Whistleblowing around the World: Law, Culture and Practice

Citation

Vinten, G. (2005), "Whistleblowing around the World: Law, Culture and Practice", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 563-564. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900510598939

This is a book around the fashionable areas of governance and accountability at the beginning of the twenty‐first century. It looks at the role of whistleblowing and features four case studies from around the globe: Harry Templeton, a brave trade union representative in Robert Maxwell's publishing empire; Victoria Johnson in corrupt Cape Town, South Africa; Jiang Yanyong in China in relation to the Sars outbreak; and Sherron Watkins in the USA and Enron.

Despite the dilemmas that potential whistleblowers face, there those who are prepared to question corrupt or negligent acts in the workplace, challenging authority by speaking out – even where it may mean risking jobs, career or safety to do so.

The book is aimed at practitioners, policymakers, professionals and activists, and examines American, Australasian, British, Japanese and South African legislation. It is a pity that there was not co‐terminosity between case studies and legal analysis.

It highlights what encourages and discourages legitimate whistleblowing in different cultures and evaluates the various policy models. It outlines the roles of employers, the state, the media, the law and civil society and offers practical advice. It argues that only if the good intentions of any law are matched by a change in culture can a safe alternative to silence be created. Only then can the principle of accountability work in practice and protect the public interest.

The authors are on the network of OPAC in South Africa and PCAW in London. This is an authoritative network, but it does lead to a degree of inbreeding. In particular within the UK two academic authors who have edited the only two preceding significant texts on the subject are ignored. There can also be a certain pie‐in‐the sky view of the legal system, particularly as to the wondrous way the Public Interest Disclosure Act works in the UK, since PCAW was a major mover behind the Act.

The reviewer blew the whistle on the two connected charities European Business School and Regent's College in central London. This was at the behest of the now chairman of the trustees who now sees fit to deny this, although a series of Email exchanges between him and another trustee which I have in my possession, proves this. At the root of the problem, which led to one of the longest investigations by the regulator, the Charity Commission, were serious corporate governance issues. In particular, as was revealed in the Times Higher Education Supplement, Mrs Gillian Payne, dismissed in 2004 as President, managed to extract around £1million a year in fees, which was hugely excessive for the small element of management services she provided. It meant she was the highest earning chief executive of either a charity or a university by a factor of around four or more and she did not even possess a degree.

My own experiences, both first‐hand and academic, of the employment tribunal system do not support the smooth view of the legal system implied in the book. It is a matter of trade‐offs and compromise and the whistleblower is unlikely to achieve anything close to absolute justice except in rare instances. In addition there is nothing in English law to prevent a subsequent employer discriminating against a whistleblower. The situation in other countries is much worse, such as in the admittedly decadent South Africa. Woe betide anyone who dares blow the whistle in such countries. The reaction in China is unpredictable and it was pure luck that China took a favourable view in the case reported.

Despite the gloss put on matters, the overwhelming picture painted in the book does not support the view that whistleblowing is accorded general protection and honour. There remains intense ambiguity in both public and governmental response. Even if governments are pleased to make use of whistleblowers, they may not be bothered to see to their subsequent wellbeing. My stance remains that I do not recommend whistleblowing. The logic is let people die, let people be defrauded. This stark position must be a wake‐up call that change is urgently needed if society is to deserve the sacrifices whistleblowers continue to make, often unwittingly.