The word whistle blower originates from German word ‘whistle’ which means to expose a wrongdoing in the hope of bringing it to a halt. ‘Whistle Blowing’ is any activity that is deemed illegal, unethical or not morally correct within an enterprise i.e. either private or public and a person who expose any kind of such activity is known as ‘Whistleblower.’

A person can report things in context of corporate governance that aren’t correct, are illegal or immoral such as:

· Misconduct for personal gains

· Conflict of interest

· Defective administration

· Distorting justice or accountability

· Improper or unprofessional behavior

· Work place grievances

· Waste or mismanagement of resources

· Non-compliance of laws and regulations

· Illegal activities

· Unethical and improper practices relating to financial and accounting matters

Often uncovering of such activities has relied on virtuous and fearless individuals who have internally or externally informed the concerned authorities to stop such unethical practices. These so-called “Whistle blowers” are considered to be very crucial in maintaining the safety and morality of any industry by both the top management and the regulatory authorities and have taken appropriate measures to encourage the whistleblowers and protect them from vengeance. Still, a Whistleblower may face a cold-shoulder from peers or be treated like a “rat” or “snitch”. The Whistle Blowers are often ostracized in their respective workplaces and face dilemma of protecting their employer or expose a wrongdoing. Whistleblowers may face hostility and resentment from their peers and superiors. Thus, the person who exposes the wrongdoing in an organization must not face retaliation as he/she represents a valuable resource to companies who wants to minimize fraud or any misconduct. So people who “blow the whistle” or report such activities should be lauded, not vilified.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To know the concept and position of whistle blowing

2. To know the dangers to whistle blowers in India.

3. To determine the linkages between gender of respondent and barriers to whistle blowing.

4. To determine the linkages between position of respondent in an organization and barriers to whistle blowing.

5. To determine the linkages between length of employment and barriers to whistle blowing.

6. To understand the factors that discourages whistle blowing.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Design of study:

A structured questionnaire was administered for the purpose of research on 100 respondents. It was divided into three sections:

Section A:

It dealt with demographical profile of the respondent having a nominal scale of measurement and using 7 categorical variables such as Gender, Age, Educational level, Type of organisation, Position in the organisation, Individual Annual Income and Length of employment.

Section B:

It included 10 dichotomous questions in order to investigate the whistle blowing perceptions of the employees in the workplace and to know whether a supportive environment is provided or not.

Section C:

This section was prepared to understand what can be done to encourage whistle blowing and how the whistle blowing policies can be improved. It also demanded some suggestions from the respondents through two open ended questions.

Data Collection:

Primary Data-

It was collected from structured questionnaire of 100 respondents.

Secondary Data:

Extensive data was collected from various books, published nationals and international journals, various websites, etc.

Statistical tools:

For the findings of our study, non-parametric test i.e. Chi-Square test of Independence was applied using SPSS Software v.23.

WHISTLE BLOWING:

One of the first modern definitions of Whistle blowing was given by U.S consumer activists Ralph Nader (1971)– “Whistle blowing is an act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, blows the whistle that the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal and fraudulent or harmful activity.”US Academics Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near defined ‘whistle blowing’ as, “the disclosure of organizational member’s (former or current) disclosure of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action.” A whistleblower is someone who have observed a misconduct in the industry or even participated in the wrongdoing himself, but because of his ethics both personal and professional, he feels a duty to communicate any immoral practice to the competent authority. Whistle blowing can be both internal and external. When a disclosure about the wrongdoing of any member of the organization is made only to the higher authorities within the organization, it is Internal Whistle blowing. If the system does not respond to this internal whistle blowing and when whistleblower fails to get remedial help from appropriate authority in the organization, then he resorts to external whistle blowing where he communicates the wrongdoing to individuals or bodies outside the organization like governmental agencies, newspapers, public interest groups etc. Whistle blowing must be an honest and a brave action motivated by professional integrity and not by any personal gain.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Philip H. Jos, Mark E. Tompkins and Steven W. Hays (1989): They conducted a survey of federal employees in the U.S, to know the consequences of whistle blowing in the organizations. They observed that ostracism is one of the most burdensome consequences which deprive them of social support and personal comfort. The table below shows the most serious forms of retaliation faced by whistleblowers.

