The Beneficiaries of Whistle Blowing - Coursework Example

Who benefits from whistle blowing? Whistle blowing is an activity that has been in existence for centuries and because of its importance in transmitting crucial information to the public, it has come to be enshrined in the laws of many countries. This activity involves revealing information concerning illegal or unethical activities being committed within organisations in the public domain and this information is important in ensuring that those named are brought to justice. This paper seeks to show those individuals who benefit from whistle blowing, what happens when whistle blowers are ignored, the plight of these individuals, and the motivations behind their making the choice to reveal information. One of the biggest beneficiaries of whistle blowing is the public because it is through the activities of whistleblowers that they come to attain knowledge concerning what is going on in their lives. Whistle blowing allows the public to make an assessment of the activities that are taking place in their societies and to take action to prevent any negative effects of the said activities from affecting them. In most instances, whistleblowers, especially in the public sector, provide information to the public, not for their own benefit, but as a means of doing the right thing (Wilkey 2003, p.331). When whistle blowing takes place, it is for the benefit of the public because it makes the public aware of incidents that might be going on secretly and causing them harm. For example, a whistleblower might bring to light information concerning a drug from a pharmaceutical company that while it is officially believed to be effective, is in fact having negative side effects on its users. The information gained from the whistleblower leads to investigations whose results, if they are found to be true, end up helping the public a great deal. Not only does such information ensure the safety of patients who might have used the drug, but it also helps those patients who had negative side effects to successfully sue the company involved and receive compensation. Therefore, in this case, a major beneficiary of whistle blowing activities is the public since it is the audience of the information and it is the only one which can put pressure on the government to act in bringing accountability to public institutions. Business organisations can also be beneficiaries of whistle blowing and this is especially based on preserving their reputations. Businesses that encourage a culture of internal whistle blowing make it possible for information to be given to management concerning any unethical practices that it might not have any knowledge about (Faunce 2004, p.41). This information makes it possible for management to take the action needed to ensure that the situation is brought under control and that those involved are punished. By encouraging a culture of whistle blowing, a business is able to develop a freer working environment for its employees since it will encourage an open and transparent structure that allows easier communication between management and employees. Under such circumstances, employees will not feel threatened by fear of losing their jobs and will instead come to further appreciate their jobs to such an extent that they will be confident enough to point out any discrepancies they witness to management. In the modern world where businesses rely heavily on their reputations, it is essential to keep a good record and internal whistle blowing makes it possible for matters to be dealt with internally so that they do not hurt the business’ reputation. Therefore, under such circumstances as where some employees are reported to be negligent in their work, management can launch investigations and if the allegations are found to be true, then disciplinary action can be taken against them to serve as a lesson for other employees while at the same time retaining the business’ good reputation. Therefore, through the intervention of internal whistle blowers, a business is able to ensure that it brings to an end any activities that might end up ruining its reputation, and this also enables it to change its practices in such a manner that it develops mechanisms that prevent such negative activities from taking place. There are instances where despite the best efforts of whistle blowers, the biggest beneficiaries, namely the institutions where they attempt to show discrepancies, tend to ignore their information. This creates a situation where it is difficult for potential internal whistleblowers to take the right action concerning illegal incidents that they witness (Dempster 1997, p.199). Such instances were especially true during the latest banking industry meltdown when a large number of banks collapsed as a result of mismanagement. The banking industry failed in its corporate social responsibility because it did not accept information provided by whistle blowers to ensure that the practices that they had adopted would lead to massive problems for them. As a result, choosing to ignore whistle blowers led to banks and governments to not taking the right actions to avert the banking industry meltdown. Whistle blowers tend to essentially come forward for the good of the public and it is the responsibility of those institutions that are likely to be affected to take necessary action to correct the situation rather than victimising those who have pointed out the problem. It is necessary for all institutions to develop a strong sense of ethics by ensuring that internal whistle blowing is a basic part of their corporate culture because without the latter, it will not be possible to foster those values that are needed to ensure better service delivery. All the individuals who work within the institution have to be made aware that the observance of ethics in their line of business should be given more priority than the making of profits and that there is nothing wrong with whistle blowing as long as there is evidence to back up the claims made. The possibility of whistle blowers within an institution helps to ensure that employees have to work towards the development of ethical values that are in the best interests of the public. It helps them work in such a way that will not only help in the development of ethically correct procedures, but will also enhance the reputation of the institution (Faunce and Jefferys 2007, p.567). One would argue that the banking industry failed because it did not ensure that it created a culture where individuals within them were free to point out any discrepancies in their activities because this would have helped in the development of positive internal whistle blowing within the institutions involved. Internal whistle blowing allows institutions to take action even in situations where they would find it difficult to do so. This is especially the case where the management realises that there is a possibility of the situation ending up becoming a scandal. If an environment of internal whistle blowing were encouraged, it is more likely than not that banks that received information early would have been able to deal with issues which other financial institutions all over the world normally not have the courage to deal with. In case where banks received information from whistle blowers concerning risky activities within them, they should have taken strong action against those individuals caught infringing on its ethical values and this was to have been done in such a manner that it served as a lesson for others within the institutions who would have been tempted to do the same. This is a value which none of the major banks, especially in the United States and Britain, put into practice and this resulted in the banking industry meltdown in these countries. Thus, these institutions did not benefit from whistle blowing