Whistleblowing as a countermeasure strategy against food crime

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to undertake a two-phase desktop review of literature sources in order to conceptualise, frame, and critique existing whistleblowing models and strategies and consider how whistleblowing strategies form part of an effective food crime management system (FCMS) especially for small and medium sized organisations. Design/methodology/approach Existing literature from academic sources, financial, healthcare, food industries has been reviewed and critiqued in order to construct a conceptual framework that can inform future empirical research. Findings Whistleblowing strategies can form an effective part of a FCMS. Appropriate regulatory protection of those who whistleblow is crucial to not only safeguard individuals but also to mitigate food crime and protect consumers from loss and potential harm. Barriers to whistleblowing exist and if these are not addressed then individuals will be reluctant to report food crime. Further empirical research is required to assess the influence of these and other factors identified in this research and how they can be overcome. Originality/value The framework will provide food industry practitioners with guidance on the effective application of whistleblowing strategies within a FCMS

Whistleblowing as a protracted process: a study of UK whistleblower journeys

This paper provides an exploration of whistleblowing as a protracted process, using secondary da-ta from 868 cases from a whistleblower advice line in the UK. Previous research on whistleblow-ing has mainly studied this phenomenon as a one-off decision by someone perceiving wrongdoing within an organisation to raise a concern or to remain silent. Earlier suggestions that whistleblowing is a process and that people find themselves inadvertently turned into whistleblowers by management responses, has not been followed up by a systematic study tracking the path of how a concern is repeatedly raised by whistleblowers. This paper provides a quantitative exploration of whistleblowing as a protracted process, rather than a one-off decision. Our research finds that the whistleblowing process generally entails two or even three internal at-tempts to raise a concern before an external attempt is made, if it is made at all. We also find that it is necessary to distinguish further between different internal (e.g. line manager, higher management, specialist channels) as well as external whistleblowing recipients (e.g. regulators, professional bodies, journalists). Our findings suggest that whistleblowing is a protracted process and that this process is internally more protracted than previously documented. The overall pattern is that whistleblowers tend to search for a more independent recipient at each successive attempt to raise their concern. Formal whistleblower power seems to determine which of the available recipients are perceived as viable, and also what the initial responses are in terms of retaliation and effectiveness

Journalism, accountability and the possibilities for structural critique: A case study of coverage of whistleblowing

This article looks at the coverage of whistleblowers in the UK national press as a way of examining practices of journalistic accountability. Based on a content analysis of newspaper coverage in the period from 1997 to 2009, the study demonstrates, first of all, that whistleblowing is viewed as newsworthy and is taken seriously by the media, who mostly cover whistleblowers in neutral or positive ways. Nevertheless, the acts of whistleblowing which receive most media attention fit with the existing news agenda and prevailing social and economic trends. We further suggest that journalistic story-telling constructs narratives of whistleblowers as heroic, selfless individuals to establish the legitimacy of their claims of systemic wrongdoing in the public interest. Thus, our study ultimately demonstrates that the forms of accountability and systemic critique enabled by whistleblowing stories operate in complex and historically contingent ways

Organisational whistleblowing policies: making employees responsible or liable?

This paper explores the possible impact of the recent legal developments on organizational whistleblowing on the autonomy and responsibility of whistleblowers. In the past thirty years numerous pieces of legislation have been passed to offer protection to whistleblowers from retaliation for disclosing organisational wrongdoing. An area that remains uncertain in relation to whistleblowing and its related policies in organisations, is whether these policies actually increase the individualisation of work, allowing employees to behave in accordance with their conscience and in line with societal expectations or whether they are another management tool to control employees and protect organisations from them. The assumptions of whistleblower protection with regard to moral autonomy are examined in order to clarify the purpose of whistleblower protection at work. The two extreme positions in the discourse of whistleblowing are that whistleblowing legislation and policies either aim to enable individual responsibility and moral autonomy at work, or they aim to protect organisations by allowing them to control employees and make them liable for ethics at work