high, and this level meets the rule of thumb for the minimum response rate recommended by various studies (Dillman et al., 2014 ; Holtom et al., 2022 ). We conducted preliminary tests to ensure these data are free from biases such as non-response bias and common method variance (CMV). We performed an independent t -test, comparing two waves of responses—early and late responders—with the assumption that the late responders represent employees who did not respond to the survey (Fulton, 2018 ). As shown in Table 1 , our results found no significant differences ( p  > 0.05) in either Levene’s test or the equality of means test for the variables tested. We can thus conclude that non-response bias is not a threat to our analysis. In addition, we examined common method variance (CMV), which often occurs when using the self-reporting technique. We used the marker variables approach and compared the goodness-of-fit indices of the model with or without marker variables through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Williams et al., 2010 ). We found that the marker model showed poor fit and did not correlate with the main constructs in the model. Therefore, we conclude that CMV does not occur in our case. However, we acknowledge that these biases may still exist, even though we did not detect them at this time.

We summarize the profile of respondents as shown in Table 2 . The largest groups of respondents are those with experience in their role of between 4 and 11 years (25.58%), are in non-supervisory roles (40.91%), and have a bachelor’s degree level of academic education (37.66%).

Questionnaire Design and Measures

We identified 23 items for measuring the variables in our proposed model. Since the MSPB survey involves many factors related to the workplace, not only whistleblowing-related aspects (e.g., job satisfaction, loyalty, job barriers, job recognition, leadership, etc.) (Dungan et al., 2019 ), we excluded these irrelevant items from the analysis. A complete list of items used in this study is depicted in Tables 3 and 4 . We note that the 23 items selected were spread across a number of sections in the 2010 MPS questionnaire.

To measure perceived organizational protection (POP), 3 items were selected to reflect this variable. A 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree,” was used to measure this construct. For instance, respondents were asked “please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement—whether the organization protects employees against reprisal for whistleblowing” and so on. Furthermore, public service motivation (PSM) and perceived seriousness of wrongdoing (PSW) were measured using 5 and 2 items, respectively. Again, A 5-point Likert scale was used to measure both of these constructs. These scales ranged from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree” and 1 = “unimportant” to 5 = “very important,” respectively. In the same vein, respondents were asked, regarding PSM, items such as “please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement – whether making a difference in society means more than personal achievements.” On the other hand, regarding PSW, respondents were presented with items such as “how important, if at all, would each of the following be in encouraging you to report an illegal or wasteful activity, such as, the activity might endanger people’s lives.”

Meanwhile, the remaining variables were also measured using multiple measurement items. Whistleblowing education (WHE) was measured using 3 items and adopted a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” For example, respondents were asked “please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement – whether your agency has educated you about the purpose of the Office of the Inspector General” and so on. Further, whistleblowing understanding (WHU) was measured using 4 items related to the organization of reporting channels. This time, a 4-point Likert scale was applied, ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 4 = “great extent.” Respondents were asked questions such as “to what extent do you understand the role of each of the following organizations when it comes to responding to reports of wrongdoing.” Finally, whistleblowing intention (WBI) was measured using 6 items and a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “very unlikely” to 5 = “very likely.” Respondents were asked to indicate “how likely would you be to blow the whistle when the wrongdoer was a supervisor” and so on.

Data Analysis

A covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) method was used to analyze our data and confirm hypothesis testing. We chose CB-SEM based on several key considerations. First, CB-SEM is a second-generation analysis technique that allows us to examine the causal relationships between unobserved variables simultaneously based on theoretical grounds. In this regard, CB-SEM provides various goodness-of-fit indices, including ‘absolute,’ ‘incremental’ and ‘parsimonious’ (Byrne, 2016 ; Kline, 2016 ). Second, CB-SEM allows us to perform CFA (Collier, 2020 ). In addition, CB-SEM provides various choices in terms of estimation methods, such as maximum likelihood (ML) or generalized least squares (GLS) for normal data assumptions, and asymptotically distribution-free (ADF) and full information maximum likelihood (FIML) for non-normal data and missing values. Finally, CB-SEM is a robust approach which produces stable estimates.

Regarding the sample size requested in the CB-SEM estimates, we followed the rule of thumb provided by experts in the field, although we recognize that there is no general consensus. We follow the recommended minimum sample size as given by Byrne ( 2016 ) and Kline ( 2016 ) to perform the ADF estimation method in CB-SEM, which is not less than 5000 cases. However, when a small sample size (e.g., less than 1000 cases) is used in the ADF estimator, the results generally cannot be trusted, as they tend to be very poor and distorted. Because our case meets this requirement, and it is difficult to obtain normal data distribution in the ML estimator using a very large sample size, we chose to use the ADF method. The ADF estimator makes no distributional assumptions for continuous outcomes. In addition, the ADF estimator will provide accurate results from parameter estimates (i.e., no distorted estimated values and standard errors) and avoid the appearance of Heywood cases (i.e., negative variance). Second, we considered the identification of the model in CB-SEM analysis by calculating the number of distinct values in the sample variance–covariance matrix as equal to or higher than the number of parameters to be estimated (Whittaker & Schumacker, 2022 ). A model is called ‘identified’ if the degree of freedom is equal to or greater than 1.

Finally, we are reporting the results of our analysis following the guidelines for best practice (Boomsma et al., 2014 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ). We have divided this reporting phase into three subprocesses. First, we will report the results of the measurement model through CFA analysis (i.e., factor loadings, average variance extracted, composite reliability, etc.). Second, we will report the results of the structural model through the ADF estimator (i.e., R 2 , f 2 , goodness-of-fit, critical ratio, etc.). Finally, we will report the results of the robustness checks conducted to strengthen our main findings.

The AMOS 28.0 program was used to test our research model. According to Byrne ( 2016 ), AMOS is preferred because of its simplicity, and generally involves a graphical interface. As mentioned earlier, we used a number of specific settings, such as selecting the ADF estimator and activating the desired output options. We assessed multivariate normality through the critical ratio (CR) values of skewness and kurtosis to justify the use of the ADF estimator. Based on the results of the assessment of normality, we obtained a CR value for kurtosis of 10.647 > 10 and for skewness of − 33.152 < 3. According to Kline ( 2016 ), we can thus conclude that our data are not normally distributed. Since our dataset is very large, the multivariate normality assumption is ignored in this regard, thereby justifying the use of the ADF estimator.

Tables 3 and 4 present descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of each indicator variable, while Table 5 presents the correlation between variables. Following the guidelines of Bedeian ( 2014 ), we confirm that the mean and standard deviation values of the variables in the model do not exceed the maximum and the correlation sign is not reversed. We found no correlation greater than 0.70 for all pairs of relationships between variables, which gives an initial indication that our data are free from collinearity. To support this conclusion, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each predictor and found VIF values < 3.3, which meets the rule of thumb threshold (see Table 6 ).

Measurement Model Assessment

Since the items for each variable were taken separately from the 2010 MPS questionnaire, we conducted a series of factor analyses through principal component analysis (PCA) to test the reliability of these items. Using IBM SPSS 28.0, we obtained a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO-MSA) > 0.50 for each variable in the model, with 1 component extracted. In Tables 3 and 4 , the value of factor loadings obtained is greater than 0.50, supporting these items forming a single factor. Thereafter, we conducted a CFA analysis to assess the measurement model, consisting of factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and composite reliability ( ρ c ). We obtained factor loading values for each indicator > 0.708 and AVE > 0.50, respectively, in line with the recommended threshold for convergent validity (Collier, 2020 ; Garson, 2015 ). Although a few indicators yielded values slightly below this cut-off, it is still acceptable for strengthening content validity. In addition, we obtained α and ρ c values both greater than 0.70, which meets the requirements of internal consistency reliability (Garson, 2015 ). Finally, the GoF index for the CFA model was assessed. We obtained the following values: comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.941 > 0.90, incremental index of fit (IFI) = 0.942 > 0.90, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.969 > 0.90, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.952 > 0.85, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.937 > 0.90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.030 < 0.08, and root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.057 < 0.08, which shows the appropriate fit of our CFA model.

Furthermore, we assessed discriminant validity using two approaches. First, we compared the square root of AVE with the correlation between latent variables. This approach is often called the Fornell–Larcker criterion. In Table 5 , the diagonal line shows the square root of AVE greater than the correlation, which means that discriminant validity is fulfilled. Second, we assessed the Hetero-Trait-Mono-Trait (HTMT) ratio. HTMT values greater than 0.90 show similarity of measurements between variables, while HTMT values less than 0.85 show the opposite. In Table 5 , the HTMT values generated below the diagonal line are less than 0.85, indicating that discriminant validity is met for our measurements.

Structural Model Assessment

We decided to report several core metrics for evaluating structural models and related parameters. In this regard, we report here the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) for each endogenous variable, the effect size ( f 2 ) for each predictor in the model and the overall GoF indices, including ‘absolute,’ ‘incremental’ and ‘parsimonious,’ to assess compatibility between our model and data. As shown in Table 6 , we obtained R 2 values for the two endogenous variables (in our case WHU and WBI), which were 0.131 and 0.367, respectively. These R 2 values fall into the moderate and large categories, respectively (Cohen, 1988 ). In addition, Table 6 shows that the f 2 values that we obtained, which highlight the strength of the relationship obtained between an independent variable and a dependent variable, ranged from 0.015 to 0.234 (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2009 ). Finally, we assessed the GoF index from the structural model. We obtained the following values: CFI = 0.819, IFI = 0.819, GFI = 0.901, AGFI = 0.873, NFI = 0.811, PCFI = 0.696, PNFI = 0.689, RMSEA = 0.038 and RMR = 0.062. We conclude that our structural model does fit with the data (Kline, 2016 ; Whittaker & Schumacker, 2022 ).

Testing of Hypotheses—Direct Effect

We tested our hypotheses simultaneously through the ADF estimator. To test whether our hypotheses were supported or not, we looked at the sign of the path coefficient ( β ) and the critical ratio (CR) values on the relationships between variables. First, we examined direct effects and found that all hypotheses are supported empirically, as depicted in Table 7 . Specifically, we found empirical support for the path relationships POP→WHU and POP→WBI, with beta ( β ) values of 0.038 and 0.080, respectively, and significance at CR = 4.165 > 1.96 and CR = 5.615 > 1.96. In addition, the path relationships PSM→WHU and PSM→WBI were also supported by our findings, with beta ( β ) values of 0.141 and 0.302, respectively, and significance at CR = 11.226 > 1.96 and CR = 14.484 > 1.96. Therefore, we can conclude that H1a, H1b, H2a, and H2b are confirmed. Subsequently, we found that the path relationships PSW→WHU and PSW→WBI, as well as WHE→WHU and WHE→WBI, were fully supported, with beta ( β ) values of 0.016, 0.109, 0.413, and 0.116, respectively, and significance at CR > 1.96. Hence, we can draw the conclusion that H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b are confirmed. Finally, for the path relationship WHU→WBI, we found the value of β  = 0.078 and CR = 4.650 > 1.96. Thus, H5 was confirmed in our findings.

Testing of Hypotheses—Indirect Effect

In addition to examining direct effects, we also tested indirect effects to justify the role of a mediating variable (in our case WHU). Following Hayes’s ( 2022 ) recommendation for the simple mediation model using the PROCESS procedure, we found the results of indirect effects as depicted in Table 8 . We found that the indirect effects pathway was fully supported in our case. Notably, for the POP→WHU→WBI and PSM→WHU→WBI paths, both were significant at CR > 1.96. According to Hayes ( 2022 ), the assumption of indirect effects is therefore fulfilled. Additionally, for the PSW→WHU→WBI and WHE→WHU→WBI paths, both were also significant. Consequently, our findings empirically confirmed H1c, H2c, H3c, and H4c.

Robustness Checks

We conducted two robustness checks to reinforce our main findings. First, we assessed endogeneity bias through the Durban and Wu-Hausman tests with the help of the STATA 17.0 program. We found no endogeneity biases occurring in our case ( p  > 0.05), including inverse causality, sample-selection bias,, and omitted variables (Ullah et al., 2021 ). These results confirm that our main findings are free from endogeneity bias. Second, we examined the potential for nonlinear relationships between variables. Because CB-SEM generally assumes a linear combination between variables (Garson, 2015 ), the nonlinear pattern (e.g., quadratic effect) is considered absent. To test for the existence of this nonlinear pattern, we used Ramsey’s regression specification error test (RESET) (Wooldridge, 2020 ). Based on the results of Ramsey’s test, we found values of p  > 0.05 for all possible relationships. Hence, we can conclude that our model has been correctly specified (Whittaker & Schumacker, 2022 ; Wooldridge, 2020 ).

Additional Testing

This test aims to identify the difference between those who have and those who do not have whistleblowing experience. Specifically, this test adds to the validity of the findings from Study 1. We classified respondents based on their responses to a number of further question items and compared the differences between them. The respondents were asked “regardless of whether or not it is part of your job, during the last 12 months, did you personally observe or obtain direct evidence of one or more illegal or wasteful activities involving your agency? ( Note : do not answer “yes” if you only heard about the activity in the media or heard about it as a rumor.)” Based on this question, respondents were divided into three groups. First, respondents who answered “no” were classified as non-observers ( n  = 34.463); that is, those who had not observed wrongdoing. Second, respondents who answered “yes” were asked to “select the one activity that represents the most serious problem you know about” from a list of 10 response categories: stealing federal funds; stealing federal property; accepting bribes or kickbacks; waste caused by ineligible people receiving funds, goods, or services; waste caused by unnecessary or deficient goods or services; use of an official position for personal benefit; waste caused by a badly managed program; unfair advantage in the selection of a contractor, consultant, or vendor; tolerating a situation or practice which poses a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; and other serious violation of law or regulation.

Third, observers were asked “did you report the activity to any individual or a group?”. Observers who answered “no” were classified as those who did not have whistleblowing experience ( n  = 1.312); that is, those who had observed wrongdoing but did not report it. Finally, observers who answered “yes” were classified as those who have whistleblowing experience ( n  = 1.764); that is, those who had both observed and reported wrongdoing. Furthermore, observers who merely discussed the matter with family members, friends or an unknown party (as indicated by selecting “other”) or mentioned it informally to co-workers did not count as whistleblowers; thereby, these cases were excluded from our analysis ( n  = 601). In addition, there were about 93 remaining respondents who reported that they had observed an illegal activity but did not answer the question about who they reported the activity to; these cases were therefore also excluded from our analysis.

We conducted a multigroup analysis (MGA) to compare our subsamples using PLS path modeling. In this regard, we compared those who have and those who do not have whistleblowing experience. We assessed the measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM) before conducting a PLS-MGA analysis. As depicted in Table 9 , the MICOM results indicate that both configural and compositional invariance were established ( p  > 0.05) within step 2 and step 3 of the permutation tests. According to Hair et al. ( 2022 ), the measurement invariance of our subsamples is therefore confirmed. Furthermore, PLS-MGA analysis was carried out using non-parametric approaches: PLS-MGA and permutation tests. The PLS-MGA results for the relationships between variables are presented in Table 9 . We found that the path coefficients between the two sample groups (no experience vs. experience in whistleblowing) did not differ significantly. Specifically, the results of the PLS-MGA and permutation tests showed no significant difference ( p  > 0.05) between the two samples. In addition, the results of each group did not show significant differences in the findings, with both groups giving similar results. Therefore, we conclude that there is no difference in intention between those who have and those who do not have whistleblowing experience, which strengthens the findings of Study 1.

In order to enhance the generalizability of the findings from Study 1, we collected empirical data in Indonesia, using questionnaire items provided by the 2010 MPS survey. For details on the survey and the sampling frame, see Appendix B in the supplementary material available online.

Ultimately, we received 167 responses by the deadline for returning the questionnaire. From this initial rate of return, 35 were excluded due to being incomplete, giving a final response rate of 24.81%. We ran a t-test to detect non-response bias. As shown in Table 1 , we found no significant mean differences ( p  > 0.05) in either Levene’s test or the equality of means test. From these results, we can conclude that non-response bias is not a threat to the validity of our findings. Subsequently, we performed a CFA test with the marker variables technique to detect common method variance (CMV). We found that the marker model did not fit the data and did not correlate with the main constructs. From these results, we can conclude that CMV did not occur in our case. Again, we acknowledge that these biases may still exist, and our data may not be completely free from these biases. A summary of the profile of respondents for Study 2 is depicted in Table 2 .

Measurement Items and Scales

We obtained factor loading values for the POP and PSM constructs greater than 0.708 and AVE values > 0.05, respectively. In addition, the Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and composite reliability ( ρ c ) values obtained for both are greater than 0.70, which satisfies the validity and reliability of constructs. Meanwhile, for the PSW and WHE constructs, similar results were obtained. The lowest factor loading value for the two constructs is 0.885 > 0.708, with AVE values ranging from 0.789 to 0.817. For α and ρ c , these values range from 0.733 to 0.888. Finally, for the WHU and WBI constructs, we obtained factor loading values for both ranging from 0.736 to 0.932, with the lowest AVE value 0.658 > 0.50. Additionally, for α and ρ c , both values meet the rule of thumb, ranging from 0.824 to 0.941.

We employed PLS path modeling for our data analysis. The PLS approach is useful when the research involves complex models with medium sample sizes. This approach is often referred to as an alternative method to structural equation modeling (SEM). In addition, PLS offers several advantages, such as not applying parametric assumptions (often called distribution free) and supporting advanced features. Based on this consideration, we chose PLS as these reasons made it the superior choice in our case. We then calculated the minimum sample requirements for our model and found our sample size to be greater than the recommended minimum of 146 cases (where the minimum absolute significant path coefficient = 1.97, significant level = 0.05 and required power level = 0.80). The results of the PLS analysis will be reported as follows. First, we will report the results of the structural model assessment including path coefficient, R 2 values, f 2 , etc. Second, we will report the results of our hypothesis testing, which was conducted using the bootstrapping approach at a 95% confidence interval (CI). Finally, we will provide a robustness test for unobserved heterogeneity to ascertain the main results.

We used the SmartPLS 3 software to analyze our data (Ringle et al., 2015 ). We implemented a number of specific settings before running this software. In the PLS algorithm settings, we selected the path weighting scheme with the maximum number of iterations set at 300 and a stop criterion of 10 −7 (= 1.0E−07). In terms of bootstrapping, we used 5,000 subsamples to obtain stability of model estimates through confidence interval methods, namely a bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap. In addition, we set the level of significance to reject the null hypothesis at 5% (one-tailed). The results obtained are described below.

Since the PLS model estimates the relationship between latent variables by means of linear aggregates of the indicators, the assumption of collinearity among predictors needs to be considered. We obtained VIF values for predictors in the model of less than 3.3 (see Table 10 ), which indicate that this issue does not occur in our case.

An assessment of the structural model for Study 2 is exhibited in Table 10 . We obtained R 2 values for the WHU and WBI constructs ranging from 0.450 to 0.546, respectively. According to Cohen ( 1988 ), these values fall into the large category. Regarding the magnitude of the variance contributed, we obtained f 2 values ranging from 0.033 to 0.094, as depicted in Table 10 . Based on Cohen ( 1988 ), these f 2 values are included in the small to moderate category. Finally, we obtained predictive relevance ( Q 2 ) values through the blindfolding procedure for each dependent variable in the model, which were greater than 0. The Q 2 results indicate the PLS model does ‘fit.’ This is supported by the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value of 0.065 < 0.08.

