Whistleblowing
Revised April 11, 2002
by Dr. Jan Garrett
Whistleblowing Tests
Lecture Notes based on Manuel Velasquez, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd ed.
Questions for Deciding Whether One May Blow the Whistle Externally
T1 = Is there clear, substantiated, and reasonably comprehensive evidence that the organization is engaged in some activity that is seriously wronging or will seriously wrong other parties?
T2 = Have reasonably serious attempts to prevent the wrong through internal whistleblowing been tried and failed?
T3 = Is it reasonably certain that external whistleblowing will prevent the wrong?
T3J = Is the magnitude of the wrong so great that external whistleblowing may be justified even if there is little guarantee that it will succeed?
T4 = Is the wrong serious enough to justify the injuries to oneself, one's family and other parties that will probably follow from external whistleblowing?
Questions for Deciding Whether One Should Blow the Whistle Externally
If One Has a Right to Do So
T5A = Does the person contemplating external whistleblowing have a special moral duty to blow the whistle because of professional responsibilities?
T5B = Does the person contemplating external whistleblowing have a special moral duty to blow the whistle because no one else can or will prevent the wrong in which the firm is involved?
T6A = Does the wrong involve serious injury to society's welfare?
T6B = Does the wrong involve a serious injustice against a person or group?
T6C = Does the wrong involve a serious violation of the basic moral rights of one or more people?
Commentary on the Above Guidelines
Only extreme cases of moral wrongdoing produce a duty of a member of a firm to override the duty of loyalty to the firm and go public . . . Many business ethics cases can be transformed into whistleblowing cases by a slight change of emphasis or fact.
Philosopher Gene James makes the following distinctions for classifying acts of whistleblowing:
Internal v. external. Does one "blow the whistle" internally, i.e., to a person within the firm? (Some deny that "internal whistleblowers" are whistleblowers.)Current v. alumni: Does one blow the whistle on an orgnization while one is still a member of the organization?
Open v. anonymous: Is the identity of the whistleblower revealed?
Open whistleblowing takes more courage, but eye-witness testimonies are of little weight unless the witness is known. Anonymous WB-ing can be successful if one can get independent evidence of wrongdoing.)
The following conditions must be met if one is morally permitted to blow the whistle:
T1 and T2 and T4 and (T3 or T3J) There is a presumption in favor of the contractual duty of loyalty to one's firm, but this presumption can be defeated if certain conditions obtain.
T1 relates to the question whether potential WB-ers have real grounds for concern, or do they have a grudge against their company and want to get even. T1 says: Collect Data: To go public, you need evidence that will persuade impartial outside observers.
Note: the harm to which T1 refers need not be physical.
T2 points to the fact that often problems can be solved internally. If the problem is a coworker, one can go to one's superior. If it is one's superior, one can go to his or her superior, etc. But: what if you have evidence that the entire chain of command above one is intentionally engaged in wrongdoing?
A person is not always obliged to exhaust all possibilities of internal whistleblowing, especially if serious and irreversible damage seems imminent and delay would make external whistleblowing too late to do any good.
T4 recognizes that in almost every case, the action of whistleblowers has proved costly to them, especially in material terms. Whistleblowers are often blacklisted from the industry in which they work or for which they have had specialized training. Sometimes lives are threatened, sometimes they wind up dead. For these reasons, such predictable risks must be given some weight while deciding whether external WB-ing is justified.
The potential WB-er should try to assess the likelihood that external whistleblowing will actually do some good. That is the point of T3. If whistleblowing probably won't do any good, perhaps one shouldn't blow the whistle even if T1, T2 and T4 are met.
However, there is an exception which I try to incorporate in T3J
T3J = Is the magnitude of the wrong so great that external whistleblowing may be justified even if there is little guarantee that it will succeed?One can imagine circumstances in which the risks to the public of allowing a practice to continue might justify external WB-ing, even if one has no confidence that the WB-ing will help to stop it.Now, let us consider what questions must be answered affirmatively to transform the permissibility of external whistleblowing, established by answers to T1, T2, T3, T3J, and T4 into a duty to externally blow the whistle.
T5A points to the fact that with some professional certifications (accountants, engineers, medical doctors, . . . ) comes a special obligation to society. Such professionals, even when hired by a particular company, always have a special duty to look out for broader social interests.
T5B points to the fact that persons may have a special duty because they are in the "right" situation at the "right" time. This situation can even be a function of the moral level of those around them.
Suppose your colleagues are all at the preconventional level (in Lawrence Kohlberg's scheme discussed in Velasquez, chapter 1) and are too fearful to blow the whistle even though in the abstract, they have as much duty to do so as you. In that case, a special duty may fall upon you.
This duty of yours does not relieve the others of moral blame for failing to act, but it does put you under a special obligation.
The final set of tests brings in the three traditional moral concerns: social consequences, rights and justice.
To transform the permissibility of WB-ing into a strict duty to blow the whistle, one must be able to answer "yes" to
T5A or T5B and T6A or T6B or T6C The T6 questions relate to the extreme moral seriousness of the situation, while the T5 questions bring the obligation home to the particular moral agent.