Glazer and Glazer (1989); Miceli and Near (1992); Vinten (1994); Hunt (1995); De Maria (1999); Miethe (1999); Alford (2001): The dangers to whistleblowers are extensive. Many lose their jobs and face huge legal proceedings: economic impact is enormous. Health and relationships problems are common and many are forced to face an adverse employment situation.

Arup Barman (2011): The author in his article discusses about the concept and framework of both corporate governance and whistle blowing policy in India. He says there are both success and failure stories of whistle blowing in India and suggests that there is a need of professional bodies , ministries as well as practitioners to direct whistle blowing issues for making whistle blowing scheme successful one.

Katz et al (2012): They conducted a research on individuals and found that in 75% of cases investigated employees were dismissed by their employer on whistle blowing and that creates a negative impact on employee’s future employment situation.

Grynderup et al (2013): As per extensive research for two years across a sample of 378 workgroups which covers around 4000 people, indicates low levels of justice at workplace is a serious risk factor for depression. This calls for fair treatment at work place.

Rajput Namita, Aggarwal Vipin, Chopra Kamna (2014):

The authors have compared the existence of whistle blowing laws of USA with that of India and observed that there is single ineffective law in India when compared to many strong whistle blowing laws in USA. The authors while pointing the deficiencies in Indian Whistle Blowing Law suggests the need and implementation of effective whistle blowing law in India.

PRACTICES OF WHISTLE BLOWING IN INDIA:

CL has adopted a whistle blower policy to provide appropriate avenues to the employees, contractors, clients, vendors, internal or external auditors, law enforcement / regulatory agencies or other third parties to bring to the attention of the management any issues which are perceived to be in violation or in conflict with the fundamental business principles of the company. The employees are encouraged to raise any of their concerns by way of whistle blowing. All cases registered under the whistle blower policy of the company are reported directly to the CEO (HCL, Corporate Governance Report 2009-10).1 HCL has adopted a whistle blower policy to provide appropriate avenues to the employees, contractors, clients, vendors, internal or external auditors, law enforcement / regulatory agencies or other third parties to bring to the attention of the management any issues which are perceived to be in violation or in conflict with the fundamental business principles of the company. The employees are encouraged to raise any of their concerns by way of whistle blowing. All cases registered under the whistle blower policy of the company are reported directly to the CEO (HCL, Corporate Governance Report 2009-10). HCL has adopted a whistle blower policy to provide appropriate avenues to the employees, contractors, clients, vendors, internal or external auditors, law enforcement / regulatory agencies or other third parties to bring to the attention of the management any issues which are perceived to be in violation or in conflict with the fundamental business principles of the company. The employees are encouraged to raise any of their concerns by way of whistle blowing. All cases registered under the whistle blower policy of the company are reported directly to the CEO (HCL, Corporate Governance Report 2009-10). HCL has adopted a whistle blower policy to provide appropriate avenues to the employees, contractors, clients, vendors, internal or external auditors, law enforcement / regulatory agencies or other third parties to bring to the attention of the management any issues which are perceived to be in violation or in conflict with the fundamental business principles of the company. The employees are encouraged to raise any of their concerns by way of whistle blowing. All cases registered under the whistle blower policy of the company are reported directly to the CEO (HCL, Corporate Governance Report 2009-10)11HCL has adopted a whistle blower policy to provide appropriate avenues to the employees, contractors, clients, vendors, internal or external auditors, law enforcement / regulatory agencies or other third parties to bring to the attention of the management any issues which are perceived to be in violation or in conflict with the fundamental business principles of the company. The employees are encouraged to raise any of their concerns by way of whistle blowing. All cases registered under the whistle blower policy of the company are reported directly to the CEO (HCL, Corporate Governance Report 2009-10).

1. HCL:

Has adopted a whistle blower policy to provide suitable ways to its employees, clients, auditors, contractors, regulatory agencies and other third parties to bring to the notice of the top management any issues which are observed to be violating or conflicting the core business practices of the corporation. The employees are motivated to raise their voice through whistle blowing. All the cases are directly reported to the CEO.