Overall, we found support for our hypotheses for each direct effect in the model as shown in Table 11 , apart from the connecting path POP→WBI, which is not supported. For the path relationships POP→WHU, PSM→WHU and PSM→WBI, we found a positive and significant effect with beta ( β ) values of 0.158, 0.308, and 0.267, respectively, and significant at p  < 0.05 at 95% CI. Therefore, H1a, H2a, and H2b are confirmed. In addition, for the path relationships PSW→WHU, PSW→WBI, WHE→WHU and WHE→WBI, we found a positive and significant effect with beta ( β ) values of 0.228, 0.214, 0.191, and 0.185, respectively, and significance at p  < 0.05 at 95% CI. Hence, H3a, H3b, H4a and H4b are also confirmed. Finally, regarding the WHU→WBI link, our results reflect a positive and significant relationship, with β  = 0.191, p  = 0.019 < 0.05 at 95% CI. Accordingly, H5 is confirmed.

We also looked at specific indirect effects on the SmartPLS output in order to assess the role of a mediating variable. Following the guidelines of Hair et al. ( 2022 ) for testing the indirect effect in the PLS framework, we obtained the results as shown in Table 12 . We found both the path relationships PSM→WHU→WBI and PSW→WHU→WBI to be significant at p  < 0.05 at 95% CI. Therefore, we can conclude that H2c and H3c are supported. Meanwhile, regarding the indirect effect WHE→WHU→WBI, we found a positive and significant effect, with beta ( β ) values of 0.036 and significant at p  < 0.05 at 95% CI. Hence, H4c is also supported.

Robustness Tests

We utilized the finite mixture PLS (FIMIX-PLS) algorithm to test unobserved heterogeneity in order to strengthen our findings. In this process, we assessed the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index for model comparisons. We obtained consistent Akaike’s information criterion (CAIC) values of k  = 1, as opposed to k  = 2 or k  = 3, which indicates that this bias was absent. To confirm this conclusion, we examined modified AIC with factor 4 (AIC 4 ), the Bayesian information criteria (BIC) and minimum description length with factor 5 (MDL 5 ), which generally works better to determine the number of segments. Our results indicate that there is no difference between these results, which confirms our previous conclusion.

Discussion and Implications for Theory and Practice

Recently, the government and public administration sectors have faced tremendous challenges to create good governance based on the principles of democracy, transparency and public accountability. Scandals such as abuses of power or severe corrupt practices in government agencies (ACFE, 2020 ) have affected public trust in general and demoralized civil servants (Miceli et al., 2012 ). One way to combat these unethical practices in government agencies is through whistleblowing acts. Whistleblowing acts have been proven to be helpful in rebuilding good governance, which indicates that employees remain critical in combating all forms of unethical behavior (Miceli et al., 2008 ). Despite the fact that various governments have tried to encourage their employees to be involved in whistleblowing, there is a lack of evidence to support their decision to blow the whistle, and the determinants of whistleblowing in government agencies have not been fully studied. Our current studies provide important evidence of the strong relationships between POP, PSM, PSW, WHE, WHU, and WBI by using a sample of employees who work for government agencies in the US and Indonesia.

Specifically, our main findings can be presented as follows. First, in Study 1, we have identified a positive and significant effect on the relationship between POP and WHU as well as POP and WBI, where POP encourages employees’ intention to blow the whistle. In addition, we also discovered an indirect effect between POP and WBI through WHU. Our findings indicate that POP can be considered a ‘silver bullet’ that triggers employees’ decision to reveal wrongdoing in government agencies. That is, the higher the perceived level of protection, the higher the employee’s intention to engage in whistleblowing. Furthermore, through the understanding of WPA, this may lead them to make the decision to blow the whistle. In this regard, WHU helps in the process of whistleblowing. In the US context, there are laws regarding whistleblower protection that include citizens in general, working in both the private and public sectors (i.e., the Sarbanes–Oxley and Dodd–Frank Acts); this may guide federal agencies in the US to establish organizational protection for whistleblowers. Hence, protection for whistleblowers has become prominent in the US, which may trigger employee intention to report wrongdoing (Brink et al., 2017 ).

In line with this, the literature shows that an observer will report wrongdoing when he or she feels safe and comfortable to do so (Miceli & Near, 2005 ). Our findings support previous research conducted by Caillier and Sa ( 2017 ), Ugaddan and Park ( 2019 ) and Cho and Song ( 2015 ), where POP was shown to have a significant positive effect on WBI, mediated by WHU. However, in Study 2, conducted in Indonesia, we did not find similar effects for this emerging economy. We argue that this difference is potentially due to the weakness of WPA in Indonesia. In this context, WPA in Indonesia does not yet exist and there are no laws governing whistleblowing protection as there are in the US, where there is a tradition of public sector whistleblowing protection at federal level. Since there is not enough protection for whistleblowers in general in the Indonesian context, this has implications for the intention of government employees in Indonesia to blow the whistle. They are more likely to remain silent when considering the serious repercussions of blowing the whistle. A study conducted by Latan et al. ( 2021 ) in Indonesia found that the perceived seriousness of threats had a negative effect on employee intention to blow the whistle. That is, the seriousness of threats due to lack of protection is a disincentive for whistleblowing.

Second, we found a positive and significant effect on the relationship between PSM and WHU, as well as PSM and WBI, in Study 1 and Study 2, where PSM drives employees to act after observing misconduct. Moreover, we also discovered an indirect effect between PSM and WBI through WHU. PSM generally involves characteristics such as commitment to public interest, upholding social justice, compassion and self-sacrifice (Perry & Wise, 1990 ; Perry et al., 2010 ). This motive is commonly found in government agencies and non-profit organizations. In fact, Scheetz and Wilson ( 2019 ) report that PSM in non-profit organizations is higher than in for-profit organizations in relation to whistleblowing intention. An employee who has high PSM is usually less motivated by monetary rewards (unlike prosocial behavior), but is motivated by altruistic motivation; that is, to help and sacrifice themselves for the public good. Therefore, the existence of PSM promotes whistleblowing in government agencies. People with high PSM tend to adhere to ethical values and virtues. These people are usually willing to sacrifice themselves to serve the public interest, rather than fulfilling their own personal interests. Therefore, when wrongdoing is related to the public interest and the wellbeing of others, such individuals are likely to blow the whistle. However, this action is not always easy to undertake in the public sector, without having WHU. Meanwhile, PSM will encourage observers to learn the best methods to disclose wrongdoing without suffering retaliation. Several previous studies corroborate our findings (Caillier, 2017b ; Cho & Song, 2015 ; Scheetz & Wilson, 2019 ), with PSM encouraging civil servants at government agencies to blow the whistle, either directly, or indirectly through WHU.

Third, we found evidence of a positive relationship between PSW and WHU, along with PSW and WBI in both Study 1 and Study 2, where PSW drives the intention to blow the whistle. Also, we found a mediating role played by WHU in the relationship between PSW and WBI. PSW is a consequence of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices that can affect public trust in general. PSW is often associated with financial and non-financial losses due to misconduct. An observer often considers PSW before deciding to blow the whistle. That is, PSW which has a negative and harmful impact on society will encourage observers to stand up and report it. In addition, a sense of personal responsibility and motivation to serve the public raises the intention of employees to engage in whistleblowing, revealing the seriousness of wrongdoing. Hence, PSW will also influence WHU, and how retaliation and threats as a result of reporting misconduct can be minimized. Generally, anonymous reporting channels are preferred when confronted with the seriousness of wrongdoing. Our findings are in line with what previous studies have reported in relation to the seriousness of wrongdoing (Casal & Bogui, 2008 ; Keil et al., 2018 ; Latan et al., 2021 ; Near & Miceli, 1986 ), whereby the higher the potential losses caused by wrongdoings, the more likely observers are to engage in whistleblowing.

Fourth, we found evidence of a positive relationship between WHE and WHU, along with WHE and WBI in Study 1 and Study 2, where WHE increases intention to blow the whistle. Also, we found a mediating role played by WHU in the relationship between WHE and WBI. WHE is a form of organizational support, which is intended to help employees when faced with challenging ethical situations. At root, WHE guides employees in how to behave and manage reporting upon observing misconduct in the workplace. WHE aims to answer the following questions: what types of wrongdoing should be reported, how should they be reported, why should they be reported and to whom (Culiberg & Mihelič, 2017 ; Vandekerckhove & Lewis, 2012 ). WHE will influence employees’ understanding of whistleblowing when it is implemented in the organization. When employees fully understand whistleblowing, this increases the likelihood of them taking part in it. Several previous studies support our findings (Caillier, 2017a ; Cho & Song, 2015 ; Near & Miceli, 1986 ), resulting in a positive relationship between WHE and WBI through the mediating influence of WHU.

Finally, we found a positive and significant effect on the relationship between WHU and WBI. In addition, we also found no significant differences between those who have and those who do not have whistleblowing experience in Study 1. Given the understanding of whistleblowers in relation to types of wrongdoing and their knowledge of reporting channels, this is a factor that plays an important role in the whistleblowing process. A person will be more likely to act when he/she has sufficient understanding of this process. An observer who knows what to do after observing misconduct increases the likelihood of him/her becoming involved in whistleblowing. WHU was the main weapon for whistleblowers when deciding to blow the whistle. Our findings fully support the role of WHU in WBI; therefore corroborating previous research that indicates a positive relationship between WHU and WBI (Dungan et al., 2019 ).

Our studies, therefore, provide the state-of-the-art literature with a unique blend of corroboration and unexpected findings, and trigger a number of theoretical and practical implications for the scientific progress of whistleblowing research, as follows. In terms of theoretical implications, our findings add new evidence and advance insight into whistleblowing in government agencies. More precisely, our studies can be considered one of the first pieces of empirical research to examine the determinants of whistleblowing in government agencies using two field studies. While most prior works have relied on a single study (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005 ; Miceli et al., 2008 ), such as using a sample collected from a single country or organization, the understanding of whistleblowing across countries is still limited (Vandekerckhove et al., 2014 ). In addition, our research contributes theoretically to the development of the prosocial organizational behavior model (Dozier & Miceli, 1985 ) and the social information processing model (Gundlach et al., 2003 ) by adding new empirical evidence.

In terms of practical implications, our findings offer the following suggestions for government agencies, stakeholders, and related authorities. The sample we analyzed in the US case prefers to report wrongdoing when there is perceived protection from government agencies. Meanwhile, in the case of Indonesia, employees were reluctant to blow the whistle due to the weakness of WPA in their cultural context. We suggest that government agencies in the US continue to increase organizational support for federal employees. Furthermore, government agencies in Indonesia need to develop a more comprehensive organizational protection system. As noted by Vaughn ( 2012 ), WPAs do not function well in a number of countries, preventing observers from taking action on wrongdoing and instead encouraging them to choose to remain silent. In addition, investing in WHE would be a better way to allocate resources, rather than investing in monetary rewards to educate employees about how they should behave when faced with challenging ethical situations. Finally, motivation to serve the public needs to be developed early among employees; this has proven to be a dominant factor in combating unethical behavior in government agencies. Government agencies may need to socialize ethical values and virtues among employees, as well as moral standards that apply within the organization.

Final Remarks, Limitations, and Future Research Avenues

Although these studies make incremental contributions to the whistleblowing literature, we acknowledge several limitations that should be noted. First, with regard to the dataset used in Study 1, we rely solely on data from the 2010 MPS survey conducted by MSPB. Considering that this dataset is archival in nature and that we did not collect it ourselves, as well as involving a very large number of cases, we cannot ensure that the dataset is free from error. Also, we were limited in the nature of the question items that could be adopted from this survey. In addition, the 2010 MPS survey includes a cross-sectional survey design; therefore, we cannot fully claim to preserve causality relationships between variables over time. A study conducted by Near and Miceli ( 2008 ) comparing three MSPB surveys from 1980, 1983 and 1992 found differences in coefficients of standardized regression and overall findings. Second, several biases, such as common method bias or social desirability bias, may still interfere with our results, even though we have tried to minimize them. Based on our best knowledge, such biases cannot be completely eliminated when the survey method is based on a self-reporting technique. Finally, our studies are limited with regard to the relationships between variables tested by taking the MSPB survey. There are a number of determinant variables that may not have been included in our model, such as demographic factors (Erkmen et al., 2014 ), individual characteristics of the whistleblower (Gao & Brink, 2017 ), situational factors (Cassematis & Wortley, 2013 ; Culiberg & Mihelič, 2017 ) and the organizational environment (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005 ; Miceli et al., 2008 ), all of which might influence whistleblowing intentions in government agencies.

Based on these limitations, we would suggest the following directions for future research. First, future studies may need to consider collecting data over time when testing the relationships between variables in the realm of quantitative research into whistleblowing (Near & Miceli, 2008 ). We believe that longitudinal or time-series data will work better than a cross-sectional design to ensure consistency of results. As far as we know, there are no existing studies that use longitudinal/time-series designs, other than the MSPB surveys. Therefore, this scope could be expanded to enrich the corpus of whistleblowing research. In addition, future researchers may consider alternative experimental designs to ensure the robustness of the causality relationship in the proposed model. Second, there are a number of research calls related to whistleblowing (Culiberg & Mihelič, 2017 ; Gao & Brink, 2017 ; Vandekerckhove & Lewis, 2012 ) which have not yet been addressed. For example, there is a lack of studies relating to the recipients of whistleblowing reports. How a report is followed up and its effect on misconduct will sway the judgment of other whistleblowers regarding how to behave in future. In addition, the effect of whistleblowing acts on firm performance after the period of reporting has not yet been fully explored. Third, future studies might consider the size of the organization in relation to whistleblowing in government agencies (Brown & Lawrence, 2017 ). Finally, whistleblowing scholars need to pay attention to conducting research involving case studies from real-world cases. Using qualitative approaches such as interviews with whistleblowers would enable us to more deeply understand the motivations and potential forms of retaliation behind whistleblowing acts.

Change history

03 april 2022.

The original version of this article was revised: The wrong Supplementary file was originally published with this article; it has now been replaced with the correct file.

07 April 2022

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05117-x

Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers and the narrative of ethics. Journal of Social Philosophy , 32 (3), 402–418.

Article   Google Scholar  

ACFE. (2020). Report to the nations: 2020 global study on occupational fraud and abuse . Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

Google Scholar  

Alleyne, P., Charles-Soverall, W., Broome, T., & Pierce, A. (2017). Perceptions, predictors and consequences of whistleblowing among accounting employees in Barbados. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25 (2), 241–267.

Alleyne, P., Hudaib, M., & Haniffa, R. (2018). The moderating role of perceived organisational support in breaking the silence of public accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 147 (3), 509–527.

Andon, P., Free, C., Jidin, R., Monroe, G. S., & Turner, M. J. (2018). The impact of financial incentives and perceptions of seriousness on whistleblowing intention. Journal of Business Ethics, 151 , 165–178.

Apaza, C. R., & Chang, Y. (Eds.). (2017). Whistleblowing in the world: Government policy, mass media and the law . Macmillan.

Archambeault, D. S., & Webber, S. (2015). Whistleblowing 101. The CPA Journal, 85 (7), 62–68.

Ayers, S., & Kaplan, S. E. (2005). Wrongdoing by consultants: An examination of employees’ reporting intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57 (2), 121–137.

Bedeian, A. G. (2014). “More than meets the eye”: A guide to interpreting the descriptive statistics and correlation matrices reported in management research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (2), 121–135.

Boomsma, A., Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (2014). The structural equation modeling research report. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 341–358). Guilford Press.

Brink, A. G., Lowe, D. J., & Victoravich, L. M. (2017). The public company whistleblowing environment: Perceptions of a wrongful act and monetary attitude. Accounting & the Public Interest, 17 (1), 1–30.

Brown, A. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2017). Strength of organisational whistleblowing processes: Analysis from Australia & New Zealand—further results of the whistling while they work 2 project . Griffith University.

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Caillier, J. G. (2017a). An examination of the role whistle-blowing education plays in the whistle-blowing process. The Social Science Journal, 54 (1), 4–12.

Caillier, J. G. (2017b). Public service motivation and decisions to report wrongdoing in U.S. federal agencies: Is this relationship mediated by the seriousness of the wrongdoing. The American Review of Public Administration, 47 (7), 810–825.

Caillier, J. G., & Sa, Y. (2017). Do transformational-oriented leadership and transactional-oriented leadership have an impact on whistle-blowing attitudes? A longitudinal examination conducted in US federal agencies. Public Management Review, 19 (4), 406–422.

Casal, J. C., & Bogui, F. B. (2008). Predictors of responses to organizational wrongdoing: A study of intentions of management accountants. Psychological Reports, 103 (1), 121–133.

Cassematis, P. G., & Wortley, R. (2013). Prediction of whistleblowing or non-reporting observation: The role of personal and situational factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 117 (3), 615–634.

Chen, C.-P., & Lai, C.-T. (2014). To blow or not to blow the whistle: The effects of potential harm, social pressure and organisational commitment on whistleblowing intention and behaviour. Business Ethics, 23 (3), 327–342.

Cho, Y. J., & Song, H. J. (2015). Determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44 (4), 450–472.

Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., Relly, J. E., & Berman, E. M. (2020). Organizational protection for whistleblowers: A cross-national study. Public Management Review, 22 (4), 527–552.

Christensen, R. K., Paarlberg, L., & Perry, J. L. (2017). Public service motivation research: Lessons for practice. Public Administration Review, 77 (4), 529–542.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques (1st ed.). Routledge.

Culiberg, B., & Mihelič, K. K. (2017). The evolution of whistleblowing studies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146 , 787–803.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 823–836.

Dungan, J. A., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2019). The power of moral concerns in predicting whistleblowing decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85 , 103848.

Eisenberger, R., Hungtington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 500–507.

Erkmen, T., Caliskan, A. O., & Esen, E. (2014). An empirical research about whistleblowing behavior in accounting context. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10 (2), 229–243.

Fulton, B. R. (2018). Organizations and survey research: Implementing response enhancing strategies and conducting nonresponse analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 47 (2), 240–276.

Gao, L., & Brink, A. G. (2017). Whistleblowing studies in accounting research: A review of experimental studies on the determinants of whistleblowing. Journal of Accounting Literature, 38 , 1–13.

Garson, G. D. (2015). Structural equation modeling . Statistical Associates Publishers.

Gundlach, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: A social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28 (1), 107–123.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Holtom, B., Baruch, Y., Aguinis, H., & Ballinger, G. A. (2022). Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework. Human Relations . https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211070769

Izraeli, D., & Jaffe, E. D. (1998). Predicting whistle blowing: A theory of reasoned action approach. International Journal of Value Based Management, 11 (1), 19–34.

Jeon, S. H. (2017). Where to report wrongdoings? Exploring the determinants of internal versus external whistleblowing. International Review of Public Administration, 22 (2), 153–171.

Keil, M., Park, E. H., & Ramesh, B. (2018). Violations of health information privacy: The role of attributions and anticipated regret in shaping whistleblowing intentions. Information Systems Journal, 28 (5), 818–848.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Gulford Press.

Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. (2019). ‘Whistleblowing triangle’: Framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 160 (1), 189–204.

Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. (2021). To blow or not to blow the whistle: The role of rationalization in the perceived seriousness of threats and wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 169 , 517–535.

Latan, H., Ringle, C. M., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2018). Whistleblowing intentions among public accountants in Indonesia: Testing for the moderation effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 152 , 573–588.

Lee, H. (2020). The implications of organizational structure, political control, and internal system responsiveness on whistleblowing behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40 (1), 155–177.

