Whistleblowing: procedural and dogmatic problems in the implementation of directive (EU) 2019/1937

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
F. Teichmann, Chiara Wittmann
{"title":"Whistleblowing: procedural and dogmatic problems in the implementation of directive (EU) 2019/1937","authors":"F. Teichmann, Chiara Wittmann","doi":"10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nWith an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented.\n\n\nFindings\nThe Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.\n","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive. Design/methodology/approach With an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented. Findings The Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation. Originality/value This is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.
举报:指令(EU) 2019/1937实施中的程序和教条问题
目的本文旨在揭示欧盟第2019/1973号举报指令的缺陷,该指令可能会对其在国家的成功实施产生负面影响。焦点是可能试图掩盖不当行为的公司与利用该指令提供的慷慨保护的心怀不满的员工之间的紧张关系。设计/方法论/方法本文以广泛的文学基础,在所谓的“弱点”的五个领域下探讨了《欧盟举报指令2019/1973》的条款。针对德国和奥地利,强调了执行该指令的困难,同样针对瑞士,提出了一个潜在的解决方案。调查结果《2019/1973年举报指令》在没有考虑更广泛的公众利益的情况下保护举报人,超出了目标。有一些武断定义的具体要点需要解决,以确保国家成功实施。原创性/价值这是一场极具争议的伦理辩论的多方面讨论。通过探索该指令的具体要点,可以首先说明为什么存在争论点,以及实施比例原则的困难。问题的核心是在保护商业秘密和将告密作为最后手段的根本必要性之间取得平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信