Whistleblowing: a Comparative Study

Abstract

Over the last two decades, whistleblowing has increasingly come to the forefront as a means of exposing wide scale corruption, fraud and malpractices in both the private and public sector. Public interest and the need to secure and safeguard the interests of stakeholders of organisations has become the paramount consideration for the growing significance of whistleblowing in today’s context. This paper explores whistleblower laws in the United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand and examines the extent to which they offer protection to whistleblowers from retaliation as well as encourage whistleblowing. It argues that the protection offered by these laws are neither comprehensive nor have they been successful in preventing adverse consequences befalling whistleblowers from their disclosures. It highlights noticeable gaps or lacuna in the law that these jurisdictions need to address and remedy and the need to create organisational environments facilitating internal whistleblowing. It submits that the continuing trend of retaliatory action being taken against whistleblowers should be arrested. This paper canvases the opinion that the failure to stem victimisation of whistleblowers flows from the reluctance of legislators to acknowledge fully and legislate towards sustaining the objective of whistleblowing – the elimination or prevention of wrongdoing at the workplace by ensuring that businesses are managed openly and transparently with all stakeholders’ interests at heart. The paper analyses varying approaches taken by these jurisdictions to date and discusses emerging paradigms before discussing possible alternative if not optimal approaches to whistleblowing.