Taking it outside: A study of legal contexts and external whistleblowing in China and India

IF 1.9 Q2 ETHICS
Sebastian Oelrich, Kimberly Erlebach
{"title":"Taking it outside: A study of legal contexts and external whistleblowing in China and India","authors":"Sebastian Oelrich,&nbsp;Kimberly Erlebach","doi":"10.1007/s13520-021-00125-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Whistleblowing is regularly identified as corporate control mechanism to prevent and uncover fraud. We review and compare the legal situation for whistleblowers in the People’s Republic of China and India. In a survey of 942 employees from private companies in both countries, we take a look at the status quo of whistleblowing system implementation, explore preference of channels to disclose fraud or corruption, and analyze under which conditions and what kind of employees prefer external over internal whistleblowing. We find that provisions for mandatory whistleblowing systems can be found in the law of both countries. In China in particular, protection is scattered across many different laws in the private sector. Indian companies seem to have systems in place more often, although this difference becomes smaller the larger the company. The general preference of internal over external channels is similar across countries. Our regression models suggest that external channels are preferred over internal ones when fear of retaliatory measures is higher, the company is smaller, and the whistleblower is female. In line with prior literature, the effect of fear of retaliation is moderated by gender: women are less influenced by retaliation. All in all, implementation of whistleblowing systems seems ubiquitous in both countries; legal protection and comprehensive measures to decrease retaliation are lacking. Additional implications of findings are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54051,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"10 1","pages":"129 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s13520-021-00125-y","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13520-021-00125-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Whistleblowing is regularly identified as corporate control mechanism to prevent and uncover fraud. We review and compare the legal situation for whistleblowers in the People’s Republic of China and India. In a survey of 942 employees from private companies in both countries, we take a look at the status quo of whistleblowing system implementation, explore preference of channels to disclose fraud or corruption, and analyze under which conditions and what kind of employees prefer external over internal whistleblowing. We find that provisions for mandatory whistleblowing systems can be found in the law of both countries. In China in particular, protection is scattered across many different laws in the private sector. Indian companies seem to have systems in place more often, although this difference becomes smaller the larger the company. The general preference of internal over external channels is similar across countries. Our regression models suggest that external channels are preferred over internal ones when fear of retaliatory measures is higher, the company is smaller, and the whistleblower is female. In line with prior literature, the effect of fear of retaliation is moderated by gender: women are less influenced by retaliation. All in all, implementation of whistleblowing systems seems ubiquitous in both countries; legal protection and comprehensive measures to decrease retaliation are lacking. Additional implications of findings are discussed.

走出国门:中国和印度的法律背景和外部举报人研究
举报通常被认为是防止和揭露欺诈的公司控制机制。我们回顾并比较了中华人民共和国和印度的举报人法律状况。通过对两国942名私营企业员工的调查,我们了解了举报制度实施的现状,探讨了披露欺诈或腐败的渠道偏好,并分析了在哪些条件下,什么样的员工更倾向于外部举报而不是内部举报。我们发现,在两国的法律中都可以找到强制性举报制度的规定。特别是在中国,私营部门的保护分散在许多不同的法律中。印度公司似乎更经常地有系统,尽管这种差异随着公司规模的扩大而变小。各国对内部渠道比外部渠道的普遍偏好是相似的。我们的回归模型表明,当对报复措施的恐惧程度较高、公司规模较小、举报人为女性时,外部渠道比内部渠道更受欢迎。与先前的文献一致,害怕报复的影响受性别的调节:女性受报复的影响较小。总而言之,举报制度的实施在这两个国家似乎无处不在;缺乏法律保护和减少报复的综合措施。讨论了研究结果的其他含义。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
38.50%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Business Ethics (AJBE) publishes original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business in Asia, including East, Southeast and South-central Asia. Like its well-known sister publication Journal of Business Ethics, AJBE examines the moral dimensions of production, consumption, labour relations, and organizational behavior, while taking into account the unique societal and ethical perspectives of the Asian region.  The term ''business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while ''ethics'' is understood as applying to all human action aimed at securing a good life. We believe that issues concerning corporate responsibility are within the scope of ethics broadly construed. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organizational behaviour will be analyzed from a moral or ethical point of view. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies, non-government organizations and consumer groups.The AJBE viewpoint is especially relevant today, as global business initiatives bring eastern and western companies together in new and ever more complex patterns of cooperation and competition.
×
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