2. HERITAGE FOOD (INDIA) LTD:

Has adopted a whistle blower policy in which employees are expected to disclose in good faith any unethical or immoral activities or any wrong doing to the Head of department, managing director or audit committee as the case may be in writing. In this, whistle blower is only need to demonstrate to the audit committee and he is not expected to investigate into the matter.

3. GODREJ AND BOYCE:

This Company is highly committed to follow the best standards of ethical and moral conduct of business practices. In order to maintain these standards, the company keeps motivating its employees who suspects any misconduct in the company or any misrepresentation of financial statements or reports and encourage them to express those concerns without fear of punishment or retaliation.

4. TATA MOTOR:

In this, Tata employees are allowed to make a protected disclosure under their whistleblower policy in which they report about the wrongdoing to the chairperson of the audit committee or the board of directors and such disclosure is forwarded when there is a reasonable evidence of the misconduct along with a covering letter that may bear the identity of the whistleblower.

5. WIPRO:

According to company’s policy, they have adopted an Ombuds process policy in which they have established procedure of receipt, retainment and treatment of the complaints received and procedures for submission of employees complaints regarding any violation of the code of conduct, confidentially and anonymously. Wipro has prohibited retaliation, discrimination or unfair treatment of any kind against any of its employees based on the belief that such incident has occurred and it also allows its employees to participate in the investigation process.

DANGERS OF WHISTLE BLOWING IN INDIA

S.No	YEAR	NAME	CONCERN	EFFECTS
1	2003	Satyendra Dubay (project director at NHAI, anonymous letter to PMO)	· Spotted huge irregularities in handling of GQ project · Bid rigging – forgery of documents to win the bid of the contract.	· Shot dead in Gaya.
2	2007	Salim Baig (practioner of Ayurvedic medicine in Moradabad)	· Fake encounters by police. · Stolen fuel · Faulty roadworks and dangerously derelict railway bridges. · Controversial government recruitments.	· Penalty – 500$ · Harassment · Revival of cases against him · Arrested to humiliate. · Dispensary was shut
3	2007	Saseendran (written to CM)	· Exposed rampant corruption in loss making companies · Alleged that managing director was leaking vital company information outside	· Forced to withdraw his initial allegations · Death during the investigation process.
4	2008	Lalit Mehta( Indian RTI activist)	· Exposed corruption in NREGA (Palamu)	· Brutally killed
5	2008	Lalit Kumar Mehta (activist)	· Exposed corruption against local jobs-for-work scheme	· Murdered
6	2010	Satish Shetty ( RTI activist, Pune)	· Exposed land scandals	· Killed by unidentified men while on a morning walk.
7	2010	Amit Jethwa (Environmentalist , Gujarat, Gir forest )	· Revealed illegal mining in the protected forest	· Shot dead · His relative was arrested.
8	2016	Hemant Gawande	· Red flagged the land grabbing by the senior Maharashtra minister , Eknathkhadse	· Khadsepressurised police to register a case against Hemant. · Harassment · Case yet to be resolved.

2009- present

Dr. Anand Rai

(Indore based Medical officer)

Widespread rackets in recruitment and professional courses entrance test conducted by the M.P Professional examination board.

· Threatening calls

· Contract killers were hired to kill him

· He was transferred from Indore to Dhar district.

· Police demanded Rs 50,000 per month for police protection

2013

Ashish Chaturvedi

(Gwalior based social Activist)

Lack of quality doctors in hospitals

· Suffered 3 attacks on his life including an abduction bid.

· Threatened 10 times

· Police refused to provide him with adequate protection and asked him to pay Rs 50,000 for protection or remain at home.

2014

Prashant Pandey (Former IT consultant , MP)

Widespread rackets in recruitment and professional courses entrance test conducted by the M.P Professional examination board.

· Threatened to register 40 cases against him

· FIR against him

· His family was harassed

· Police detained his wife and seized Rs 9.96 lakhs cash from her ashawala money.

