Business Ethics : A Stakeholder And Issues Management Approach

Whistleblowing has always been an important and controversial issue that employers and employees need to understand and stay up to date with. They need to make sure that they know what it means, what it involves, and what consequences are associated with whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is defined as, “…an employee of a company or government agency makes a protected disclosure to the public or authority regarding concerns for wrongdoing” (What is a Whistleblower?, n.d.). In short, a whistleblower is defined as a person who is concerned and discloses and divulges misbehavior in the workplace. This paper will focus on the pros and cons of being a whistleblower, the ethics behind it, the details of s specific whistleblowing situation, and reflect on my personal experience regarding whistleblowing.

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when

Hayley, I absolutely agree with you. Each individual must make his or her own decision as to whether the disturbing unethical offense is worth the personal cost (Reece 2014, pg 111). When I was personal faced with trying to decide to whistle blow or keep quiet and do nothing at all; I had to tell. I tried to just keep my head down and be silent but, the silence was literally making me sick. I couldn’t eat, I couldn’t sleep, and what I knew was constantly on my mind, I felt like I couldn’t function properly. The reason I was unable to function was because not being honest was not in my charter. I made the decision to be the whistleblower, and yes I did receive some back lash but for me that was better than the silence. Every individual is different,

In an age when accelerated communications contribute to growing perceptions of organizational improprieties, the ethical and legal implications of whistleblowing have become a major topic of discussion. According to Lawrence and Weber (2014), whistleblowing is an employee disclosing apparent organizational misconduct to the government or media; however, this reporting of information should come after attempts at going through proper channels in order to persuade the organization to take appropriate actions has been ineffective.

The article I found by Thompson discusses risk and rewards of whistle blowing, the example used was from 1994 and the CEOs of the seven major American tobacco companies tested before Congress that nicotine was not addictive Shortly afterwards, Jeffrey Wigand, then head of research and development at Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., gave the lie to that, rest in a deposition in a lawsuit brought by the State of Mississippi and then in an interview on 60 Minutes. This resulted in the tobacco companies reaching a $246 billion multistate settlement in 1998. Wigand underwent a smear campaign and said that he and his family received death threats. Whistle blowing ended his marriage. The maverick doesn’t consider himself a hero. He has said, “People were dying. I was loyal to a higher order of ethical responsibility.” The 1999 movie The Insider depicts some of this saga and Wigand now lectures worldwide, offers expertise on tobacco issues, and runs the nonprofit Smoke-Free Kids, Inc.

A Whistleblower is defined as an employee who submits a law infraction by their company, to the employer or to the Federal government and where the infraction could be sexual harassment toward the reporting employee or a public policy violation such as unlawfully keeping an employee from preforming their civic duty as on a jury ("Whistleblower Protections - FindLaw," n.d.). The U.S. government as well as numerous states have enacted statues to protect whistleblowers from an employer’s retribution for claim or violation report submissions

It is popularly believed, even by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, that whistleblowers only break promises of the nation, and release critically secret information to the everyday public. Many believe that they should be punished for this violation of secrecy. Yet, perhaps what they release could be saving the country and government. Secrets in government of war and finances can be detrimental to the health of the United States of America from the spread of conspiracy theories and due to the fact that the government, which should be protecting the people, is sneaking behind citizen's backs and making their own worldwide decisions. Whistleblowers are needed to create a prosperous and stable country if our government is going to be this corrupt with their secrets.

A whistle-blower is a person who exposes illegal or immoral activity that they have witnessed. This can be knowledge of misused public money, law breaking, unethical actions, or activity that pose risk to public safety. Employees who have witnessed immoral or illegal actions often decide to keep quiet.

This poses the need for defining the whistle blowing policy, which should be laid down by the organization to capture the grievances of the employees and at the same time giving them a platform to raise their concerns.

In the article “Whistleblowing: Good or Bad?” Author Adrian West gives a good example of how the boss of a business may perceive an employee trying to expose private information on them. In this example, the reader takes the role of the boss, making it so that their perspective can connect to whoever’s reading. In it, it says, “hundreds of jobs depend on you” and “if you meet the targets the company will do well.” This already shows what is at stake in a company if an employee were to try to release private information. Someone exposing that information could cause the company to miss those “targets” and force the boss to make unwanted decisions such as budget cuts and firing staff members. This would affect other employees who, at work, could’ve been in lower positions than the whistleblower themself. Not only that, but the company would also have to spend more time and money trying to fix their mistakes. That is what is seen as the most major problem of whistleblowing. The fact that other people who aren’t even involved may have to face consequences. The article used, that is written by Adrian West, is slightly biased due to it showing support of the side against whistleblowers. On the contrary, he does address the other side, since the article is talking about whether it is good or bad. Regardless, he gives good information for both arguments, but has more for his

It is important for a business to balance all the different stakeholders that a company might have. Some stakeholders might have different priorities than others. For example, some shareholders expect the business to give them only money while others stakeholders need good working conditions. Also, investors might wish to see proof that the company responds to environmental matters before promising money to a business. In addition, problems might happen when stakeholders compromise to the expectation of other stakeholders.

The whistleblower him or herself must be carefully scrutinized. What are the personal and the professional reputations of the whistleblower? What is the motive driving the whistleblower? Is it to benefit the client or the organization, or is it a need for attention or revenge? Is the whistleblower's cause seen as legitimate and significant by trustworthy colleagues and friends? Is the whistleblower aware of the potential consequences of blowing the whistle and still willing to accept responsibility for actions taken?

There are certain factors to be considered in the issue of whistle blowing especially as you may have pledged (whether directly or indirectly) some form of bond or loyalty. Such factors can include family, self, occupation, self, society, government, the legal profession, etc. You have to try to make sure that your loyalties are not affected negatively. You have to analyze the situation carefully, know the values of the information you are trying to expose, weigh your pros and cons, both long and short term effects and benefits it could have before you decide to whistle blow. You have people who whistle blow because they are grieved while others whistle blow for the benefit of others or the subject concerned.”

One of many duties of a director is set under s131 of the Company Act 1993. This section of the act let know that directors must act in good faith and in what the director believes is the best interest of the company. Traditionally, the word company foretold under this section have been regarded to devote solely to the company’s shareholders. However, this notion is seen as immoral. This is because according to the notion of corporate social responsibility, business must behave ethically, represents a broader recognition of stakeholders and must take into account economic, social and environmental inputs in the way it operates. Hence, people against the notion of shareholder primacy suggest that the director should also take into account the interest of a wide range of shareholders (e.g. customers, employees, the society as a whole) in order to be deemed as moral. This conflicting opinion raised the question, “To whom are the directors responsible?” This paper will explore a number of corporate governance practices (i.e. agency theory and stakeholder theory) that are related to this issue. It begins with the explanation of each theory and the discussion of ethical and societal concerns they put forward, followed by the advantage of shareholders and the disadvantage of other stakeholders regarding remedies of director’s breach of duty from a legal viewpoint and ends with a recommendation that would best reflect a good governance practice that is consistent with the corporate