Lewis, D. (2015). Is a public interest test for workplace whistleblowing in society’s interest? International Journal of Law and Management, 57 (2), 141–158.

Lewis, D., Brown, A. J., & Moberly, R. (2014). Whistleblowing, its importance and the state of the research. In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 1–34). Edward Elgar.

Liu, B., & Perry, J. L. (2016). The psychological mechanisms of public service motivation: A two-wave examination. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36 (1), 4–30.

MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2014). The silent samaritan syndrome: Why the whistle remains unblown. Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (2), 149–164.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62 (3), 277–297.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27 (4), 687–705.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1989). The incidence of wrongdoing, whistle-blowing, and retaliation: Results of a naturally occurring field experiment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2 (2), 91–108.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2002). What makes whistle-blowers effective? Three field studies. Human Relations, 54 (4), 455–479.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2005). Standing up or standing by: What predicts blowing the whistle on organizational wrongdoing? Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 24 , 95–136.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2013). An international comparison of the incidence of public sector whistle-blowing and the prediction of retaliation: Australia, Norway, and the US. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72 (4), 433–446.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations . Taylor & Francis.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., & Scotter, J. R. V. (2012). Predicting employee reactions to perceived organizational wrongdoing: Demoralization, justice, proactive personality, and whistle-blowing. Human Relations, 65 (8), 923–954.

Nayır, D. Z., Rehg, M. T., & Asa, Y. (2018). Influence of ethical position on whistleblowing behaviour: Do preferred channels in private and public sectors differ? Journal of Business Ethics, 149 , 147–167.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4 (1), 1–16.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistleblowers: Predictors and effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (1), 137–145.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2008). Wrongdoing, whistle-blowing, and retaliation in the U.S. government: What have researchers learned from the merit systems protection board (MSPB) survey results? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28 (3), 263–281.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2011). Integrating models of whistle-blowing and wrongdoing: A proposal for a new research agenda. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 302–323). Wiley-Blackwell.

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (2016). After the wrongdoing: What managers should know about whistleblowing. Business Horizons, 59 , 105–114.

Park, H., & Lewis, D. (2018). The negative health effects of external whistleblowing: A study of some key factors. The Social Science Journal, 55 , 387–395.

Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70 (5), 681–690.

Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50 (3), 367–373.

Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Scotter, J. R. V. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relationships. Organization Science, 19 (2), 221–240.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 . SmartPLS GmbH.

Roberts, P. (2014). Motivations for whistleblowing: Personal, private and public interests. In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International handbook on whistleblowing research (pp. 207–229). Edward Elgar.

Roberts, P., Brown, A. J., & Olsen, J. (2011). Whistling while they work: A good-practice guide for managing internal reporting of wrongdoing in public sector organisations . The Australian National University Press.

Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Effect sizes: Why, when, and how to use them. Journal of Psychology, 217 (1), 6–14.

Scheetz, A. M., & Wilson, A. B. (2019). Are not-for-profit employees more willing (or likely) to be whistleblowers? Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 31 (1), 2–25.

Ugaddan, R. G., & Park, S. M. (2019). Do trustful leadership, organizational justice, and motivation influence whistle-blowing intention? Evidence from federal employees. Public Personnel Management, 48 (1), 56–81.

Ullah, S., Zaefarian, G., & Ullah, F. (2021). How to use instrumental variables in addressing endogeneity? A step-by-step procedure for non-specialists. Industrial Marketing Management, 96 , A1–A6.

van der Velden, P. G., Pecoraro, M., Houwerzijl, M. S., & van der Meulen, E. (2019). Mental health problems among whistleblowers: A comparative study. Psychological Reports, 122 (2), 632–644.

Vandekerckhove, W., & Lewis, D. (2012). The content of whistleblowing procedures: A critical review of recent official guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (2), 253–264.

Vandekerckhove, W., Uys, T., Rehg, M. T., & Brown, A. J. (2014). Understandings of whistleblowing: Dilemmas of societal culture. In A. J. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, & W. Vandekerckhove (Eds.), International Handbook of Whistleblowing Research (pp. 37–70). Edward Elgar.

Vaughn, R. G. (2012). The successes and failures of whistleblower laws . Edward Elgar.

Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Routledge.

Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3), 477–514.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2020). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Zhang, M. F., Dawson, J. F., & Kline, R. B. (2021). Evaluating the use of covariance-based structural equation modelling with reflective measurement in organizational and management research: A review and recommendations for best practice. British Journal of Management, 32 , 257–272.

Download references

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

HLC Consulting, Jl. Kertanegara Selatan V No 5B, Semarang, 50241, Indonesia

Hengky Latan

EMLYON Business School, 23 Av. Guy de Collongue, 69130, Écully, France

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour

Affiliate Professor, Lincoln International Business School, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, Lincolnshire, UK

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour

Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, City Campus East 1, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK

EM Normandie Business School, Metis Lab, 64 rue du Ranelagh, 75016, Paris, France

Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour

Excelia Business School, CEREGE (AE 1722), 102 rue de Coureilles, 17024, La Rochelle Cedex 1, France

Tan Vo-Thanh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 57 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Ali, M. et al. What Makes You a Whistleblower? A Multi-Country Field Study on the Determinants of the Intention to Report Wrongdoing. J Bus Ethics 183 , 885–905 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05089-y

Download citation

Received : 04 August 2020

Accepted : 28 February 2022

Published : 25 March 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05089-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Whistleblowing
• Perceived organizational protection
• Public service motivation
• Perceived seriousness of wrongdoing
• Education of whistleblowing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A healthy democracy depends on a free press.

The truth will not reveal itself..

from The Center for Investigative Reporting

The Whistleblowers: Selected Case Studies

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

The whistleblowers below are not all protected by the current Whistleblower Protection Act, which does not cover federal employees who work at certain national security agencies, in certain scientific or research capacities, nor does it extend to private contractors. The whistleblower legislation circulating in the House and Senate aims to protect many of the whistleblowers exempted from current law.

Department of the Interior

National Security

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Republish Our Content

Thanks for your interest in republishing a story from Reveal. As a nonprofit newsroom, we want to share our work with as many people as possible. You are free to embed our audio and video content and republish any written story for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license and will indemnify our content as long as you strictly follow these guidelines:

Do not change the story. Do not edit our material, except only to reflect changes in time and location. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)

Please credit us early in the coverage. Our reporter(s) must be bylined. We prefer the following format: By Will Evans, Reveal.

If republishing our stories, please also include this language at the end of the story: “This story was produced by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.”

Include all links from the story, and please link to us at https://www.revealnews.org.

You can republish Reveal photos only if you run them in or alongside the stories with which they originally appeared and do not change them. 

If you want to run a photo apart from that story, please request specific permission to license by contacting [email protected]. Reveal often uses photos we purchase from Getty and The Associated Press; those are not available for republication.

If you want to republish Reveal graphics or data, please contact deputy editor Kate Howard at [email protected].

We do not compensate anyone who republishes our work. You also cannot sell our material separately or syndicate it. 

You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, please contact us at [email protected].

If you plan to republish our content, you must notify us by emailing [email protected].

If we send you a request to remove our content from your website, you must agree to do so immediately.

Please note, we will not provide indemnification if you are located or publishing outside the United States, but you may contact us to obtain a license and indemnification on a case-by-case basis.

If you have any other questions, please contact us at [email protected].

by Reveal Admin, Reveal November 1, 2007

This <a target="_blank" href="https://revealnews.org/article/the-whistleblowers-selected-case-studies">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://revealnews.org">Reveal</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/revealnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cropped-Reveal-Icon.png?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://revealnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=15701" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Blowing the whistle during the first wave of COVID ‐19: A case study of Quebec nurses

Marilou gagnon.

1 School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria British Columbia, Canada

Amélie Perron

2 School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Caroline Dufour

Emily marcogliese, pierre pariseau‐legault.

3 Department of Nursing, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau Canada

David Kenneth Wright

4 Palliative Care and Nursing Ethics, Centre for Research on Health and Nursing, Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Patrick Martin

5 Faculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec Canada

Franco A. Carnevale

6 Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal Canada

Associated Data

News stories and online forms are publicly available. The interviews are not available for confidentiality reasons.

The experiences of nurses who blew the whistle during the COVID‐19 pandemic have exposed gaps and revealed an urgent need to revisit our understanding of whistleblowing.

The aim was to develop a better understanding of whistleblowing during a pandemic by using the experiences and lessons learned of Quebec nurses who blew the whistle during the first wave of COVID‐19 as a case study. More specifically, to explore why and how nurses blew the whistle, what types of wrongdoing triggered their decision to do so and how context shaped the whistleblowing process as well as its consequences (including perceived consequences).

The study followed a single‐case study design with three embedded units of analysis.

We used content analysis to analyse 83 news stories and 597 forms posted on a whistleblowing online platform. We also conducted 15 semi‐structured interviews with nurses and analysed this data using a thematic analysis approach. Finally, we triangulated the findings.

We identified five themes across the case study. (1) During the first wave of COVID‐19, Quebec nurses experienced a shifting sense of loyalty and relationship to workplace culture. (2) They witnessed exceedingly high numbers of intersecting wrongdoings amplified by mismanagement and long‐standing issues. (3) They reported a lack of trust and transparency; thus, a need for external whistleblowing. (4) They used whistleblowing to reclaim their rights (notably, the right to speak) and build collective solidarity. (5) Finally, they saw whistleblowing as an act of moral courage in the face of a system in crisis. Together, these themes elucidate why and how nurse whistleblowing is different in pandemic times.

Our findings offer a more nuanced understanding of nurse whistleblowing and address important gaps in knowledge. They also highlight the need to rethink external whistleblowing, develop whistleblowing tools and advocate for whistleblowing protection.

In many ways, the COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged our foundational understanding of whistleblowing and, as a result, it has limited the usefulness of existing literature on the topic for reasons that will be brought to light in this paper. We believe that studying the uniqueness of whistleblowing during a pandemic can address this gap by describing why and how health care workers blow the whistle during a pandemic and situating this experience within a broader social, political, organizational context.

1. INTRODUCTION

During the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic, defined as March to August 2020, Canada recorded 138,010 cases of COVID‐19 and close to 10,000 deaths (CPHA,  2021 ). The first wave had a devastating impact across the country, but not all jurisdictions were impacted equally (Flood et al.,  2020 ). The province of Quebec, which is the second most populated province in the country and is home to approximately 22% of Canadians (Statistic Canada,  2021 ), was hit particularly hard during the first 5 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic. By the end of May 2020, for example, the province had recorded 45,773 COVID‐19 cases, accounting for 57% of all cases in the country (CPHA,  2021 ). By the end of July 2020, it had recorded close to 60,000 cases (INESSS,  2020 ). Of these cases, 14,191 (24%) were amongst health care workers (INESSS,  2020 ). It also recorded 5820 deaths, primarily in long‐term care (INESSS,  2020 ). Those deaths accounted for 65% of all COVID‐19‐related deaths in the country and were substantially higher than those recorded in other high‐income countries, including the United States (Urrutia et al.,  2021 ). Because COVID‐19 disproportionately affected Quebec during the first wave, the province has been described as a ‘textbook case’ to study the COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses (Alami et al.,  2021 , p. 2). It also offers a real‐world case study of whistleblowing by health care workers during a pandemic and, more specifically, nurses working at the frontline.

2. BACKGROUND

The classic definition of whistleblowing is the one proposed by Near and Miceli ( 1985 ). The authors define whistleblowing as ‘a process involving at least four elements: (1) the whistleblower: a former or current member of an organization who is aware of wrongdoing but generally lacks the authority or power to make the required changes; (2) the whistleblowing act: the act of disclosing an illegal, immoral, illegitimate practice to persons or organizations that may be able to bring about change; (3) the complaint receiver: a third party (external whistleblowing) or someone other than or in addition to the immediate supervisor (internal whistleblowing); (4) the organization: a public or private organization who is the target of the whistleblowing and who will be called upon to respond (or not) to the disclosure of wrongdoing’ (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a , p. 381). Whistleblowing may appear to challenge to the authority structure of an organization, but it is not an act of deviance or a breach of loyalty per se; it is triggered by the seriousness of the wrongdoing and can indeed offer valuable information to improve organizational effectiveness and public safety (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ).

In the health sciences literature, much of the research focuses on the whistleblower (i.e. motivations, decision‐making processes, consequences of whistleblowing and so forth) and, to a lesser extent, on the context in which whistleblowing occurs and the process of whistleblowing itself (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). The literature also takes as its starting point the experience of employees who witness wrongdoings in the workplace and disclose such wrongdoings internally or externally to the organization after careful ethical deliberation and weighing‐in of potential risks and consequences (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). Nurses (and, to a lesser extent, nursing students) are the most studied health care workers in the whistleblowing literature (Mannion et al.,  2018 ). We attribute this to the nature of nursing practice in care settings and nurses' extensive presence at the ‘bedside.’ Nurses also constitute the largest group of health care workers in the health care system, which increases their likelihood of witnessing serious risks or patterns of wrongdoings that may trigger a duty to act. Finally, they make up the frontline of the health care system, meaning that, in the event of a pandemic, they bear witness to the policy and management failures, the injustices and the toll these take on patients, families and other workers.

The nursing research on whistleblowing suggests that when nurses blow the whistle, they do so primarily out of concerns for patient care and outcomes (Jackson et al.,  2014 ). Studies conducted to date have identified five types of situations that may result in whistleblowing: (1) unsafe working conditions, (2) deviations from practice standards; (3) unprofessional and harmful behaviours; (4) failure to uphold patients' rights and (5) management and organizational issues (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). Nurses who sound the alarm in such situations are typically employees and they work within a particular organizational context that shapes their beliefs and values, decision‐making process, disclosure strategies and overall experience (Ahern & McDonald,  2002 ; Jackson et al.,  2010a , 2010b , 2011 , 2014 ; Mansbach & Bachner,  2010 ; McDonald & Ahern,  2000 , 2002 ; Peters et al.,  2011 ; Pohjanoksa et al.,  2019ab ). With regard to internal and external whistleblowing, recent studies by Pohjanoksa et al. ( 2019ab ) suggest that whistleblowing trajectories are far more complex and messier than traditionally represented. One finding that is consistently noted across the nursing literature, however, is that nurses are more willing to blow the whistle internally (i.e. to follow the chain of command) (Pohjanoksaet al.,  2019ab ).

In many ways, the COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged foundational understandings of whistleblowing because it unfolded on a global scale, across technologically mediated societies, and at a time where health care workers are more connected than ever. Health care workers turned to online platforms, such as ProMED and Twitter, to sound the alarm in the early days of the pandemic (Lopreite et al.,  2021 ; Wark,  2021 ) and leveraged social media tools to communicate to the public, warn decision‐makers, support each other and share testimonials as the pandemic was unfolding (Gagnon & Perron,  2020b ; Glasdam et al.,  2022 ). Health care workers also faced challenging working conditions compounded by a lack of personal protective equipment (Amon,  2020 ). They also witnessed and experienced the first‐hand impact of COVID‐19 policies, generating unprecedented moral distress and injury (Riedel et al.,  2022 ). As a result, growing numbers of health care workers became whistleblowers and many faced reprisals for their actions (Amon,  2020 ). We believe that studying the uniqueness of whistleblowing during the COVID‐19 pandemic can address existing conceptual and empirical gaps by describing why (e.g. what types of wrongdoings, what motivations and to what ends) and how (e.g. nature of the process, steps followed, tools used) health care workers blow the whistle during a pandemic and situating this experience within a broader social, political, organizational context.

Quebec nurses constitute a novel case study to understand the experiences of nurses who blew the whistle during the COVID‐19 pandemic and identify key takeaways for decision‐makers, researchers, clinicians and nursing unions worldwide. The experience of Dr. Li Wenliang, the original COVID‐19 whistleblower who sounded the alarm on the Chinese messaging platform WeChat on 30 December 2019 and later died of COVID‐19 (Nie & Elliott,  2020 ; Zhu,  2020 ), serves as a strong reminder that whistleblowing in health care is not geographically bounded and that any effort to study the experience of whistleblowers during the pandemic is an opportunity to better support and protect health care workers. As such, the purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a case study that provides insights into the experiences of nurses who blew the whistle and offers potential avenues for improving supports to nurses moving forward.

3. THE STUDY

3.2. design.

We used a case study design as defined by Stake ( 2005 ) and Yin ( 2018 ) for two main reasons: Quebec's unique and dire context during the first wave of the pandemic and the exertive ways in which nurses engaged in acts of whistleblowing before and during COVID‐19. More specifically, we opted for a single‐case study design with three embedded units of analysis: news stories, online forms and semi‐structured interviews (see Figure  1 ). This design is appropriate when the selected case is unusual yet representative of a shared experience (i.e. blowing the whistle during a pandemic), and it has the potential to make a new and significant contribution to knowledge development (Stake,  2005 ; Yin,  2018 ). As such, the goal of single‐case studies is not to generalize from a single case but rather to conduct an in‐depth analysis of the selected case because it has the potential to reveal something new about a phenomenon (Stake,  2005 ; Yin,  2018 ). Consistent with single‐case studies, we completed the data collection and analysis for each embedded unit sequentially and then triangulated the three units to build a case description (Yin,  2018 ). We approached triangulation from an interpretive stance and included multiple data units to add ‘rigor, breadth, complexity, richness and depth’, not as a means of validation (Denzin,  2012 , p. 82). In other words, we used triangulation ‘as an attempt to secure an in‐depth understanding of the phenomenon in question’ (Denzin,  2012 , p. 82).

Case study.

3.3. Data collection

Our single‐case study included three embedded units.

The first unit consisted of news stories published in Canadian media during the first wave of the pandemic. We completed our search using the Google Advanced Search operator, which provides the options of using and combining keywords, as well as limiting the search to a specific country (in this case, Canada) and specific dates (January–May 2020). We included the months of January and February because nurses were already blowing the whistle about pandemic preparedness and early response (before the first case of COVID‐19 was confirmed in Canada). We described our complete search strategy elsewhere (Gagnon & Perron,  2020b ). After screening our initial sample of 119 news stories and eliminating duplicates, we included 83 news stories (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a , 2020b ).

The second unit consisted of online forms completed by nurses and posted on ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denounce], a public whistleblowing platform launched by the ‘ Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec’ (FIQ) in March 2020. The FIQ is a union representing close to 80,000 health care workers in Quebec, the majority of whom are nurses. The platform was created to expose the experiences of frontline health workers, patients and families and to provide real‐time access to media, the public and decision‐makers. The online form allowed the user to report concerns about the pandemic mismanagement in care facilities and its impact on patients, families and staff. We retrieved 611 forms posted by nurses on the platform between March 2020, when the platform was launched, and May 2020. A total of 597 forms were deemed to meet our inclusion criteria: (1) submitted by nurses and (2) related to COVID‐19 (Perron et al.,  2020a ).

Finally, the third unit consisted of semi‐structured interviews conducted with Quebec nurses (September–December 2020). Nurses were recruited using e‐cards shared on social media and within existing professional networks. Participants were eligible to take part in this study if they: identified as a nurse (i.e. registered nurse, nurse practitioner or licensed practical nurse), practiced in Quebec during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic and had a least one experience of whistleblowing during this period. Interviews were conducted in French or English, they lasted on average 60 min and were structured to cover four main domains. Each interview started by asking participants to describe their experience(s) of whistleblowing, including the type of wrongdoing(s), the people involved, the context and circumstances, the decision‐making process (including reasons motivating the decision and deliberation involved, if any), the whistleblowing process (including strategies used, reasons for using them and issues encountered) and the outcomes. Then, we asked about the organizational context, and more specifically about the organizational culture and how it shaped the whistleblowing process and the experience(s) more broadly. We also asked about the consequences of the whistleblowing, including professional and personal consequences. Finally, we asked participants to speak to lessons learned; in other words, what did the experience(s) teach them about themselves (as individuals and as nurses), about whistleblowing, about their workplace and about the broader health care system. We concluded by asking them if they had any advice to share with other nurses and if they wanted to offer recommendations for nursing organizations. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Saturation was reached at 15 interviews.