Table-1a: CONTIGENCY TABLE

	Barriers To Whistle Blowing			Total
	Both	Organisational Barriers	Personal Barriers	Total
Count	29	4	11	44
Expected Count	29.5	4.4	10.1	44.0
Residual	-.5	-.4	.9
Count	38	6	12	56
Expected Count	37.5	5.6	12.9	56.0
Residual	.5	.4	-.9
Count	67	10	23	100
Expected Count	67.0	10.0	23.0	100.0

Table-1b. Chi-Square Tests

Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
.216^a	2	.898
.215	2	.898
.105	1	.746
100

a.1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.40.

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION:

We conducted a study on 100 respondents to understand how hard it is to blow a whistle in India against some wrong doing. Findings of the study are as follows:-

(A) In order to understand the relationship between Barriers to whistle blowing and Gender, Position of respondent and the length of the employment in the organization, we applied an independent test i.e Chi-Square statistic.

(B) The null hypothesis for the following is:

H_0a:

Gender and Barriers to whistle blowing are independent.

H_0b:

Position of respondent in an organisation and Barriers to whistle blowing are independent.

H_0c:

Length of employment of the respondent in an organisation and Barriers to whistle blowing are independent.

A1. To test whether Gender and Barriers to whistle blowing are independent or not.

While applying the test, the null hypothesis is that the two attributes i.e Gender and Barriers are independent of each other. After our results, we observed that the calculated value of test statistic is 0.216.Because the test statistic is based on a 2x3 contingency table, the degrees of freedom(df) for this is 2.The corresponding p value of the test statistic is p= 0.898 which is greater than specified level of significance (α =0.05) , therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected i.e. we conclude that there is not enough evidence to suggest an association between gender and barriers.

A2.To test whether Position of respondent in an organization and Barriers to whistle blowing are independent.

Table- 2a. CONTIGENCY TABLE

			Barriers To Whistle Blowing			Total
			Both	Organisational Barriers	Personal Barriers	Total
Position in the Organisation	Board of Directors	Count	3	0	1	4
		Expected Count	2.7	.4	.9	4.0
		Residual	.3	-.4	.1
	C-level Executives	Count	1	0	1	2
		Expected Count	1.3	.2	.5	2.0
		Residual	-.3	-.2	.5
	Employees	Count	39	7	15	61
		Expected Count	40.9	6.1	14.0	61.0
		Residual	-1.9	.9	1.0
	Management	Count	24	3	6	33
		Expected Count	22.1	3.3	7.6	33.0
		Residual	1.9	-.3	-1.6
Total		Count	67	10	23	100
Total		Expected Count	67.0	10.0	23.0	100.0

Table-2b. Chi-Square Tests

	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	2.173^a	6	.903
Likelihood Ratio	2.635	6	.853
Linear-by-Linear Association	.462	1	.497
N of Valid Cases	100

a. 6 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.

A3.To test whether Length of employment of the respondent in an organization and Barriers to whistle blowing are independent.

Table-3a. CONTINGENCY TABLE

			Barriers To Whistle Blowing			Total
			Both	Organisational Barriers	Personal Barriers	Total
Length of Employment	2-5 years	Count	23	2	5	30
		Expected Count	20.1	3.0	6.9	30.0
		Residual	2.9	-1.0	-1.9
	5 years and above	Count	6	1	2	9
		Expected Count	6.0	.9	2.1	9.0
		Residual	.0	.1	-.1
	5 years and Above	Count	5	1	1	7
		Expected Count	4.7	.7	1.6	7.0
		Residual	.3	.3	-.6
	Less than 2 years	Count	33	6	15	54
		Expected Count	36.2	5.4	12.4	54.0
		Residual	-3.2	.6	2.6
Total		Count	67	10	23	100
Total		Expected Count	67.0	10.0	23.0	100.0

Table-3b. Chi-Square Tests

	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	2.551^a	6	.863
Likelihood Ratio	2.626	6	.854
Linear-by-Linear Association	1.839	1	.175
N of Valid Cases	100

a.6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .70.