despite all evidence having been presented to them to force them to take action. Whistle blowing allows for the government to take action against individuals who are caught committing crimes that might harm the wellbeing of members of society (Frais 2001, p.13). In most cases, whistle blowers tend to bring to the notice of the public situations where individuals in either public or private institutions commit white collar crime. This was especially the case with Guy Pearse who felt the need to make public the illegal or mafia-like manner that large fossil fuel companies in Australia operated (Cohen, 2006). White collar crimes like the ones that were revealed by Pearse are those which are committed by an individual or individuals for the purpose of financial gain. People who are caught committing such crimes are in theory supposed to be given very stiff jail sentences as a way of deterring them and others from committing the same crime. Pearse and other whistle blowers tend to consider it their duty to report incidents that might go against the public interest. This creates a situation where they expose themselves to retaliation from those individuals whose activities they have reported in a negative manner. In such situations, it becomes difficult for them to ensure their own safety because their lives might end up being ruined as a result of activities being conducted against them to prove that they are liars and that the information that they provided was not true. The actions of whistle blowers tend to be deontological, where they do them not for the purpose of financial benefit, but for the benefit of the public since they believe that it is the right thing to do. Therefore, even though keeping quiet might ensure that they live essentially peaceful lives without having to look over their shoulder for the rest of their lives, they choose to brave revealing secrets for public benefit. Many whistle blowers usually end up having their lives completely changed not only because the public that benefits from their information believes them to have gained from providing it, when they have not, but also from being targeted by those they have accused of wrongdoing. There are instances where despite whistle blowers providing information in the public interest, action is normally not taken because those accused are well connected individuals in society. Therefore, individuals who would normally either have been removed from their positions and prosecuted end up not being deterred from getting involved in their illegal activities and there has in fact been an increase in cases of unethical conduct in diverse institutions. The current economic factors are some of the main causes of illegal or unethical activities within various institutions and many people, especially in the corporate sector, choose to take the risk of committing getting involved in such activities despite the consequences that will be brought about by their actions (Kim 2003, p.209). It can therefore be said that jail time is not necessarily a deterrent to those individuals who have been named by whistle blowers because such people are ever willing to take the risk of committing crimes, considering that they have nothing to lose. Furthermore, it is a known fact that many individuals who are accused of committing crimes that are against the public interest come from the upper classes of society, and such people, due to their immense influence, both political and economic, are seemingly untouchable. Only at the risk of their being a huge scandal are these people caught and when this happens, they tend to be given very short sentences which are normally not compatible with the magnitude of their crimes. Those who have committed lesser crimes, on the other hand, are given extremely long sentences, a factor which often discourages potential whistle blowers from providing crucial information. There are some situations where employees are faced with a dilemma concerning whether to report some illegal incidents at their place of work or not. An example of these is within an accounting firm where an employee discovers that a colleague has been asked by a new customer to take account of an unconfirmed quantity as an assumption that will make an important effect on the customers tax responsibility (Hunt 2000, p.115). As an employee of the firm, it is a duty to report this request to its management so that a definitive decision can be made. However, such an employee would be faced with a serious dilemma especially in a situation where an immediate supervisor gives the go-ahead. As a result, one is faced with a serious decision which might bring about a lot of problems for himself such as losing his job if discovered, but might also lead to the firm losing a client. From a personal level, the client’s request the employee might wish to have the client’s request refused because it might put the firm’s reputation at risk. However, to refuse the client would also be disastrous because requested services will have been denied. Therefore, the employee ends up choosing not to become a whistle blower because to do so would have an impact on both the firm as well as on the individual involved. Thus, under such circumstances, it is normal for an individual to choose to remain quiet not only to secure their colleague’s but also their own jobs. In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that while whistle blowing can be extremely beneficial to the public, the people who do it tend to end up having their lives ruined. As has been seen above, the biggest beneficiaries of whistle blowing is the public because they come to attain knowledge concerning what is going on in their society. Furthermore, it has been seen that business organisations can also be beneficiaries especially in cases where they are encouraged to take action to preserve their reputations. However, there are instances where internal whistle blowers in institutions where they attempt to show discrepancies have their information ignored until it is too late. While this may be the case, the discussion has shown that the possibility of whistle blowers within an institution helps to ensure that employees conduct their activities in the best interests of the public. Moreover, whistle blowing helps governments to take action against individuals committing crimes that might harm the wellbeing of society. Finally, there are some situations where potential whistle blowers are faced with a dilemma concerning whether to report some illegal incidents at their place of work or not because of the harm that might result from it. References Dempster, Q., 1997. Whistleblowers. Sydney: ABC Books, 1997. Faunce, T.A. 2004, "Developing and Teaching the Virtue-Ethics Foundations of Healthcare Whistle Blowing." Monash Bioethics Review, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 41–55. Faunce, T.A. & Jefferys, S. 2007, "Whistleblowing and scientific misconduct: Renewing legal and virtue ethics foundations". Journal of Medicine and Law, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 567–84. Frais, A. 2001, "Whistleblowing heroes – boon or burden?", Bulletin of Medical Ethics, vol. 170, pp.13–19. Hunt, G. 2000, "Whistleblowing, Accountability & Ethical Accounting". Clinical Risk, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 115–16. Kim, Y. 2003, “Ethical Standards and Ideololgy among Korean Public Relations Practitioners.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 209-209. Cohen, J., 2006. "Transcript of Janine Cohens report "The Greenhouse Mafia". Four Corners. [Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.htm [accessed 16 Dec. 2014] Wilkey, R.N. 2003, "Federal Whistleblower Protection: A Means to Enforcing Maximum Hour Legislation for Medical Residents." William Mitchell Law Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 331 – 352. Read More