3.4. Ethical considerations

News stories and online forms, both publicly accessible, did not require ethics approval. Approvals from the research ethics boards of the University of Victoria, University of Ottawa, McGill University, Université du Québec en Outaouais and Université Laval were obtained for the interview portion of the study. Informed consent was obtained prior to each interview. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants to ensure confidentiality. Compensation for the interview was provided.

3.5. Data analysis

Each unit of analysis was analysed separately using a ‘ground up’ approach (Yin,  2018 ) and sequentially, and then triangulated to generate the findings presented in this paper.

We analysed the news stories using a content analysis approach, which is particularly useful when working with large amounts of textual data (Hsiu‐Hsieh & Shannon,  2005 ; Schreier,  2014 ). We began by dissecting each news story using a series of questions: Who is speaking? Are they speaking as a nursing collective ( e.g. union, association, regulatory body) or as individual nurses? Are individual nurses anonymized or identified ( e.g. full name; with or without picture)? What is being said in the news story? What is the essence of the message? How is the message changing over time? Content extracted from this first round of high‐level analysis was then analysed inductively to identify common themes (Gagnon & Perron,  2020b ).

We also used a content analysis approach to work through the online forms. However, given the size of the data set, we opted for a blend of inductive and deductive analysis. First, 50 randomly selected forms were analysed inductively to create a preliminary thematic structure. Then, 20 additional forms were analysed to ‘test’ our thematic structure, add emerging themes or combine existing themes. Using 10 additional forms, we confirmed there were no new themes and then worked through the rest of the data set by organizing it according to the thematic structure and frequency (Perron, et al.,  2020a ).

Interviews were analysed using Applied Thematic Analysis (ATA) (Guest et al.,  2011 ). ATA involves four general steps: (1) read and code transcriptions, (2) identify possible themes, (3) compare and contrast themes, identifying structure amongst them and (4) produce a thematic scheme to describe the research phenomenon. We coded five interviews to identify broad themes that were then compared and contrasted as we analysed more interviews. These final organizing themes included: (1) Who is speaking (the whistleblower), (2) Where are they located (relationship to space and place), (3) What are they reporting (types of wrongdoings), (4) How are they reporting, using what strategies and why (whistleblowing process) and (5) What consequences of whistleblowing, real or perceived, do they describe (types of consequences).

Once the thematic analysis was completed, we moved to the final step in case study research: merging all three units to develop a case description (Yin,  2018 ). Case descriptions are particularly useful to descriptive case studies designed to offer new insights into a phenomenon and identify explanations that merit further exploration. Our case description sought to answer the following question: What can we learn from the experiences of Quebec nurses about the phenomenon of ‘whistleblowing during a pandemic’? To answer this question, we triangulated the three units to look for patterns and elements of explanations (Yin,  2018 ).

3.6. Rigour

We used a number of strategies to ensure rigour. Prior to conducting the study, we reviewed the literature and completed a concept analysis of whistleblowing in nursing (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). We selected a case that meets the criteria for case study research and used multiple sources of data to gain a more in‐depth understanding the case (Yin,  2018 ). We maintained credibility by triangulating three units of analysis and maintaining prolonged engagement in the field (Houghton et al.,  2013 ). We provided a rich description of the context to situate our findings and kept an audit trail of our process. Finally, we presented and discussed the findings with the aim of maximizing transferability while also pointing out unique elements of the case that other researchers can learn from and potentially use to inform future research.

4.1. News stories

The voices of Quebec nurses were overrepresented in our sample (66%). Of the 83 news stories, 38 (46%) were published in English and 45 (54%) in French. News stories often included both collective and individual voices. Unions were the strongest collective voices in the sample, featured in 55% ( n  = 46) of the news stories. The FIQ was by far the most active union voice, appearing in more than half of those stories. We found equal numbers of stories in which nurses were identified (with name and picture) and anonymized. The main reason cited for requesting anonymity was the risk of workplace retaliation and sanctions (including job loss) for speaking out in the media.

4.2. Online forms

Our sample exclusively included online forms submitted by nurses. The online form included the option of entering personal information (i.e. name, title, workplace). However, in the majority of our sample, nurses opted not to disclose such information. The form also included a text box and the option of attaching a document or a picture. Our sample included the text box content of the forms submitted by 597 nurses.

4.3. Interviews

We interviewed 15 nurses, including licensed practical nurses ( n  = 1) and registered nurses with a college ( n  = 4) or a university ( n  = 10) degree. The majority of participants reported practising in a hospital setting ( n  = 9), while others reported practising in long‐term care ( n  = 4) and home care ( n  = 2). Out of the 15 participants, 14 self‐identified as women. Most participants were 35 years old or less ( n  = 9). Twelve (80%) participants had been working as a nurse for 10 years or less (6 with 5 years or less of experience, 6 with 5–10 years of experience). Finally, when asked about previous experiences of whistleblowing, half of the participants reported having blown the whistle at least once before COVID‐19.

5. FINDINGS: THE CASE

In accordance with case study methodology, our findings will be divided into two sections. The first section details contextual conditions before and during COVID‐19. Such conditions are paramount to understanding the case and interpreting the themes identified in the data. The second section presents the themes identified across all three units of analysis.

5.1. Contextual conditions

5.1.1. before the covid ‐19 pandemic.

Already before the pandemic, acts of whistleblowing by Quebec nurses regularly made headlines due to several factors. Interestingly, these same factors fueled the devastating effects/experience of the first wave in Quebec and forced nurses to scale up their external whistleblowing strategies. One important factor, as stated by Alami et al. ( 2021 ), was the 2015 reform of the Quebec health care system, which merged 182 health and social service organizations into 34 megastructures of 12,000–15,000 employees, followed by extensive financial and staffing cuts to management and public health. This reform profoundly impaired, and in some instances eradicated, internal communication channels normally used by nurses to report wrongdoing to management. Another factor was the persistent and normalized use, for nearly two decades, of mandatory overtime as a routine management strategy to address the nursing shortage, despite extensive evidence that it discouraged full‐time employment, fueled nurse burnout and departure, and hindered retention efforts (Quebec Nurses Association,  2019 ). In other words, by normalizing the use of emergency powers as a routine management strategy, Quebec entered the pandemic with a weakened nursing workforce whose capacity to handle increased demands, high patient loads and forced overtime was exceedingly jeopardized.

The culture of silence across the health care system was an important factor denounced before the pandemic. This culture favoured the muzzling and disciplining of whistleblowers to the detriment of transparency and organizational change. It is worth recalling that in 2017, the Quebec government implemented the Act to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoings relating to public bodies . The main purpose of this law was to protect whistleblowers in the public sector, including in publicly funded health care settings and facilities. However, instead of facilitating whistleblowing, it has been found to provide a narrow pathway for disclosure and impose conditions under which public disclosure can be made—and protection granted. In view of the above, Quebec entered the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic with a law that did not significantly change the culture of silence in health care, nor did it offer concrete disclosure tools or mechanisms for nurses to use.

5.1.2. During the COVID ‐19 pandemic

In addition to the three pre‐existing factors described above, it is important to highlight a number of pandemic‐related events and decisions that further fueled nurse whistleblowing in Quebec. On March 21, 2020, the Minister of Health and Social Services issued a Ministerial Order (2020‐007) under the Public Health Act to suspend multiple clauses of health care workers' collective agreements and allow employers to cancel union leaves, suspend, cancel or defer vacation time, redeploy staff, change work schedules, force employees to work full‐time and suspend mechanisms for grievances and arbitrations. As we write this paper, this Ministerial Order remains in effect. On March 30, 2020, the FIQ launched its public whistleblowing platform ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce], which we described above. That same week, the Quebec government announced a new online portal called ‘ Je contribue! ’ [I contribute!] to recruit working or retired members of the public as volunteers to support the government's pandemic response, particularly in long‐term care. A month later, the Canadian government announced it was sending the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to help in Quebec's long‐term care facilities.

On May 16, 2020, in light of the overwhelming success of ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce] and the resulting exposure of pandemic mismanagement across care settings, the Ministry of Health and Social Services announced the creation of a new email box called ‘ On vous écoute ’ [We are listening] to encourage health care workers to report issues directly to the Ministry. This initiative, an attempt to ‘end the culture of silence’ as stated by the Minister of Health and Social Services at the time (Fréchette & Béfort‐Doucet,  2021 , p. 18), was met with criticisms for several reasons: It failed to address the long‐standing culture of silence in the health care system; it lacked transparency; it did not provide safeguards for health care workers who reported concerns; it redirected nurses away from external whistleblowing channels (e.g. social media, media and ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce]) towards internal ones and, crucially, it removed critical pandemic management problems from public view, thus eliminating a key tool for transparency and accountability. Later that month, the CAF released a damning report documenting critical failures in long‐term care facilities, where the highest COVID mortality rate occurred (a public inquest into long‐term care deaths has just concluded). During the first wave, close to 4000 long‐term care residents died of COVID‐19 in Quebec. More than 15,000 cases were recorded amongst residents and staff, which represents 60% of all long‐term care cases in the country (CIHI,  2021 ). At the peak of the first wave, Quebec was ‘reportedly the seventh deadliest place in the world’ (Flood et al.,  2020 , p. 6).

5.2. Key themes within the case

We identified five themes across our case (see Figure  2 ). Together, these themes elucidate why and how nurse whistleblowing is different in pandemic times. While these themes are specific to the case (i.e. whistleblowing amongst Quebec nurses) and the contextual conditions outlined above, they offer a more nuanced understanding of nurse whistleblowing and address important gaps in knowledge. As previously mentioned, whistleblowing research and theory have traditionally taken as a starting point the experience of employees who witness particular wrongdoing in the workplace and disclose such wrongdoings—usually internally first, then externally when internal strategies have failed (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). During the first wave of the pandemic, however, nurses across all units of analysis repeatedly witnessed exceedingly high numbers of intersecting wrongdoings that entailed significant risks regarding the rights, safety, health and well‐being of both patients and staff. This resulted in high levels of moral distress. In nurses' view, the urgency of the situations (e.g. high or immediate risks)—and the crisis context more broadly—justified swift actions and led to a shift in their perceptions of whistleblowing, wherein anticipated benefits of disclosing wrongdoings outweighed other considerations. Nurses' sense of loyalty and obligation was also in flux for the reasons outlined below. Finally, they were privy to information about the risks and the harms associated with the pandemic response that, for the most part, was unknown to the public—and to some extent, to elected officials and policymakers.

5.2.1. Shifting sense of loyalty and relationship to workplace culture

Our findings revealed that Quebec nurses who blew the whistle during the first wave of COVID‐19 did not experience the classic ‘clash of loyalty’ (employer vs patient) widely described in the whistleblowing literature. It was evident across our sample that COVID‐19 measures and the overall response had contributed to a shift in loyalty for nurses who felt discredited, ignored, instrumentalized, devalued and abandoned by employers and the government.

I knocked on all the doors. I wrote a 16‐page testimonial asking management for help. I sent emails. I wrote on Messenger, I called … But no one came, no one came to help. (Online form 840)

The many workplace safety issues faced by nurses, especially the lack of access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), contributed to this shift in loyalty. Our sample included hundreds of testimonials from nurses reporting insufficient PPE as well as situations in which employers knowingly and intentionally rationed, locked away and denied access to PPE. Nurses felt that employers breached their social contract and jeopardized patients' and employees' safety, health and lives. In fact, one of the most common feelings expressed in our data was that of feeling ‘disposable.’

We feel like objects, like pawns that are being moved on a chessboard. We are being held hostage. “This ministerial order is a bomb,” she says, “Mr. Legault (the Premier),” you are losing your guardian angels. We are not numbers, we are not robots. (Anonymous nurse quoted in a news story published on April 30, 2020)

Interestingly, nurses who engaged in public (external) acts of whistleblowing, often fully identified, had a different relationship to workplace culture. Nurses who volunteered in long‐term care facilities, for example, were amongst the most vocal of all nurse whistleblowers. We found that having no ties to these facilities, no contractual agreements and no perceived duty of loyalty to management significantly influenced how nurses blew the whistle. In other words, being an ‘outsider’ facilitated external whistleblowing. Furthermore, for nurse volunteers, their status allowed them to resign easily from their position and escalate their whistleblowing efforts:

I think it [whistleblowing and resigning] was easier for me, being a volunteer and not attached to the long‐term care home. My job was not on the line. The long‐term care home was not my employer. (Blandine, October 22, 2020)

The high‐profile testimonial of nurse Nadia Lambert, which was initially posted on Facebook, shared 20,000 times in 24 h and relayed across multiple news outlets, illustrates how having no relationship with care settings and, most importantly, nothing to lose played a role in shaping nurses' whistleblowing strategies. Lambert volunteered 8 days in long‐term care before resigning, raising the alarm on appalling care conditions that were later documented in the CAF report: extreme understaffing, lack of PPE and equipment (e.g. thermometer, saturometer, etc.), abandonment of residents in unsafe and unhygienic conditions, residents experiencing hunger and dehydration, unsafe transfers leading to preventable COVID‐19 transmission and deaths.

5.2.2. Intersecting wrongdoings amplified by mismanagement and long‐standing issues

Our findings depart from the traditional definition of whistleblowing as a process that seeks to expose one particular type of wrongdoing (e.g. wrongful practice, illicit behaviour, criminal conduct). During the first wave of COVID‐19, nurses faced a high number of intersecting wrongdoings on a daily basis related to insufficient PPE and staffing, unsafe working conditions, excessive mandatory overtime, communication breakdowns and breaches of infection prevention and control protocols. These wrongdoings manifested in practice, but they were managerial and political in nature: they arose from the mismanagement of the pandemic and government actions, most notably the issuing of the Ministerial Order in March 2020. This order suspended nurses' collective agreement, curtailed their labour rights and degraded their working conditions, creating a fertile ground for increased risks and unchecked abuses by management:

I find it strange that my organization is using the Ministerial Order. They are already cancelling vacations and holidays, and imposing mandatory overtime, but there is no need for it. I work in the Intensive Care Unit, and there are no COVID‐19 cases because we are transferring them automatically. We are not eligible for the COVID‐19 bonus for that reason! Why use the Ministerial Order when we don't have a bonus for the exact reason that we are not experiencing a COVID‐19 crisis? We have a staff surplus every day, but they are forcing nurses to work full‐time regardless? My organization is using powers granted by the government even though it doesn't need to, just because they can! (Online form 797)

Across our sample, nurses described the Ministerial Order as a blunt instrument that was overused (and abused) in the health care system. In particular, nurses denounced the fact that the order exacerbated many long‐standing issues (e.g. nurse burnout) entrenched by a 20‐year legacy of using exceptional measures such as mandatory overtime as a routine management practice rather than addressing deteriorating care environments. As one interview participant explained, Quebec nurses were already frequently working 16‐h shifts in mandatory overtime before COVID‐19. As one participant noted, following the Ministerial Order:

The imposition of mandatory overtime increased a lot. The increase was phenomenal (…) For example, there was one shift where the unit was five nurses short, and they didn't find anyone. All the nurses were forced into overtime, and they all did a 16‐h shift. (Hélène, November 11, 2020)

During the interview, Hélène further described an instance of being forced to work 24 consecutive hours and waking up the next day feeling ‘hungover’ from severe fatigue. That day, she decided to undertake several steps to blow the whistle. She explained her breaking point:

I had a major panic attack the next day. This experience really shook my mental health. I was questioning myself. At first, I was wondering if I was the problem or if I was unable to give enough at work. I thought that maybe I was deficient as a nurse, you know? Working 16 h is so normalized. Same for working crazy shifts while putting yourself second and having no regard for your needs, desires, and passions. And finally, I came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't me, that I wasn't sick. The health care system is sick. (Hélène, November 11, 2020)

The Ministerial Order also exacerbated another long‐standing issue in the Quebec health care system: the culture of silence. As employers enacted policies preventing nurses from speaking to the media or posting on social media and threatened nurses with sanctions (e.g. discipline, suspension, dismissal), nursing unions, online nursing support groups and individual nurses became more vocal. Whistleblowing became imperative not only because of multiplying wrongdoings experienced in the workplace but also because of mounting pressures to muzzle nurses. As FIQ then‐President Nancy Bédard explained in one news story:

Nurses are exasperated. They are abused right now. We give them minimal PPE, we don't protect them. They are exhausted. They are hearing that their right to paid vacation will be limited. We are forcing them to work two weekends out of three. Their schedules are changed because of the Ministerial Order. The Minister issues orders and grants powers to health care organizations that then, in turn, create working conditions that are extremely difficult and baffle their rights (…). What we want is for nurses to be able to speak freely. (May 16, 2020)

5.2.3. Lack of trust and transparency creating a need for external whistleblowing

Nurses engaged in internal whistleblowing or external whistleblowing, or both. Internally, the two main strategies mentioned across the sample were emailing one's superior or using institutional forms such as incident reports. Nurses shared that these strategies were ineffective, and for many, they even resulted in targeted retaliation and sanctions, including reprimand letters and suspensions. Notably, many nurses who wished to sound the alarm internally were unable to find effective means to do so within the organizations where they worked or volunteered. One interview participant, who made multiple attempts to report serious issues internally, summarized it as such:

Basically, I realized that not only did official [internal] channels not work but there aren't any, really, like they don't really exist. I asked everyone, “What is the official channel for reporting this [lack of PPE]?” and no one knew. They all said “maybe this or that,” but no one was able to tell me (…). It was eye‐opening for me. I knew that official channels were like an illusion, that they didn't really work, but then I experienced it. Trying to find them, and they just don't exist. (Gabriella, October 16, 2020)

Data across all three units showed that institutional reporting channels were already deficient or inexistent before the COVID‐19 pandemic. Furthermore, for many nurses, the decision to turn to outside channels was also due to the fact that the issues they needed to report were organizational, making internal reporting channels less safe. There was a clear lack of trust in organizations and, more broadly, in the Ministry of Health and Social Services. Most importantly, nurses felt that reporting internally would fail to generate the needed response to address critical issues in a timely manner or, worse, would further silence nurses and keep these issues hidden from public view. As a result, many nurses privileged external whistleblowing strategies, including social media posts on individual and group pages, social media campaigns, media interviews and public testimonials through FIQ's whistleblowing platform ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce]. We found many examples of one of these strategies leading to another. For example, media accessing and citing public testimonials posted on ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce] as they reported on the pandemic:

We are admitting patients diagnosed with pneumonia. No COVID‐19 testing for these patients. No access to N‐95 masks. The staff working on units with suspected COVID‐19 patients are sent to work on other units the next day. (Anonymous nurse testimonial posted on ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce] and featured in a news story published on March 31, 2020)

External whistleblowing strategies were motivated by the seriousness and urgency of the issues faced by nurses as well as the need for greater transparency. By acting as a conduit between nurses, media outlets, decision‐makers and the public, the FIQ platform filled an important informational gap and mitigated the risk of blowing the whistle externally. It also provided a way for nurses to report unfair labour practices for which they could no longer file a grievance under the Ministerial Order. Thus, we found strong evidence of nurses using the platform to report labour rights issues such as this one:

My superiors are aware of my immunocompromised status, but they are refusing the medical note written by my specialist. They told me I will be assigned to the COVID unit Sunday. (Online form 824)

Reflecting a lack of trust and a need for transparency, nurses were critical of the Ministry's ‘ On vous écoute ’ [We are listening] email box, citing the lack of anonymity, the opacity of the process, the absence of public accountability mechanisms and its stated aim of deterring nurses from blowing the whistle publicly.