In our study we asked respondents for the factors that discourage them from blowing the whistle in an organization against wrongdoing and we found that the most common factor is “Fear of Retaliation” (60%), second discouraging factor is “Lack of Trust in an internal system” (15%) and others are “Fear of Alienation” (10%), “Fear of death, murder, risk to families, etc.”(12%), “Unwillingness of employees to be snitches” (3%).

(D) 89% of the respondents states that their organization have a policy in place to support staff to report wrong doing , misconduct and poor practice.

(E) 52% of the respondents have been briefed on whistle blowing arrangements within the last three years.

(F) 72% respondents state that their organizations allow them to raise concerns anonymously while maintaining confidentiality.

(G) Only 61% of the respondents stated that, the whistle blowing policy of their organization allows them to raise the concerns safely outside the organization.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

Whistle blowing policy needs to be more than words on paper. Writing down the whistle blowing policy and adopting it will do nothing to protect your company or to improve the moral conduct. The policy must be committed to organization in order to prevent whistleblowers from retaliation and the other dangers attached to whistle blowing. The environment of the organization must be such that it promotes ethical concerns and give employees an opportunity to behave ethically and responsibly. Whistleblowers must be allowed to raise their concerns anonymously and their confidentiality must be maintained. In our survey we concluded that (72%) of the organizations allows whistle blowers concerns to be raised anonymously while maintaining confidentiality, it needs to be improved further so that employees feel encouraged to raise the concerns and can be prevented from retaliation. The management must conduct training programmes, establish the proper means for reporting wrongdoings and offer financial incentives in order to encourage employees to disclose wrongdoing. Whistle blower policies must be improved to raise the ethical concerns in a proper way, for this following can be done:

· Set the policy out in the staff handbook and contract.

· Include the policy within induction packs for new comers.

· Use promotional postures around the building.

· Hold staff sessions and small consistent team meetings.

· Make the policy accessible on the staff intranet.

The proper amendments are required to be done in Whistle blower Act and whistle blower policies of the respective organizations in order to cater to the interests of all the stakeholders and prevent whistle blowers from the dangers attached to it and encouraging them to come forward and improve the morality of the organization.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES:

1. Rajput Namita, Aggarwal Vipin, Chopra Kamna (2014), “Whistle blowing a step towards better governance: comparative analysis of India and US”, An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, Volume: 4 Issue: 11.

2. Barman Arup, “whistle Blowing Exercise in Indian Corporation- Does it really blow”, ISSN-733865

3. Premlata and Agarwal Anshika. (2014). “Blowing the facts, whistle blowing policy in India”. Research Directions, Volume:1 Issue:7.

4. Jos, Philip. H., Mark Tompkins, and Steven Hays.(1989). "In Praise of Difficult People: A Portrait of the Committed Whistleblower". Public Administration Review, Nov/Dec.1989; 49, 6; Academic Research Library, p. 555.

5. Gladys Lee and Neil Fargher, Whistle-blowing on Financial Misconduct: When Do Companies Retaliate Against whistle blower ISSN-2266204

6. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., and Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge

7. Miceli, M. P., and Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38(3), 525544.

8. Near, J. P., and Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistle blowers: Predictors and effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 137-145.

9. Near, J. P., and Miceli, M. P. (2008). Wrongdoing, Whistle-Blowing, and Retaliation in the U.S. Government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(3), 263-281.

10. Ponnu, C.H., Naidu. K., and Zamri. W. (2008). “Determinants of Whistle Blowing” International Review of Business Research Papers Vol. 4 No.1 Pp.276-298.

11. www.bbc.com- The Dangers of whistle blowing in India.

12. www.forbesindia.com-why Whistle blowing is so hard in India.

13. https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-of-the-famous-whistleblowers-in-India

14. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/meet-the-three-whistleblowers-of-vyapam-scam-779904

15. http://www.firstpost.com/india/vyapam-scam-why-whistle-blowers-protection-is-a-joke-in-chouhans-mp-2341104.html

Received on 06.05.2017 Modified on 11.06.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(3):635-641.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00101.9