5.2.4. Reclaiming rights and building collective solidarity

We found that whistleblowing, in particular external whistleblowing, was not only used to publicly expose wrongdoings and advocate for a better pandemic response, but also to reclaim rights that were thwarted through the Ministerial Order and by the ramping up of managerial efforts to silence nurses. Our analysis of the textual data and interviews shows that speaking up and speaking out during the first wave of COVID‐19 became imperative. While media reporters extensively described nurses' testimonials as a ‘cry for help,’ we argue that they reflected instead nurses' reclaiming their right to speak. One interview participant who did media interviews explained:

It [speaking to media] lifted a weight off my shoulders. To say out loud what others [nurses] were thinking to themselves and did not dare to say (…) I thought to myself that a door was open for me and it wasn't for nothing, so I did it [speak to media]. When I did it, I realized that I didn't care if I got retaliations…Not sure what they would be really, but I just thought to myself that we're in a free country, and we have the right to speak. (Josette, 5 November 2020)

External whistleblowing also allowed nurses to speak as workers and push back against the predominant ‘angel narrative.’ Indeed, during the first two waves, the Quebec Premier consistently described nurses as guardian angels during daily briefings, which nurses viewed as a perverse strategy to encourage and normalize nurses' sacrifice. External whistleblowing allowed the production and dissemination of a counter‐narrative re‐centering nurses as human beings and as workers entitled to protection from unsafe working conditions.

They call us guardian angels, but they treat us like numbers. I'm immunocompromised and failing my fourth treatment for multiple sclerosis. They are refusing my neurologist's medical note and denying my leave. I'm a guardian angel, so I have to continue working despite his advice. I'm a nurse, but I'm seen as a guardian angel. I'm not treated as one. For years now, we've been overworked with more complex patients. We give everything at work, to the detriment of our families (…) In short, Premier Legault, stop calling us guardian angels (…). (Online form 9)

Nurses' desire to be seen and treated as human beings was one of the most consistent threads across the sample. It was also a powerful driver of external whistleblowing because it provided an opportunity to represent nurses as health care workers whose inherent dignity and vulnerability to COVID‐19 demanded recognition, as opposed to disposable caregivers expected to sacrifice themselves. We found that efforts to humanize nurses were part of a broader struggle for nurses to reclaim their rights as workers and speak out against governmental and managerial decisions that put their health, lives and families at risk. These included, but were not limited to, being denied COVID‐19 testing, being forced to work while symptomatic, being refused workplace accommodations, being placed in high‐risk situations (i.e. pregnant nurses, immunocompromised nurses, etc.) and having insufficient/inadequate or no access to adequate PPE. One national media outlet reported a story about a nurse who was denied testing as follows:

That he was told after his shift that he had been exposed to a nurse who tested positive for COVID‐19. When he requested testing, “he was denied testing by the hospital.” At the time of the interview, he [the nurse] insisted on the importance of “testing every single nurse out there.” When asked to comment on the news story, the Quebec Health Minister responded that “testing is a priority,” but residents and patients come first. (Quoted from a video interview, Global News April 16, 2020)

Throughout the sample, we noted that external whistleblowing strategies used by nurses had a strong collective focus; that is, when nurses spoke out and spoke up about their individual experiences, they did so in solidarity with other nurses and for their collective rights. As mentioned above, we also found a high number of news stories featuring collective union voices. This is an important finding because whistleblowing tends to be understood exclusively as an individual phenomenon.

5.2.5. Moral courage in the face of a system in crisis

Our findings suggest that blowing the whistle was experienced and seen as an act of moral courage by nurses. Although slight variations exist in the definition of moral courage, we define it here as the courage a person demonstrates when acting in a way that aligns with their values and beliefs despite fear or threat of negative consequences for the acting individual (Pajakoski et al.,  2021 ). We use the concept of moral courage to capture the motivations, rationales and intentions cited by nurses across all units. Nurses' decisions and actions were first and foremost motivated by a strong sense of moral and professional obligation to advocate for patients. One nurse who resigned from long‐term care after witnessing the deaths of many residents due to COVID‐19 spoke to the media after writing a letter to the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Director of Public Health. She explained what motivated this decision and action:

We've been screaming for help for a long time. This crisis [the COVID‐19 pandemic] exposed the existing flaws in our health care system and how extensive they are. Yes, we [nurses] want to be there and help, but our role as nurses is also to be advocates for our patients. (nurse quoted in a news story published on April 25, 2020)

The rationales underpinning nurses' decisions and actions can be divided into three main categories. The first category focuses on the wrongness of the pandemic response and how it created and exacerbated COVID‐19‐related risks, suffering and deaths. The second category speaks to the need to do the right thing . Nurses were adamant that blowing the whistle, through whatever means necessary, was the right thing to do as nurses because it was in the public's interest, consistent with professional obligations, and a matter of moral integrity. The third category, which emerged clearly and strongly in our data, was the realization on the part of many nurses that they had nothing (or less) to lose and nothing (or less) to fear anymore. Nurses felt that in a system in crisis that desperately needed nurses, they held more power, and they, therefore, assessed the risks of whistleblowing differently than before COVID‐19. While most perceived fewer risks, leading them to act without or despite the fear of negative consequences, for some such fear remained and was the main reason for requesting anonymity in media interviews or for resorting to other reporting strategies, such as the FIQ platform, for example.

We're at a point of wanting to quit collectively. Our employer tried to intimidate us recently at a meeting. One of the nurses got a disciplinary notice yesterday, and she quit on the spot, so the day staff had to do mandatory overtime. (Online form 571)

In addition to the motivations and rationales described above, nurses had clear intentions when they blew the whistle. They were hoping for change, but they were also determined to bring much‐needed awareness to the public, the media and the government about pandemic management failures. In order words, they strove to make the invisible visible. This explains why many of our interview participants stated that blowing the whistle gave them a feeling of ‘mission accomplished,’ regardless of th outcomes.

I guess the moral distress of being too scared to even say anything about it, so you're going to feel worse in the long term. I think that's something that's been really true for me. After I blew the whistle—in both counts [of whistleblowing]—I felt like I fulfilled my duty, like I…There was something wrong, I spoke out about it. And that's all I can do as myself. So I've fulfilled my moral obligation, in that sense. (Anya, October 23, 2020)

6. DISCUSSION

This paper adds to a growing body of evidence on the experience of health care workers, especially nurses, during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Whistleblowing has been and continues to be central to that experience. The case study of Quebec nurses during the first wave is a helpful empirical approach to understanding why and how whistleblowing during a pandemic differs from whistleblowing in other (non‐crisis) contexts. Our findings highlight five main differences, which are likely transferable to other jurisdictions and future pandemics (or public health crises). First, nurses did not perceive a ‘clash of loyalty’ as is typically described in the literature (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). This was true for nurses who blew the whistle both as employees and as volunteers. They felt a strong sense of loyalty to the profession, patients and the public, but given widespread managerial abuses and the risks they faced, they did not believe they owed loyalty to employers, institutions and the government. Second, the nature of the wrongdoings witnessed by nurses was managerial and political in nature. This departs from existing literature, which mainly locates wrongdoings within a specific person (e.g. colleague, manager, etc.), workplace or institution. Rarely does the literature on whistleblowing in health care speak to system‐level wrongdoings. Third, nurses did not follow the traditional whistleblowing pathway, which typically begins with the nurse using internal reporting channels before resorting to external whistleblowing when they lose trust in internal channels (e.g. following retaliation) and/or determine that these channels are ineffective. Instead, they turned to external whistleblowing far more quickly, hoping for a prompt, more efficient remediation. Furthermore, nurses across our sample used technologically mediated external whistleblowing strategies that have not been widely studied in nursing. Fourth, external whistleblowing served to reclaim nurses' right to speak and build solidarity amongst nurses. Again, this is not typically documented in the literature, given researchers' emphasis on the whistleblower as an individual and the act of whistleblowing as solely an individual undertaking. Finally, blowing the whistle during a pandemic emerged as an act of moral courage hinging on a shifting understanding of risk, duty and power. This has not been documented in the nursing literature to date.

6.1. Rethinking external whistleblowing

Nursing has a complicated relationship with external whistleblowing. At the level of the profession and the discipline, external whistleblowing is typically depicted as a last resort, a risky practice and an act of disclosure that may run counter to professional and contractual duties—thus leaving nurses with little protection and support (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). This approach to external whistleblowing not only shapes the experiences of nurses who blow the whistle but it also governs how we study and think about those experiences. As a result, the nursing literature tends to focus on the whistleblower's beliefs and values (Ahern & McDonald,  2002 ), decision‐making process (Jackson et al.,  2010a ; Pohjanoksa et al.,  2019a , b ) and consequences (Jackson et al.,  2010b , 2011 ; McDonald & Ahern,  2000 , 2002 ; Peters et al.,  2011 ). In other words, research to date focuses on how nurses come to make the ‘difficult’ decision to blow the whistle, which is assumed to only be ethically justifiable in exceptional circumstances and inherently risky, and on the consequences they may face as a result. Less emphasis has been placed on organizational culture and its role in increasing or reducing the need for external whistleblowing, harming or supporting nurse whistleblowers, problematizing or normalizing disclosures of wrongdoings and so forth (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ; Jackson et al.,  2014 ). Our findings suggest that external whistleblowing is a symptom of a system in crisis, one that triggers an obligation on the part of nurses to speak courageously and openly. They also point to the lack of available alternatives within organizations and nurses' strategic use of technologies to break through a culture of silence that puts patients, nurses and others at risk. Finally, our findings challenge the idea that external whistleblowing always comes at a cost to nurses. We found that the cost of remaining silent can be far greater, especially during a pandemic.

6.2. The role of whistleblowing tools

In light of the COVID‐19 pandemic, it becomes imperative to rethink our understanding of external whistleblowing and current approaches to whistleblowing. Traditionally seen as a process of disclosure initiated by an individual nurse, our findings reveal that this process can and should be facilitated by the development of whistleblowing tools such as the FIQ's online platform ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce]. These tools can assist nurses in alerting the public, the media and government officials to wrongdoings while protecting their identity and preventing retaliation at an organizational level. As shown in our findings, such tools can also support collective solidarity and assist the work of nursing organizations. For example, nursing associations can amass evidence of policy failures to advocate more effectively and nursing unions can collect crucial evidence regarding workplace abuses even as they are locked out of their own bargained collective agreements. This being said, collecting information in itself is not sufficient. For these tools to be effective, they need to be part of a broader strategy towards greater transparency, accountability and responsiveness at the management, leadership and political levels. Without access to whistleblowing tools, nurses and other health care workers have relied heavily on social media platforms to blow the whistle. There is no denying that such platforms have played an important role during the COVID‐19 pandemic by supporting nurses' efforts to exchange information, signal wrongdoings, amplify whistleblowers' disclosures and support one another. However, their use raises a number of questions related to access, design, reach, impact and privacy that have yet to be studied in the context of whistleblowing in health care. In our case study, some nurses commented on the limits of social media platforms, including the risk of generating echo chambers that can, in turn, fuel exhaustion, hopelessness and a false sense of political efficacy.

6.3. The need for whistleblowing protection

In July 2020, Amon published a compelling commentary in The Lancet entitled ‘ Human rights protections are needed alongside PPE for health care workers responding to COVID‐19 .’ The commentary is consistent with our case study data. That is, there is a need to expand our thinking regarding the meaning of the term ‘protection’ to include layers of protection from COVID‐19 and means of protection from management, employers and governments who silence nurses and retaliate against those who blow the whistle. Protection against COVID‐19 is necessary, as our findings suggest, but they are not enough to ensure safe health care environments. It is worth noting that before COVID‐19, organizational cultures of silence, loss of accountability, lack of reciprocity and transparency in management structures and lack of protective policies and legislative structures had already created a context that is ripe for the occurrence of wrongdoing, poor responsiveness to reported concerns, as well as retaliatory practices against those who speak up (Perron et al., 2020b ). Our findings suggest that these issues were significantly amplified during the pandemic and reinforce the need for enhanced protection.

Unlike other employees in the public sector, such as civil servants, Quebec nurses do not benefit from explicit whistleblowing statutory protections. Gruben and Bélanger‐Hardy ( 2020 ) pointed out that ‘whistleblower protection for health care workers [in Canada] continues to be piecemeal at best’ (p. 499). Their analysis of whistleblowing during the COVID‐19 pandemic supports the gaps identified in the case study data. First, at the regulatory level, explicit whistleblowing guidance wa lacking. Second, at an organizational level, the culture of silence across health care settings intensified during the pandemic. Third, at a statutory level, existing laws in Canada left nurses who blew the whistle unprotected.

Existing whistleblower protection laws still come up against the argument of duty of loyalty to the employer, which requires health care workers to approach whistleblowing from the perspective of the employee–employer relationship. While this duty of loyalty is prima facie compatible with duties arising from this relationship in the private sector, it is important to recognize that health care workers acting as public sector employees have additional duties to consider (Brunelle & Samson,  2005 ; Newham et al.,  2021 ), especially in the context of a pandemic. Our findings show that the duty of loyalty of nurses is first and foremost directed towards the patients and the profession. As such, fulfilling their professional duties and protecting patients is more important than maintaining the reputation of their workplaces and employers. This, we argue, is an important part of the social contract between nurses and the public. Our position echoes the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan ( 2020 ) in Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Association which reiterates the essence of this social contract and affirms nurses' right to speak out (and publicly):

Criticism of the healthcare system is manifestly in the public interest. Such criticism, even by those delivering those services, does not necessarily undermine public confidence in healthcare workers or the healthcare system. Indeed, it can enhance confidence by demonstrating that those with the greatest knowledge of this massive and opaque system, and who have the ability to effect change, are both prepared and permitted to speak and pursue positive change. In any event, the fact that public confidence in aspects of the healthcare system may suffer as a result of fair criticism can itself result in positive change. Such is the messy business of democracy. (para 160)

6.4. Strengths and limitations

This case study offers a significant contribution to the body of literature on whistleblowing in nursing, and it sheds light on important pandemic‐specific considerations that are relevant to decision‐makers, researchers and clinicians. The strengths of our study include the triangulation of three sources of data, the inclusion of a case description to situate the study findings and the selection of a unique case of nurses blowing the whistle with greater intensity than other Canadian provinces through different strategies and one novel, unique whistleblowing tool (the FIQ online platform). However, some limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. The study was based in one province and may not reflect the reality of nurses in other jurisdictions. Sociodemographic information was only available for interview participants, which limited our understanding of the profile of nurses who blew the whistle. For example, most of our interview participants tended to be younger with less than ten years of nursing experience. We were not able to explore this further in the case study. Finally, the case study focused exclusively on the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

7. CONCLUSION

Over the course of the COVID‐19 pandemic, whistleblowing by nurses and other health care workers has intensified worldwide and has taken a turn outwards because of various governmental, organizational, managerial and technological factors (Amnesty International,  2020 ). Our case study offers a starting point to understand the experiences of nurses who blow the whistle during a pandemic. We have highlighted the importance of rethinking our understanding of external whistleblowing, developing tools to better support nurses and enacting legislated whistle‐blower protections that account for the nature of wrongdoings brought to the forefront during COVID‐19. Our findings reframe whistleblowing as a positive action rather than a negative one, one that nurses undertake as professionals committed to the public interest, as members of a collective and as workers endowed with basic, inalienable rights. They also further support a view of whistleblowing as a symptom of much broader problems of transparency and accountability. Addressing these problems is a crucial step towards protecting nurses and, therefore, the patients they care for.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

This case study was part of a larger study on whistleblowing for which the listed authors received funding (except CD). The case study design was led by MG. MG, AP, EM and CD collected and analysed the case study data: (1) News stories were collected by MG and analysed with AP, (2) Online forms were collected by EM and CD and analysed with MG and AP, (3) Interviews were conducted by MG and CD and analysed with AP. MG triangulated the data and identified the themes. MG wrote the original draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Insight Grant (435‐2019‐1249).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We declare no competing interests.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/jan.15365 .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the nurses who participated in this study.

Gagnon, M. , Perron, A. , Dufour, C. , Marcogliese, E. , Pariseau‐Legault, P. , Wright, D. K. , Martin, P. , & Carnevale, F. A. (2022). Blowing the whistle during the first wave of COVID‐19: A case study of Quebec nurses . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 00 , 1–15. 10.1111/jan.15365 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Patient or Public Contribution: No Patient or Public Contribution. This contribution was not part of our study design.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Ahern, K. , & McDonald, S. (2002). The beliefs of nurses who were involved in a whistleblowing event . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 38 , 303–309. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02180.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alami, H. , Lehoux, P. , Fleet, R. , Fortin, J.‐P. , Liu, J. , Attieh, R. , Cadeddu, S. B. M. , Samri, M. A. , Salvoldellu, M. , & Ahmed, M. A. A. (2021). How can health systems better prepare for the next pandemic? Lessons learned from the management of COVID‐19 in Quebec (Canada) . Frontiers in Public Health , 9 , 671833. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.671833 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amnesty International . (2020). Exposed, silenced, attacked: Failures to protect health and essential workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic . https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol40/2572/2020/en/
• Amon, J. J. (2020). Human rights protections are needed alongside PPE for health‐care workers responding to COVID‐19 . The Lancet: Global Health , 8 ( 7 ), e896. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30252-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunelle, C. , & Samson, M. (2005). La liberté d'expression au travail et l'obligation de loyauté du salarié: Plaidoyer pour un espace critique accru [Freedom of expression at work and the duty of loyalty of employees: A call for more critical space] . Les Cahiers de droit , 46 ( 4 ), 847–904. 10.7202/043869 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) . (2021). COVID‐19's impact on long‐term care . https://www.cihi.ca/en/covid‐19‐resources/impact‐of‐covid‐19‐on‐canadas‐health‐care‐systems/long‐term‐care
• Canadian Public Health Association . (2021). Review of Canada's initial response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Review of Canada's initial response to the COVID‐19 pandemic . https://www.cpha.ca/review‐canadas‐initial‐response‐covid‐19‐pandemic
• Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan . (2020). Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Association . https://canlii.ca/t/j9z2w
• Denzin, N. (2012). Triangulation 2.0 . Journal of Mixed Method Research , 6 ( 2 ), 80–88. 10.1177/1558689812437186 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flood, C. M. , MasDonnell, V. , Philpott, J. , Thériault, S. , & Venkatapuram, S. (2020). Overview of COVID‐19: Old and new vulnerabilities. In Flood C. M., MasDonnell V., Philpott J., Thériault S., & Venkatapuram S. (Eds.), Vulnerable: The law, policy and ethics of COVID‐19 (pp. 1–27). University of Ottawa Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fréchette, M , & Béfort‐Doucet, É . (2021). Omertà dans la santé et les services sociaux: Prendre parole sans peur' [Omertà in health care and sociaux services: Speaking out without fear]. À bâbord! https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/babord/1900‐v1‐n1‐babord06213/96478ac/
• Gagnon, M. , & Perron, A. (2020a). Whistleblowing: A concept analysis . Nursing and Health Sciences , 22 ( 2 ), 381–389. 10.1111/nhs.12667 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagnon, M. , & Perron, A. (2020b). Nursing voices during COVID‐19: An analysis of Canadian media coverage . Aporia: The Nursing Journal , 12 ( 1 ), 109–113. 10.18192/aporia.v12i1.4842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasdam, S. , Sandberg, H. , Stjernswärd, S. , Jacobsen, F. F. , Grønning, A. H. , & Hybholt, L. (2022). Nurses' use of social media during the COVID‐19 pandemic—A scoping review . PLoS One , 17 ( 2 ), e0263502. 10.1371/journal.pone.0263502 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruben, V. , & Bélanger‐Hardy, L. (2020). Risking it all: Providing patient care and whistleblowing during a pandemic. In Flood C. M., MasDonnell V., Philpott J., Thériault S., & Venkatapuram S. (Eds.), Vulnerable: The law, policy and ethics of COVID‐19 (pp. 487–499). University of Ottawa Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest, G. , MacQueen, K. M. , & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis . Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houghton, C. , Casey, D. , Shaw, D. , & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case‐study research . Nurse Researcher , 20 ( 4 ), 12–17. 10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiu‐Hsieh, H.‐F. , & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis . Qualitative Health Research , 15 ( 9 ), 1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institut national d'excellence en santé et en service sociaux (INESSS) . (2020). First wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Québec: A look at the factors associated with hospitalization and death . https://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/COVID‐19/COVID‐19_INESSS_Summary_COVID_cohort.pdf
• Jackson, D. , Hickman, L. , Hutchinson, M. , Andrew, S. , Smith, J. , Potgieter, I. , Cleary, M. , & Peters, K. (2014). Whistleblowing: An integrative literature review of data‐based studies involving nurses . Contemporary Nurse , 48 , 240–252. 10.1080/10376178.2014.11081946 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson, D. , Peters, K. , Andrew, S. , Edenborough, M. , Halcomb, E. , Luck, L. , Salamonson, Y. , Weaver, R. , & Wilkes, L. (2010a). Trial and retribution: A qualitative study of whistleblowing and workplace relationship in nursing . Contemporary Nurse , 36 , 34–44. 10.5172/conu.2010.36 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson, D. , Peters, K. , Andrew, S. , Edenborough, M. , Halcomb, E. , Luck, L. , Salamonson, Y. , & Wilkes, L. (2010b). Understanding whistleblowing: Qualitative insights from nurse whistleblowers . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 66 , 2194–2201. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05365.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson, D. , Peters, K. , Hutchinson, M. , Edenborough, M. , Luck, L. , & Wilkes, L. (2011). Exploring confidentiality in the context of nurse whistle blowing: Issues for nurse managers . Journal of Nursing Management , 19 , 655–663. 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01169.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopreite, M. , Panzarasa, P. , Puliga, M. , & Riccaboni, M. (2021). Early warnings of COVID‐19 outbreaks across Europe from social media . Scientific Reports , 11 , 2147. 10.1038/s41598-021-81333-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannion, R. , Blenkinsopp, J. , Powell, M. , McHale, J. , Millar, R. , Snowden, N. , & Davies, H. (2018). Understanding the knowledge gaps in whistleblowing and speaking up in health care: Narrative reviews of the research literature and formal inquiries, a legal analysis and stakeholder interviews . Health Services and Delivery Research , 6 ( 30 ), 1–220. 10.3310/hsdr06300 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mansbach, A. , & Bachner, Y. G. (2010). Internal or external whistleblowing: Nurses' willingness to report wrongdoing . Nursing Ethics , 17 ( 4 ), 483–490. 10.1177/0969733010364898 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, S. , & Ahern, K. (2000). The professional consequences of whistleblowing by nurses . Journal of Professional Nursing , 16 , 313–321. 10.1053/jpnu.2000.18178 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, S. , & Ahern, K. (2002). Physical and emotional effects of whistle blowing . Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services , 40 ( 1 ), 14–27. 10.3928/0279-3695-20020101-09 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Near, J. P. , & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle‐blowing . Journal of Business Ethics , 4 , 1–16. 10.1007/BF00382668 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newham, R. , Hewison, A. , Graves, J. , & Boyal, A. (2021). Human rights education in patient care: A literature review and critical discussion . Nursing Ethics , 28 ( 2 ), 190–209. 10.1177/0969733020921512 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nie, J.‐B. , & Elliott, C. (2020). Humiliating whistle‐blowers: Li Wenliang, the response to Covid‐19, and the call for a decent society . Bioethical Inquiry , 17 , 543–547. 10.1007/s11673-020-09990-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pajakoski, E. , Rannikko, S. , Leino‐Kilpi, H. , & Numminen, O. (2021). Moral courage in nursing–An integrative literature review . Nursing & Health Sciences , 23 ( 3 ), 570–585. 10.1111/nhs.12805 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perron, A. , Marcogliese, E. , Dufour, C. , & Gagnon, M. (2020a). La dénonciation infirmière en contexte de pandémie de COVID‐19: Une analyse de contenu de la plate‐forme ‘Je dénonce’ . Aporia: The Nursing Journal , 12 ( 1 ), 76–90. 10.18192/aporia.v12i1.4840 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perron, A. , Rudge, T. , & Gagnon, M. (2020b). Hypervisible nurses: Effects of circulating ignorance and knowledge on acts of whistleblowing in health . Advances in Nursing Science , 43 ( 2 ), 114–131. 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000311 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, K. , Luck, L. , Hutchinson, M. , Wilkes, L. , Andres, S. , & Jackson, D. (2011). The emotional sequelae of whistleblowing: Findings from a qualitative study . Journal of Clinical Nursing , 20 , 2907–2914. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03718.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pohjanoksa, J. , Stolt, M. , Suhonen, R. , & Leino‐Kilpi, H. (2019a). Wrongdoing and whistleblowing in health care . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 75 ( 7 ), 1504–1517. 10.1111/jan.13979 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pohjanoksa, J. , Stolt, M. , Suhonen, R. , Löyttyniemi, E. , & Leino‐Kilpi, H. (2019b). Whistle‐blowing process in healthcare: From suspicion to action . Nursing Ethics , 26 , 526–540. 10.1177/0969733017705005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quebec Nurses Association . (2019). ‘ Note politique: Temps supplémentaire obligatoire’ [Political Brief: Mandatory overtime]. https://www.aqii‐qna.org/post/temps‐suppl%C3%A9mentaire‐obligatoire
• Riedel, P.‐L. , Kreh, A. , Kulcar, V. , Lieber, A. , & Juen, B. (2022). A scoping review of moral stressors, moral distress and moral injury in healthcare workers during COVID‐19 . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 , 1666. 10.3390/ijerph19031666 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In Flick U. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 170–183). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Statistic Canada (2021). Population estimates, quarterly . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 [ PubMed ]
• Urrutia, D. , Manetti, E. , Williamson, M. , & Emeline, L. (2021). Case report: Overview of Canada's answer to the COVID‐19 pandemic's first wave (January‐April 2020) . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 , 7131. 10.3390/ijerph18137131 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wark, W. (2021). Building a better global health security early‐warning system post‐COVID: The view from Canada . International Journal , 76 ( 1 ), 55–67. 10.1177/0020702020985227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Designs and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu, J. (2020). Is it ethical to be a 'whistleblower' during COVID‐19 pandemic? Ethical challenges confronted by health care workers in China . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 76 , 1873–1875. 10.1111/jan.14376 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Throw Out Your Assumptions About Whistleblowing

• Stephen Stubben

Accountability is good for business.

The authors observe an increase over time in the volume of internal whistleblowing reports, but discover that it is not because of increased fraud. Rather, they find, we may be entering the golden age of internal whistleblowing systems where employees are speaking up more than ever, to the benefit of those companies that elicit and effectively investigate these reports. They find three ways companies can better understand and use their whistleblower systems. First, understand that more reports is better than fewer reports. Second, place more trust in reports that include secondhand information. Finally, don’t ignore reports that include few details.

Whistleblowing stories are all over the news. Some observers have attributed this to a systemic change in society. There are more stories about whistleblowing, the argument goes , because there are more crimes to report.

• KW Kyle Welch is an assistant professor of accountancy at The George Washington University School of Business.
• SS Stephen Stubben is an associate professor at the University of Utah.

Partner Center

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

The Whistleblower’s Dilemma: Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits?

November 5, 2019 • 13 min read.

How does a worker know what warrants a whistleblower response -- and how can organizations encourage those who want to report a misdeed to come forward?

The whistleblower is back. Instances of insiders calling out corruption, lawbreaking, and unethical behavior are happening all the time. But not since the Enron and WorldCom scandals has the role of the whistleblower stepped out of the shadows as it has now.

Less clear is whether whistleblowing as a tool will emerge bruised or burnished in the wake of recent whistleblower allegations that President Trump held back foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for potentially damaging information on potential 2020 election rival Joe Biden. The administration has worked hard in recent weeks to stigmatize the image of the whistleblower as an archetype, portraying him or her as an agent of treachery rather than as a servant to the common good and the rule of law itself.

But even before this particular turn of events, the decision to act on conscience in response to wrongdoing was considered “a very risky proposition for an employee who would like to stay working at the company,” says Janice Bellace, Wharton professor emeritus of legal studies and business ethics. That’s because for all of the prominence of whistleblowing in the past decade or so, there is still often no safe roadmap for a worker who has seen something to say something.

“Most people who perceive that there is some wrongdoing often do not know the specific law that would apply,” says Bellace. “As a result, they don’t actually have a good grasp of whether unlawful wrongdoing or probable wrongdoing has occurred. Moreover, and this has happened in some cases, they begin to access material that they might not have the right to access. So, I find these three points problematic from an employee’s vantage point. And even if you do know the law and do have proof, there will be a considerable period of time before you can have your position validated, and you may be without your job during that period of time. That’s a difficult proposition.”

“It’s a really hard issue,” says University of Pennsylvania professor of corporate law David Skeel. “You want everybody to behave ethically and you want to create an environment where people feel comfortable reporting this behavior. But the reality of human interaction is that we often suspect that when we report, we’ll be punished. It starts at the playground when you are a kid and it doesn’t go away.”

Many assume that the various systems of rewards and protections that are in place meant to encourage whistleblowing would make it easier for people to come forward. And often they do. “But none of those things makes the issue go away,” says Skeel. Deciding whether to blow the whistle is still a tricky matter. “When you add in the fact that traditionally a whistleblower has lots of relationships within the firm that could be jeopardized, it’s tough to stand up and do the right thing. It’s just one of those dilemmas.”

How does a worker know what warrants a whistleblower response? Anyone facing the question knows that he or she risks being portrayed as an alarmist or disloyal on the one hand, or tacitly approving of illegal or unethical activity on the other.

“Most people who perceive that there is some wrongdoing often do not know the specific law that would apply.” — Janice Bellace

“People are more likely to blow the whistle when they can see how the organization or an external actor might do something about it,” says Julian Jonker, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. “There might be ramifications for employees doing the reporting, and if there is nothing good to come from this, they will ask themselves, ‘why do it?’ One change could be to make it so that not only will there be protections for whistleblowers, but we also make explicit the way in which complaints will find a response. Setting aside the perceived usefulness of reporting, an employee is also faced with an ethical question about whether he or she should blow the whistle. The employee must make the ethical decision of whether there is in fact wrongdoing, and whether the wrongdoing is so bad that it outweighs any duties of loyalty they have to the organization on the ethical scale.”

When the wrongdoing is really severe, “it can be thought of as a way of saving the organization,” says Jonker.

But the price in many organizations for whistleblowing can be high, ranging from being socially ostracized to being fired in retaliation. Making an accusation can indeed transform workplace relationships, but the exact way in which relationships are changed depends on a variety of factors, according to findings by Maurice Schweitzer, Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions, and Jessica A. Kennedy of Vanderbilt University in a study published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes  in 2018.

Accusations, especially those regarding ethical violations, are prevalent in organizations, and an accusation influences perceptions of both the accuser and accused, they report in “ Building Trust by Tearing Others Down: When Accusing Others of Unethical Behavior Engenders Trust .” In five experiments, Kennedy and Schweitzer determine that accusations harm trust in the accused, harm group functioning, and boost trust in the accuser. People are perceived to be more trustworthy and to have greater integrity when they make accusations than when they do not, the study reports — “as long as the accusation appears to be motivated by a desire to defend moral norms; in this case, making an accusation increases cognitive trust by projecting integrity and high ethical standards.”

In other words, the accuser’s motive must be seen as pure.

In addition, when organizational members make accusations, the benefits may ripple out to the entire organization by “enforcing norms and promoting ethical behavior,” according to the authors. Ethical conduct stems from the organization setting an ethical tone, “and a culture that tolerates or promotes accusations may guide employees to recognize the high costs of engaging in unethical behavior.”

Still, whistleblowers are routinely perceived as disloyal to the organization, “so what’s playing out in the federal government is disappointing … but it’s not unusual by any means,” says Schweitzer. “Moral courage is hard, and in the moment it is far easier to be complicit. This is related to a psychological construct termed pluralistic ignorance . Imagine being in a class and the professor isn’t making any sense to you. You are not sure what to do. You look around and nobody is asking questions. At the same time, everyone else is looking around to see the same thing — nobody asking any questions. So, when we are uncertain about what to do, we look to others for guidance. In this setting, everyone is looking around … and not asking questions. The same thing happens when it comes to observing unethical behavior.”

The first thing that needs to happen in an organization interested in promoting an ethical culture is for the leaders to lead by example, says Schweitzer. “Their commitment to ethics really drives what subordinates are likely to do,” he says.

The second thing is to promote the idea that while organizations care about favorable outcomes, the process is even more important. The recent Wells Fargo scandal is a case in point. Employees were getting the clear message that the company didn’t care that its sales goals were unreasonable. Goals were to be met even if it meant signing up customers to new accounts without their consent or knowledge.

“The reality of human interaction is that we often suspect that when we report, we’ll be punished. It starts at the playground when you are a kid and it doesn’t go away.” — David Skeel

“We all care about outcomes,” says Schweitzer, “but what is important is how we get to those outcomes. And so again this means that as leaders, we need to model the behavior we expect others to follow — we penalize wrongdoing, we have a commitment to getting things right and when we fall short of goals, we learn from it. But we don’t penalize people merely because of an outcome.”

Ethical leadership is an important factor in influencing a worker’s decision on whether to report an ethical transgression, but so is behavior from another source: coworkers. Employees look for social cues on whether to blow the whistle, find the authors of “ Encouraging Employees to Report Unethical Conduct Internally: It Takes a Village ,” published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes in 2013. Because formal or informal sanctions can come from either supervisors or coworkers, “if employees perceive that either their supervisor or peers are less ethical, they will be less likely to report unethical conduct internally,” the study finds.

Wharton management professor Samir Nurmohamed, one of the study’s co-authors, says that social pressure to act the same way plays out in the small matters as well as the large ones, and “prior research shows that when you feel close to someone at the workplace who lies, it can impair your moral judgment.”

Another factor is that places with strong cultures tend to attract and retain workers of a similar viewpoint, sometimes creating a concentration in workers more beholden to personal loyalties than ethical considerations. “Hiring people from different backgrounds and networks ensures that people in the organization aren’t dependent on that one job or organization,” says Nurmohamed. “It also sends the message that your organization values different viewpoints, and that there is not social pressure to act the same way.”

A Maze of Laws

How does an employee who becomes aware of questionable behavior decide whether it rises to the level of whistleblowing material?

“That is a big problem, because most employees, at least at the initial stages of a whistleblower situation, get it wrong, because there are over 50 whistleblower protection laws in the private sector, and they are all different,” says Stephen M. Kohn, partner at Washington, D.C.-based Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto.

The good news is that many of these laws provide anonymity, protections from retaliation, and, in many cases, some significant carrots for the whistleblowers.

“People are more likely to blow the whistle when they can see how the organization or an external actor might do something about it.” — Julian Jonker

The whistleblower program run by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for instance, last year paid out bounties of more than $168 million to 13 individuals whose information and cooperation brought enforcement actions, the SEC reported in its 2018 accounting to Congress. “In fact, the commission awarded more dollars in FY 2018 to meritorious whistleblowers who provided new and critical information than in all prior years combined. The commission also received more whistleblower tips in FY 2018 than in any other previous year,” the report states.

More good news: various other whistleblower programs provide protections and rewards in other sectors. The False Claims Act protects and rewards whistleblowers with claims of contractors defrauding the government. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Whistleblower Program covers crimes like securities fraud and currency rate manipulation. The IRS’s Whistleblower Informant Award aims to uncover tax fraud.

The U.S. Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 guards government employees from retaliation when reporting a wide variety of abuses, violations of law, waste and actions posing a threat to health or safety.

But there are significant gaps in programs that reward whistleblowers, and they tend to be around certain environmental and consumer protection laws — “parts of the economy for which non-financial violations are occurring, but have equal impact on public interest,” says Kohn.

Given the maze of laws, how can the average employee know what to do?

“You must contact a knowledgeable whistleblower lawyer, period, before you to go internally, before you go to the SEC — before you tell your wife,” says Kohn. “These laws work. And they don’t have the publicity of others. They run counter to many stereotypes, that whistleblowers are being retaliated against and losing their careers. But under these laws the government has done a fantastic job at protecting identification.”

But contacting a lawyer, if the company finds out about it, is likely to be interpreted as an escalation of confrontation. In some sectors, confrontation is inevitable, since whistleblowing is mandatory — when a teacher learns of sexual misconduct in a school, for instance. Since 1978, New York City has required city workers to report instances of waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption, lest they face disciplinary action.

“We all care about outcomes, but what is important is how we get to those outcomes.” –Maurice Schweitzer

Would extending mandatory reporting to more sectors ease some of the confusion facing many workers?

“It probably would make it more likely that you would report,” says Skeel, “but it also makes the situation more fraught if you are afraid of the negative consequences and are told you are breaking a rule if you don’t speak up.”

Will the current Trump-whistleblower episode change the course of future whistleblowing? Any greater meaning hinges in part on how it ends, and the story is far from over. “On the one hand, this is an example of someone who did their duty and filed a whistleblower report with very good information, and that is the good point,” says Bellace. “On the other hand, in this case, you have the president calling this person a spy, and you’re saying to yourself, ‘I think I am doing the right thing, and I am going to be attacked for it.’ I think the current whistleblower incident could cut both ways.”

Trump’s characterization of, and attacks on, the current whistleblower threaten to have a chilling effect, says Schweitzer.

“As a nation, we have worked hard to implement whistleblower protection laws, and Trump’s actions represent a serious setback to what we have accomplished,” he says. “Whistleblowers are the people on the frontlines who can protect us against fraud and corruption. The threats and attacks on the whistleblower set a dangerous precedent. Rather than protecting and admiring them, Trump has sent a warning shot to anyone thinking about reporting misdeeds.”

But there’s at least one other way of looking at it. Because of the prominence of this case, it could serve to “advertise” the value of whistleblowing like nothing else before it.

“I don’t know that it will necessarily lead to a lot of soul-searching in large institutions,” says Skeel. “But where there is a massive issue, it might make more people on the margins willing to come forward.” ​

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Three Things All New Managers Should Be Doing

How Will AI Impact the Supply Chain?

Life After Prison: Why Returning Citizens Become Entrepreneurs

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Site Search

• How to Search
• Advisory Group
• Editorial Board
• OEC Fellows
• History and Funding
• Using OEC Materials
• Collections
• Research Ethics Resources
• Ethics Projects
• Communities of Practice
• Get Involved
• Submit Content
• Open Access Membership
• Become a Partner

Topics: Whistleblowing

A guide that provides information and resources on teaching responsible conduct of research that focuses on the topic of whistleblowing. Part of the Resources for Research Ethics Education collection.

What is Research Ethics

Why Teach Research Ethics

Animal Subjects

Biosecurity

Collaboration

Conflicts of Interest

Data Management

Human Subjects

Peer Review

Publication

Research Misconduct

Social Responsibility

Stem Cell Research

Whistleblowing

Descriptions of educational settings , including in the classroom, and in research contexts.

Case Studies

Other Discussion Tools

Information about the history and authors of the Resources for Research Ethics Collection

Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act. (NAS, 1995)

While this obligation might be met by formal reporting of the alleged misconduct, this is only one of many paths open to the potential whistleblower.

According to the 2010 definition from the US Office of Special Counsel, a whistleblower discloses information he or she reasonably believes evidences:

• a violation of a law, rule, or regulation
• gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority
• a substantial and specific danger to public health or public safety

Roles and Perspective

Whistleblower

The whistleblower should (Gunsalus, 2010; Keith-Spiegel, 2010):

• Keep good records
• Avoid the mistake of an inappropriate allegation, begin by asking questions and seeking perspective
• Appropriately report or respond to possible misconduct
• Not take responsibility for investigating the misconduct or mete out justice
• Maintain objectivity with a goal of identifying and correcting any possible misunderstandings

Even though he/she may feel threatened or offended by the accusation, the accused should:

• Properly document all necessary information
• Cooperate with any possible investigation

Necessity and Obligation

• Because of the secretive nature of many research environments, misconduct will only come to light if someone close to the project blows the whistle.
• sheer practicality
• protection of credit or intellectual property rights
• worries about the possible misuse of preliminary data

Consequences

• Both whistleblowers and those accused may suffer whether or not the allegations are ultimately sustained.
• As with good research, the integrity of an allegation of research misconduct is best served by keeping clear, defensible records of what happened and when.

The National Science Foundation states that: Whistleblower disclosures save lives as well as taxpayer dollars. They play a critical role in keeping our government honest, efficient and accountable. Recognizing that whistleblowers root out waste, fraud and abuse, and protect public health and safety, federal laws strongly encourage employees to disclose wrongdoing. Federal laws also protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

Why be a Whistleblower?

There is a considerable range of opinions among scientists about how to respond to perceived misconduct -- and an even greater difference between scientists and administrators (Wenger et al., 1999). Yet, as a 1995 publication of the National Academy of Sciences advises:

Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.

In addition to this proposed obligation, other reasons to favor whistleblowing include:

• Personal sense of responsibility
• Protect against the risk of wasted resources
• Clarify something that may either not in fact be wrong or is easily remedied
• Decrease the risk that someone else will uncover the misconduct and questions will be asked about why you didn't say anything

Examples of Whistleblowing

Consequences for whistleblowers.

Unfortunately, the evidence is compelling that whistleblowers, not just the accused, suffer adverse consequences. Based on self-reports (Research Triangle Institute, 1995):

• Being pressured to withdraw their allegation
• Being ostracized by colleagues
• Suffering a reduction in research support, or
• Being threatened with a lawsuit.
• Approximately 10% noted significant negative consequences, such as being fired or losing support.
• However, fewer than 18% of those suffering the most severe impact on their careers reported that they would be unwilling to come forward with allegations again.

This potential for adverse consequences makes it problematic to place an obligation for whistleblowing on scientists in training, such as postdocs, graduate students, or undergraduate students.

How Should I Report Misconduct?

Because of the serious consequences of an allegation of misconduct, it is important to be clear about the allegation. This concern is particularly relevant for someone with relatively little experience in research or in a specific area of research. To avoid the mistake of an inappropriate allegation:

• More senior members of the research group
• Someone in an ombuds program, or
• Even the individual whose conduct is in question.
• Clearly distinguish between facts and speculation in presenting an allegation and supporting documentation.
• Avoid the trap of inferring motives on the part of others.
• Instead, stick to the facts of the case, which will reduce the risk of a loss of credibility.

These considerations do not diminish the need for whistleblowing.

Regulations and Guidelines

Scope of regulations.

To foster fair and timely responses to allegations of research misconduct, regulations typically include:

• safeguards for informants and for the subjects of allegations
• an expectation of objectivity and expertise
• adherence to reasonable time limits , and
• respect for confidentiality .

Whistleblowers are protected under rulings from both state and federal governments.

Legal Protections

Whistleblowers are entitled to a number of legal protections. The first amendment to the Constitution, guarantees free speech, giving whistleblowers legal protection from retaliation. The federal False Claims Act is more far-reaching (US Code, 1986):

• Originally developed to protect the federal government from fraudulent contractors during the Civil War, the Act provides that any individual with primary knowledge of fraudulent use of federal funds can bring charges.
• If a defendant in a False Claims case is found liable, then the whistleblower can be awarded 15-30% of the resulting settlement.
• The False Claims Act also specifically calls for significant remedies for any discriminatory action that can be shown to have been taken to retaliate against an employee who has presented a case under the Act.

Current federal policies to protect whistleblowers from retaliation are covered, in part, by:

• Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
• Department of Health and Human Services (2000)

educate agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation for whistleblowing, as well as employees' rights and remedies if subjected to retaliation for making a protected disclosure.

The regulations are intended to place obligations on institutions both to prevent and to remedy retaliation against whistleblowers. In addition to federal regulations:

• Most states and/or institutions typically have specific protections for whistleblowers.
• Most institutions, and many professional societies and journals, offer guidelines to support the role of the whistleblower.

Guidelines can have as much or more important than the regulations in reducing the chance of adverse outcomes.

Case Study 1

Dr. Carlos Gonzalez is a well-known investigator at the peak of his career. He has a reputation for being brilliant, demanding, and intensely competitive. The university values him greatly and he receives offers to move to highly attractive positions elsewhere on a regular basis. His laboratory publishes on average 30 papers a year and he is always included as author. One of Dr. Gonzalez's first-year postdocs, Dr. Grace Hung, comes to him and says that a very important result recently published by his laboratory in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science was fraudulent. This paper has already received considerable attention. Dr. Hung says the principal author, Dr. Edward Lansing, made up most of the data because a key assay was not working. This was discovered, she noted, when she tried to utilize the assay. Dr. Lansing has worked with Dr. Gonzalez for five years. The two have published several papers together and have become personal friends. Dr. Gonzalez hardly knows Dr. Hung. Questions: 1. How should Dr. Gonzalez respond to this complaint? How should he deal with:     a) Dr. Hung?     b) Dr. Lansing?     c) the data that have now been called into question?     d) the institution in which all three individuals work?     e) the journal in which the possibly fraudulent data were reported? 2. Assume Dr. Gonzalez is unresponsive to Dr. Hung's complaint. How might Dr. Hung follow up on her concerns? 3. Assume that Dr. Gonzalez proceeds by asking Dr. Lansing obliquely about the assay used for the project, mentioning that Dr. Hung seems to have some kind of problem with it. In spite of Dr. Gonzalez's subtlety, Dr. Lansing suspects that this inexperienced postdoc has planted some serious suspicions in Dr. Gonzalez's mind. Since Dr. Lansing is confident of the accuracy of his work, how should he respond to Dr. Gonzalez? Should Dr. Lansing approach Dr. Hung, and if so, what should he say to her?

Case Study 2

Dr. Alice Charles, a mid-career scientist, was revising and updating a book chapter. This led her to review other articles on the same subject to help determine what new material to cover. During the course of her reading, she came upon a chapter in a major text by Dr. Chris Long, a departmental chair at a leading medical school, that contained long passages from her previous chapter without attribution. Dr. Charles called Dr. Long and confronted him with her finding. At first, he vehemently denied having used any of Dr. Charles's text inappropriately. Dr. Charles then faxed Dr. Long copies of the offending passages. After some delay, Dr. Long finally responded, acknowledging that the language was indeed remarkably similar. Dr. Long noted that he had engaged younger members of his research group to write portions of the chapter because he was very busy at the time that the deadline was approaching. Furthermore, to defend himself, he pointed out that much of the original research on which her chapter was based was derived from the work of his laboratory. He admitted only to negligence in not adequately monitoring the activities of his subordinates. Dr. Charles replied that the subordinates were not acknowledged in Dr. Long's chapter either, and that admission of plagiarism required more than an apology. She indicated her intention to report the matter to Dr. Long's dean and the editor of the text. Questions: 1. Did Dr. Charles act appropriately? Would you have done anything differently? Considering the difference in status between herself and Dr. Long, was she taking a professional risk? 2. Did Dr. Long do anything wrong? What if he were copying his own previous writings? 3. How would you have handled this matter if you were Dr. Long and were confronted with Dr. Charles's revelations? 4. If you were Dr. Long's dean, how would you handle Dr. Charles's letter, which contained copies of the plagiarized texts? 5. Upon hearing Dr. Charles's complaint, what would you do as editor of Dr. Long's textbook? 6. In the context of proper credit for the writings of colleagues, who is responsible for what is published and what should be done if plagiarism is discovered?

Case Study 3

What would you do if you inadvertently discovered evidence that the head of your research group had been discarding data points, apparently to make the results of recent experiments (or studies) look better than they actually were?

Discussion Questions

• List at least three reasons that the integrity of science is dependent in part on whistleblowing.
• Describe the relative advantages and disadvantages for an individual who makes an allegation of research misconduct.
• List at least three steps a potential whistleblower can take to decrease the likelihood of adverse consequences.
• As a student, should I discard data that does not showcase the point I am trying to make?
• As a professor, if my student’s results seems too good to be true, should I ask them to show me their raw data? What if the results are from a fellow professor?
• OEC Whistleblowing Subject Aid A beginning point for anyone interested in learning more about whistleblowing, including relevant guidelines and good articles and readings to start out. 
• OEC Whistleblowing Bibliography A bibliography of books, online resources, and articles on whistleblowing

Cited Sources

• Department of Health and Human Services (2000): Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of Research Misconduct Whistleblowers. Notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Register November 28, 2000 65(229):70830-70841. http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/nprm_reg.shtml
• Gleick E (1996): Tobacco blues; the tobacco industry has never lost a lawsuit; but a new billion-dollar legal assault, and a high-ranking defector, may change that. Time 147(11): 54 (5 pages). http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984241,00.html
• Gunsalus CK (2010): How to blow the whistle and have a career afterwards . 
• Holden C (1987): NIMH Finds A Case of Serious Misconduct. Science 235:1566-1567. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/235/4796/1566
• Keith-Spiegel P et al. (2010): Responding to research wrongdoing: A user-friendly guide.
• Kell J (2015): Here's who figured out Volkswagen was cheating on emissions tests. Fortune Magazine. http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/volkswagen-emissions-testing-golf .
• Kevles DJ (2000): The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character. W.W. Norton & Company. Reviewed at: https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20portert.html
• National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2009): On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. National Academy Press.  https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in
• National Science Foundation: Whistleblower Protection https://www.nsf.gov/oig/whistleblower.jsp
• Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986): Report to the President. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm
• Research Triangle Institute (1995): Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Report submitted to Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf
• US Code (1986): False Claims Amendments Act of 1986. 31 USC Sections 3729-3733.  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2011/04/22/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf
• US Office of Special Counsel. https://osc.gov/Resources/post_wb.pdf
• Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/20/text
• Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ199/pdf/PLAW-112publ199.pdf

The Resources for Research Ethics Education site was originally developed and maintained by Dr. Michael Kalichman, Director of the Research Ethics Program at the University of California San Diego. The site was transferred to the Online Ethics Center in 2021 with the permission of the author.

Related Resources

Submit Content to the OEC   Donate

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. 2055332. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

• Member Benefits
• Types of Membership
• Renew Membership
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Get Involved
• NSPE Communities
• Interest Groups
• State Societies
• What Is a PE
• Why Get Licensed
• How to Get Licensed
• Maintaining a License
• Why PEs Matter
• NSPE Protects Your PE License
• Licensing Boards
• Licensing Resources
• Professional Engineers Day
• History of the Code of Ethics for Engineers
• Engineers' Creed
• Code of Ethics (French)
• Code of Ethics (German)
• Code of Ethics (Japanese)
• Code of Ethics (Spanish)
• Board of Ethical Review
• Board of Ethical Review Cases
• Education and Publications
• Engineering Ethics Videos
• Ethics Exam
• Milton F. Lunch Ethics Contest
• 2024 Professional Engineers Conference
• PE/FE Exam Preparation
• Emerging Leaders Program
• NSPE Education Foundation
• EJCDC Contract Documents
• Professional Liability
• NSPE Advocacy Center
• Sustainability and Resilience
• Action on Issues
• Latest News
• Reports on State PE Laws and Rules
• Advocacy Tools
• State Watch
• PE Legislators
• Professional Policies and Position Statements
• NSPE Legal Fund
• Protect the PE Fund
• NSPE Life Member Contribution
• Digital PE Magazine
• PE Magazine
• Daily Designs Archives
• NSPE Update
• Advertising

Whistleblowing

Engineer A is employed by a large industrial company which engages in substantial work on defense projects. Engineer A's assigned duties relate to the work of subcontractors, including review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors. In the course of this work Engineer A advised his superiors by memoranda of problems he found with certain submissions of one of the subcontractors, and urged management to reject such work and require the subcontractors to correct the deficiencies he outlined. Management rejected the comments of Engineer A, particularly his proposal that the work of a particular subcontractor be redesigned because of Engineer A's claim that the subcontractor's submission represented excessive cost and time delays.

After the exchange of further memoranda between Engineer A and his management superiors, and continued disagreement between Engineer A and management on the issues he raised, management placed a critical memorandum in his personnel file, and subsequently placed him on three months' probation, with the further notation that if his job performance did not improve, he would be terminated.

Engineer A has continued to insist that his employer had an obligation to insure that subcontractors deliver equipment according to the specifications, as he interprets same, and thereby save substantial defense expenditures. He has requested an ethical review and determination of the propriety of his course of action and the degree of ethical responsibility of engineers in such circumstances.

Does Engineer A have an ethical obligation, or an ethical right, to continue his efforts to secure change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority?

In Case 65-12 we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe, and we determined that so long as the engineers held to that view they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question. We recognized in that case that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.

In Case 61-10 we distinguished a situation in which engineers had objected to the redesign of a commercial product, but which did not entail any question of public health or safety. On that basis we concluded that this was a business decision for management and did not entitle the engineers to question the decision on ethical grounds.

The Code section in point related to plans and specifications "that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare," and ties that standard to the ethical duty of engineers to notify proper authority of the dangers and withdraw from further service on the project.

That is not quite the case before us; here the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds. We could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health or safety, but we think that is too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers engaged in activities having a substantial impact on defense expenditures or other substantial public expenditures that relate to "welfare" as set forth in Section III.2.b.

The situation presented here has become well known in recent years as "whistleblowing", and we note that there have been several cases evoking national interest in the defense field. As we recognized in earlier cases, if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment. In some of the more notorious cases of recent years engineers have gone through such experiences and even if they have ultimately prevailed on legal or political grounds, the experience is not one to be undertaken lightly.

In this type of situation, we feel that the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but we are not willing to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue his campaign within the company, and make the issue one for public discussion. The Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare.

If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.

Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.

Engineer A does not have an ethical obligation to continue his effort to secure a change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.

The high cost of being a whistleblower in China

While the right to report wrongdoing is recognised in the Chinese constitution, it comes with strict limits.

New York – In the early 1990s, a mysterious illness began to spread rapidly among villagers across several provinces in central China.

At the time, HIV/AIDS had already emerged in other parts of the world, including Europe and the United States, where cases were transmitted mostly through sexual contact. In China, however, people were infected after selling their blood and plasma or receiving transfusions contaminated in the trade.

Keep reading

‘no good evidence’ for gender care for youth over long-term, review finds, ‘let states decide’: how donald trump’s position on abortion has changed, trump says abortion should be up to us states, avoids backing national ban, hong kong’s first monkey virus case – what do we know about the b virus.

Over the following decade, as many as 300,000 people in Henan province, the epicentre of the trade, were infected – a scandal exposed by local retired gynaecologist Dr Gao Yaojie.

Long before eye doctor Li Wenliang sounded the alarm on COVID-19 and succumbed to the virus in early 2020, Dr Gao was China’s best-known whistleblower. Her decision to expose the source of China’s AIDS epidemic made her an exile for the last 14 years of her life. She died last December at the age of 95 in New York.

Despite official erasure (Baidu Baike, China’s Wikipedia equivalent, says Gao settled overseas on a visiting fellowship), Chinese netizens mourned Gao’s death on the same Weibo “wailing wall” page where they commemorated Li.

Gao’s descent from national prominence to relentless official persecution exposed just how ruthless Beijing could be, even at a time when it was seen as opening up to the world.

“All she wanted was the freedom to speak out, to tell the whole world the truth behind China’s AIDS epidemic and to keep a record for history,” said former journalist Lin Shiyu, who edited most of the books Gao published while in exile in the US. “That was why she fled China.”

As the yet-unsolved origin of the COVID-19 pandemic shows, the secrecy Beijing enforces has repercussions for the rest of the world. Across the globe, more than 7 million people have died from the “mysterious virus” that first emerged in Wuhan in late 2019, according to the latest figures from the World Health Organization.

Gao did not set out to be an activist, much less a whistleblower. She became alarmed when she started to see patients in Henan province with tumours that she knew were common symptoms of AIDS. Few had been tested for HIV, let alone diagnosed, until Gao insisted.

“As a doctor I couldn’t turn a blind eye; I had a responsibility to do all I could to prevent this epidemic from spreading. However, at the time, I was unaware of the unfathomable forces underlying the widespread transmission of HIV,” Gao wrote in her 2008 memoir, The Soul of Gao Yaojie. “Had I known, I might not have been able to muster the courage.”

Soon enough, she discovered that the plasma trade – especially prevalent in rural areas where impoverished villagers needed to supplement their income – had become a vector for transmission. Once Beijing banned most imported blood products, part of its attempt to frame the virus as having a “foreign” origin, pharmaceutical firms ratcheted up domestic demand, making the problem worse.

Even the Chinese Red Cross and its People’s Liberation Army-run hospitals got into the booming blood business. Local officials who stood to profit told villagers that selling plasma was also great for their health. Many were infected with HIV because dirty needles were routinely reused to draw blood.

Half of the 3,000 villagers in one county in Henan province made ends meet with the blood money at the time; 800 developed AIDS, Gao noted in her memoir.

‘Officially controlled process’

As much as Gao’s fight to expose the source of transmissions and to staunch the blood trade rankled local officials, the central government recognised her efforts. When provincial officials put her under house arrest in 2007, the health minister intervened so Gao could travel to the US to receive an award.

Even though “whistleblowing” is translated literally into Chinese, the idea is not new, and the right to report wrongdoings was protected in the first constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) of 1954. This stated that “all the PRC citizens had the right to make oral or written reports of any power abuses to the authorities”, according to political scientist Ting Gong in her 2000 paper titled Whistleblowing: what does it mean in China?

But that right has limits.

“In China, whistleblowing is an officially controlled process,” Gong noted.

The tide soon turned on Gao and others. Dr Wan Yanhai, a health official-turned-advocate, was detained in 2002 after distributing a secret government document on 170 AIDS-related deaths.

As with COVID-19, in the case of AIDS, “the impulse to cover up is ideological: Beijing deems its communist system the best in the world and brooks no fault”, Wan told Al Jazeera in February from New York after being barred from returning home to China since 2010. That was the year Wan defied officials’ warnings and attended the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo to honour Liu Xiaobo , the Chinese dissident scholar who eventually died in prison in 2017.

For Gao, accolades worldwide and foreign media coverage of her work only gave Chinese officials further cause to rein her in.

After her book tour to Hong Kong in 2008, officials stepped up their surveillance and even cut her off from her family members. Several months later, Gao escaped with only a blood pressure meter and a floppy disk containing details and photos of patients.

At 81, Gao was the oldest dissident ever to have fled China. Barely one month after her death, prominent economist Mao Yushi set a new record. Mao, whose liberal think tank known for advocating market reforms was shut down by officials, shared pictures on social media of his 95th birthday celebrations in Vancouver, Canada, not long after he fled China.

Gao kept writing books into her last days.

“She was used to running around to tend to her patients. She felt useless merely writing on a notepad,” said Lin. Yet, Gao never took her final years in exile for granted.

“The US is no paradise,” wrote Gao, but she added: “Had I never left [China], I wouldn’t have lived past 90.”

The Case Against Crowdfunding in the Work Chat

Meta employees lost big on real estate investments touted by a colleague.

Among the many channels on Meta Platforms Inc. ’s internal messaging system is a group for employees to chat about investing in real estate. In 2019 an engineering recruiter named Sief Khafagi, who worked in Meta’s Los Angeles office, began posting about Scoutpads, a service he’d set up that connected users with developers to put money into real estate.

Scoutpads wasn’t directly investing in properties. Instead, it was an online platform that served as a middleman between investors and real estate partners who pooled the money to buy properties, usually in residential areas. The startup then took a referral fee from its users’ returns when they were sold. The idea appealed to Meta employees, who had plenty of money to spend, along with a natural affinity for a crowdfunding website reducing the friction of real-life investments. Its appearance in an office chatroom gave it an added air of legitimacy. Dozens of Khafagi’s co-workers invested.

Settlement reached in Angelina County whistleblower case

LUFKIN, Texas (KTRE) - Angelina County commissioners voted to approve a settlement in a lawsuit filed by the former road engineer in 2022.

At the end of Tuesday’s commissioners court meeting, executive session item 17 was passed unanimously. The motion to approve a settlement offer in the case of Charles “Chuck” N. Walker, Jr. v. Angelina County and Commissioner Terry Pitts was approved without discussion. Walker had filed the case as he claimed he was wrongfully terminated for reporting criminal behavior by Pitts.

Walker was employed by Angelina County, where he was fired in March of 2022 for allegedly approving a false entry on an employee time sheet.

A dollar amount was not announced at commissioners court. County Judge Keith Wright said he could not comment on specifics of the settlement.

+ Former unit road engineer files whistleblower lawsuit against Angelina County, commissioner

Copyright 2024 KTRE. All rights reserved.

Single father wins $1 million lottery prize while shopping for salad

105-year-old eclipse chaser takes in ‘lucky 13′ with his family

East Texas power outages mounting in midst of storms

Nacogdoches County authorities release name of woman killed in house fire

Latest news.

Unspun on Tuesday, April 2

Community shocked 13-year-old would stab mother to death after getting phone taken away

East Texas immigration expert weighs in on Mexico’s response to, effects of SB4

New Nacogdoches officials give updates on ongoing, future city projects

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Press Releases

Cyber Safety Review Board Releases Report on Microsoft Online Exchange Incident from Summer 2023

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the Cyber Safety Review Board’s (CSRB) findings and recommendations following its independent review of the Summer 2023 Microsoft Exchange Online intrusion . The review detailed operational and strategic decisions that led to the intrusion and recommended specific practices for industry and government to implement to ensure an intrusion of this magnitude does not happen again. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas received the CSRB report from the Board and delivered it to President Biden. This is the third review completed by the CSRB since the Board was announced in February 2022.

“Individuals and organizations across the country rely on cloud services every day, and the security of this technology has never been more important,” said Secretary Mayorkas . “Nation-state actors continue to grow more sophisticated in their ability to compromise cloud service systems. Public-private partnerships like the CSRB are critical in our efforts to mitigate the serious cyber threat these nation-state actors pose. The Department of Homeland Security appreciates the Board’s comprehensive review and report of the Storm-0558 incident. Implementation of the Board’s recommendations will enhance our cybersecurity for years to come.”

The CSRB provides a unique forum for leading government and industry experts to review significant cybersecurity events and provide independent, strategic, and actionable recommendations to the President, the Secretary, and the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to better protect our nation. The Board is made up of cybersecurity leaders from the private sector and senior officials from DHS, CISA, the Defense Department, the National Security Agency, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the National Cyber Director, and the Federal Chief Information Officer.

In August 2023, DHS announced that the CSRB would assess the recent Microsoft Exchange Online intrusion, initially reported in July 2023, and conduct a broader review of issues relating to cloud-based identity and authentication infrastructure affecting applicable cloud service providers (CSP) and their customers. The CSRB obtained data from and conducted interviews with 20 organizations and experts including cybersecurity companies, technology companies, law enforcement organizations, security researchers, academics, as well as several impacted organizations.

The inclusive review process developed actionable findings and recommendations. As a result of the CSRB’s recommendations, CISA plans to convene major CSPs to develop cloud security practices aligned with the CSRB recommendations and a process for CSPs to regularly attest and demonstrate alignment.

“DHS is committed to efforts that meaningfully improve cybersecurity resilience and preparedness for our nation, and the work of the CSRB is reflective of our determination and dedication to this cause,” said CISA Director Jen Easterly . “I am confident that the findings and recommendations from the Board’s report will catalyze action to reduce risk to the critical infrastructure Americans rely on every day.”

The CSRB’s review found that the intrusion by Storm-0558, a hacking group assessed to be affiliated with the People’s Republic of China, was preventable. It identified a series of Microsoft operational and strategic decisions that collectively pointed to a corporate culture that deprioritized enterprise security investments and rigorous risk management, at odds with the company’s centrality in the technology ecosystem and the level of trust customers place in the company to protect their data and operations. The Board recommends that Microsoft develop and publicly share a plan with specific timelines to make fundamental, security-focused reforms across the company and its suite of products. Microsoft fully cooperated with the Board’s review.

“Cloud computing is some of the most critical infrastructure we have, as it hosts sensitive data and powers business operations across our economy,” said DHS Under Secretary of Policy and CSRB Chair Robert Silvers . “It is imperative that cloud service providers prioritize security and build it in by design. The Board has become the authoritative organization for conducting fact-finding and issuing recommendations in the wake of major cyber incidents, receiving extensive industry and expert input in each of its three reviews to date. We appreciate Microsoft’s full cooperation in the course of the Board’s seven-month, independent review. We also appreciate the input received from 19 additional companies, government agencies, and individual experts.”

“The threat actor responsible for this brazen intrusion has been tracked by industry for over two decades and has been linked to 2009 Operation Aurora and 2011 RSA SecureID compromises,” said CSRB Acting Deputy Chair Dmitri Alperovitch . “This People’s Republic of China affiliated group of hackers has the capability and intent to compromise identity systems to access sensitive data, including emails of individuals of interest to the Chinese government. Cloud service providers must urgently implement these recommendations to protect their customers against this and other persistent and pernicious threats from nation-state actors.”

The CSRB recommends specific actions to all cloud service providers and government partners to improve security and build resilience against the types of attacks conducted by Storm-0558 and associated groups. Select recommendations include:

• Cloud Service Provider Cybersecurity Practices: Cloud service providers should implement modern control mechanisms and baseline practices, informed by a rigorous threat model, across their digital identity and credential systems to substantially reduce the risk of system-level compromise.
• Audit Logging Norms: Cloud service providers should adopt a minimum standard for default audit logging in cloud services to enable the detection, prevention, and investigation of intrusions as a baseline and routine service offering without additional charge.
• Digital Identity Standards and Guidance: Cloud service providers should implement emerging digital identity standards to secure cloud services against prevailing threat vectors. Relevant standards bodies should refine, update, and incorporate these standards to address digital identity risks commonly exploited in the modern threat landscape.
• Cloud Service Provider Transparency: Cloud service providers should adopt incident and vulnerability disclosure practices to maximize transparency across and between their customers, stakeholders, and the United States government.
• Victim Notification Processes: Cloud service providers should develop more effective victim notification and support mechanisms to drive information-sharing efforts and amplify pertinent information for investigating, remediating, and recovering from cybersecurity incidents.
• Security Standards and Compliance Frameworks: The United States government should update the Federal Risk Authorization Management Program and supporting frameworks and establish a process for conducting discretionary special reviews of the program’s authorized Cloud Service Offerings following especially high-impact situations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology should also incorporate feedback about observed threats and incidents related to cloud provider security.

As directed by President Biden through Executive Order 14028 Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, Secretary Mayorkas established the CSRB  in February 2022.  The Board’s investigations are conducted independently, and its conclusions are independently reached. DHS and the CSRB are committed to transparency and will, whenever possible, release public versions of CSRB reports, consistent with applicable law and the need to protect sensitive information from disclosure.

To read the full report, visit the Report on the Microsoft Online Exchange Incident from Summer 2023 .

• Cybersecurity
• Secretary of Homeland Security
• Cyber Incident
• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
• Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Museum loses anti-discrimination case – as it happened

This blog is now closed.

• Brittany Higgins questions whether she was drugged on night of alleged rape in new court submission
• Mona ordered to allow people ‘who do not identify as ladies’ into Ladies Lounge exhibit
• Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast
• 1d ago What we learned – Tuesday 9 April
• 1d ago Mona ordered to stop refusing men entry to Ladies Lounge
• 1d ago Marion Scrymgour welcomes Alice Springs youth curfew extension, saying ‘the status quo cannot continue’
• 1d ago Mayfair 101’s James Mawhinney charged after Asic investigation
• 1d ago Judge to hand down verdict in Bruce Lehrmann defamation case on Monday
• 1d ago Rideshare and food delivery industry 'cannibalising itself', union leader says after Ola news
• 1d ago Alice Springs curfew extended until end of NT school holidays
• 1d ago Potential asbestos uncovered at additional three sites in Melbourne
• 1d ago Supermarket chiefs to face combative Senate inquiry
• 1d ago Jacinta Allan condemns rates of violence against women, family violence
• 1d ago One serving or former ADF member contacts suicide emergency service every four hours
• 1d ago Landmark Tickle v. Giggle case kicks off in federal court
• 1d ago Mid-morning summary
• 1d ago Tanya Plibersek rejects Toondah harbour project over impact on globally significant wetlands
• 1d ago Welfare payments not covering basic essentials: Anglicare report
• 1d ago Vice Admiral David Johnston to serve as new ADF chief
• 1d ago Record for batteries as home energy systems top 250,000
• 1d ago Search to resume this morning for missing bushwalker
• 1d ago Calls for Amazon, Costco to fall under supermarket code of conduct
• 1d ago Man dies in single-vehicle crash in Sydney
• 1d ago Melbourne park asbestos test results to be revealed
• 1d ago Aukus countries ‘considering’ working with Japan
• 1d ago Welcome

Rain hampers search for 20-year-old woman after cliff fall

Challenging wet conditions have made work difficult for search crews as a major, multi-agency hunt for a woman who fell from a waterfall enters its third day, AAP reports.

The 20-year-old woman was reported missing early on Sunday afternoon following reports she had slipped and fallen at Belmore Falls , in the NSW Southern Highlands region.

Chief inspector Brendan Bernie told ABC Radio conditions had made it tough to continue the search:

It is still slippery, there is a lot of water and dampness around the areas we’re searching. We are confident we can identify the location where she actually has slipped, but unfortunately we haven’t been able to determine [the exact position yet].

The extensive water- and land-based search resumed this morning after the operation was suspended yesterday evening due to low light.

Bernie said authorities would be using all available resources in an attempt to find the missing woman. Police have been talking to a male friend, who was with the woman on Sunday, as they try to work out what happened in the lead-up to the incident:

The full circumstances around why they were there that day is still to be determined. Unfortunately we haven’t been able to determine where the female has ended up.

Waste levy scrapped for flood-hit areas along east coast

Seven more local government areas in New South Wales affected by the recent east coast flooding will have the waste levy lifted for them as clean-up efforts continue.

The state’s environment minister, Penny Sharpe, said residents in the following LGAs would be able to take flood-generated waste to the tip without paying the waste levy:

Blue Mountains;

Sutherland;

Wingecarribee; and

Wollondilly

The Hawkesbury , Wollongong, Shoalhaven, Shellharbour and Kiama LGAs had already received waivers.

Sharpe said local landfill gate fees may still apply. The waiver for all 12 LGAs is in place until 30 June, with requests for extensions to be considered.

The government also left the door open for more LGAs to join this list as the clean-up progresses, if needed.

Victorian premier takes questions on potential second safe injecting room for Melbourne

The Victorian premier, Jacinta Allan , is refusing to be drawn on whether the government will open a second safe injecting room in Melbourne’s CBD.

Last night, Nine News Melbourne reported a long-awaited report by former police commissioner Ken Lay which recommended a new site and highlighted three areas of the city of concern.

Allan said she would not comment on the contents of the report – which was handed over last year – until the government has finalised its response:

I appreciate there is a lot of interest, there is a keenness and a desire for the government to provide its response and to release the Ken Lay report. And we are working very hard on finalising our response and finalising our decision and going through the appropriate cabinet processes to finalise our response to the Lay report.

Greens call for ‘final rejection, now’ on Toondah harbour project

The Greens are calling for environment minister Tanya Plibersek to make a “final rejection, now” on the Toondah harbour project.

As Lisa Cox reported earlier, Plibersek said:

I have made my proposed decision , which is to protect Moreton Bay from unacceptable impacts from a proposed development.

Responding to this on X, Larissa Waters, the Greens leader in the Senate, said the “proposed rejection should be made a final rejection, now”.

The community have made their voices heard, why keep them waiting with a ‘proposed rejection’? Dredging 40 hectares of Ramsar-listed wetlands for luxury high-rise residences no one can actually afford makes no sense, except to the profits of developers like Walker Corp . We are calling on [Plibersek] to finally reject this dodgy project and save Toondah harbour.

Minister Plibersek's announcement of a proposed rejection should be made a final rejection, now. The community have made their voices heard, why keep them waiting with a 'proposed rejection'? https://t.co/IAL42oDDSK — Larissa Waters (@larissawaters) April 9, 2024

The environment and water minister, Tanya Plibersek, has also shared this video announcement on her Toondah harbour decision:

An update on Toondah Harbour. pic.twitter.com/i20fscTFWK — Tanya Plibersek (@tanya_plibersek) April 9, 2024

One serving or former ADF member contacts suicide emergency service every four hours

One serving or former member of the Australian Defence Force makes suicide-related contact with emergency services every four hours, according to new research published today by the royal commission into defence and veteran suicide .

Using linked data about Queensland veterans, the new study by the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research found that ADF veterans and serving members were 1.24 times more likely than members of the wider adult population to have suicide-related contact with police or paramedics. It found that permanent serving and former members were at greatest risk, being almost six times more likely to have such contact than reservists.

In a statement, the royal commission said the research estimated that the death rate for male veterans who had experienced suicidal ideation was almost eight times that of the general male Queensland population and, among female veterans compared with the wider female population, the rate was 10 times greater.

The royal commission’s chair, Nick Kaldas, said the findings challenged Defence’s argument that service protects against the risk of contemplating suicide. Kaldas said in a statement:

For some time, there was a reluctance to accept that issues of suicide and suicidality were impacting current serving members. This research demonstrates there is a clear link between service in the ADF and suicide and suicidality, which was accepted for the first time by military chiefs at our recent Sydney hearing.

The commission completed its public hearings recently but is still taking evidence in private session ahead of publishing its final report later this year.

Lifeline: 13 11 14

Landmark Tickle v. Giggle case kicks off in federal court

Not a seat is free – and no standing is allowed – in the federal court room that is hearing a landmark case that will test the boundaries of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Roxanne Tickle , a transgender woman from regional New South Wales , sued the women-only social media platform Giggle for Girls for discrimination after being blocked from using the app.

Known as Tickle v. Giggle, it is the first time a case alleging gender discrimination has been heard by the federal court and may have global implications.

In a lawsuit filed in December 2022, Tickle claimed she was unlawfully barred from using Giggle in September 2021 after the firm and its CEO, Sall Grover , said she was a man.

Tickle had made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2021, with Giggle – represented by former Liberal party candidate Katherine Deves – then failing to have the case thrown out of court.

The trial is not being live-streamed because of unacceptable online behaviour during an interlocutory hearing in April 2023.

Why was the Toondah harbour project so controversial?

As environment reporter Lisa Cox brought us just earlier, Tanya Plibersek has rejected the Toondah harbour project over its impact on globally significant wetlands.

Plibersek’s announcement looks set to end an almost decade-long battle by conservationists and community groups to protect the site, with long-time campaigners the Australian Conservation Foundation hailing it a “landmark decision for nature and people”.

But why was it so controversial? You can read the full explainer below:

Albanese urges transparency on Gaza aid worker deaths

Anthony Albanese has called for Israel to be more transparent and accountable in its investigation into the air strike deaths of multiple aid workers, including Australian Zomi Frankcom , AAP reports.

Yesterday , the federal government announced the former defence force chief Mark Binskin would serve as a special adviser to Australia on Israel’s investigation of the incident.

The prime minister said independent oversight was needed. He told reporters earlier this morning:

We welcome more transparency, more accountability for what is a tragic occurrence, there have been almost 200 aid workers [who] have lost their life during this conflict. No aid worker should be at risk of losing their life when they are providing support in a humanitarian way. Quite clearly, in Gaza, there are dire consequences for the population there. Issues of access to clean water, access to food, basic provisions, people suffering greatly. We want to make sure that that humanitarian support is available there.

The PM also said he had spoken with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on concerns about a potential ground invasion of Gaza.

We’re very concerned about the humanitarian consequences as are like-minded countries, including the United States.

Human Rights Law Centre calls for whistleblower laws to come together in single regime

Federal whistleblower laws should be brought together into a single regime to give those coming forward more confidence, the Human Rights Law Centre says.

The legal advocacy group is appearing at a parliamentary inquiry this morning and has warned there are three different whistleblowing protection laws – for those in the public sector, private sector and for those blowing the whistle on issues within tax administration.

The committee is looking at proposed amendments to tax laws to close loopholes that allowed the PricewaterhouseCooper confidentiality scandal to occur, and to strengthen disclosure protections to encourage whistleblowers to come forward with wrongdoing in the taxation space.

Jade Tyrell , the law centre’s acting senior lawyer, said whistleblowers were often the only reason these scandals came to light and therefore it was essential to protect them. By bringing together the three different protection regimes, the pathway for disclosures could be made simpler.

Tyrell said:

Research has shown that whistleblowers are the primary mechanism for identifying wrongdoing about organisations. Robust, accessible protections are essential to prevent future PwC leak-equivalents. Whistleblowers make Australia a better place.

Kieran Pender , HRLC’s acting legal director, said the bill in its current form goes a step forward in the right direction but needs to address how to support whistleblowers after they’ve come forward.

• Australia news
• Australia news live
• Australian politics
• Australian military

Most viewed