The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-4323.htm

Sociocultural dynamics Sociocultural

dynamics in
in whistleblowing: whistleblowing
insights from India
Premilla D’Cruz 143
Organisational Behaviour Area, Received 1 July 2015
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA), Ahmedabad, India, and Revised 1 July 2015
Accepted 28 January 2016
Brita Bjørkelo
Department for Further and Continuing Education,
Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, Norway

Abstract
Purpose – Through state-of-the-art insights on whistleblowing in India, the purpose of this paper is to
highlight the role of sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of literature on wrongdoing and whistleblowing in
India revealed various aspects of the national context pertinent to different stages of the phenomenon.
Thematic analysis of these dimensions, allowing for a nomothetic approach, resulted in identifying six
sociocultural themes common across wrongdoing and whistleblowing.
Findings – Sociocultural dynamics impacting the emergence, persistence and recognition of
wrongdoing, the decision to blow the whistle, engagement in whistleblowing and the outcomes of
whistleblowing encompass social relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense
of propriety and fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. These factors coexist
with international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and individual orientation.
The presence of wrongdoing and the trajectory of whistleblowing in India are affected by the
aforementioned factors.
Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on secondary data rather than empirical
endeavours.
Social implications – By underscoring the relevance of contextual dynamics, in particular
sociocultural factors, in the whistleblowing process, the paper indicates an important basis for
appropriate interventions to manage wrongdoing and encourage whistleblowing while protecting
whistleblowers and ensuring attention to rectifying wrongdoing and sanctioning offenders.
Originality/value – Apart from providing a contemporary and comprehensive overview of
whistleblowing in India, the paper uncovers the significance of sociocultural factors which have been
overlooked so far in the substantive area. Moreover, a contextualised process model of whistleblowing is
proposed based on the analysis. In subsuming temporality, context and outcomes for all stakeholders, the
model displays complexity and causality, emphasising holism.
Keywords Culture, India, Retaliation, Context, Whistleblowing, Wrongdoing
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Whistleblowing at work is a global phenomenon, linked to organisational wrongdoings
that bring into play ethics, corruption and systematic risk prevention. With studies of
whistleblowing across nations having found that both wrongdoing and whistleblowing
are quite frequently observed and retaliation is a consequence for “far fewer than half
of the whistleblowers” (Miceli and Near, 2013, p. 433), it appears that “country and Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration
workplace cultures can affect the whistleblowing process” (Miceli and Near, 2013, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2016
pp. 143-162
p. 433). Yet, the field lacks a conceptual model that captures the role of sociocultural © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-4323
dynamics. Through a review of available literature on whistleblowing in India, DOI 10.1108/APJBA-07-2015-0061
APJBA the present paper addresses the question of how sociocultural factors impinge on the
8,2 phenomenon. After a brief overview of the substantive area, the paper discusses
the emergence of wrongdoing in India, the institutional framework available to tackle
wrongdoing, the chances that people will engage in whistleblowing and actual
instances of whistleblowing. Based on the Indian data, the various sociocultural
influences that impact the different stages of whistleblowing are identified through
144 nomothetic labels. In addition to national factors, the Indian literature highlights the
significance of international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and
individual orientation. All these dynamics have been integrated along with the various
phases of whistleblowing into a contextualised process model.
Understanding whistleblowing in India is important for two reasons. Despite being
one of the world’s biggest economies that forms an integral part of global production
networks in today’s neoliberal context (Posthuma and Nathan, 2010), India is ranked
high on corruption indices (Transparency International, 2014). How wrongdoing
emerges and what role whistleblowing plays in addressing it become relevant
questions. Apart from throwing light on these issues through secondary data, the
paper points out areas for future research and action in the subcontinent. India’s formal
sector is the focus of the review since available literature is largely informed by this
part of the economy.

The phenomenon of whistleblowing at work

Whistleblowing at work refers to “disclosure by organisational members (former or
current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers,
to persons or organisations that may be able to effect action” (Near and Miceli, 1985,
p. 4), with the aforementioned practices, alternatively termed as wrongdoing and
referred to as such in the paper, being reported to one’s nearest leader or another
complaint recipient (Miceli et al., 2008, p. 4). Whistleblowers feel greater moral
compulsion to act in the face of wrongdoing than do inactive observers, often taking
high risks. At the same time, the emphasis on altruistic motives is controversial, since
whistleblowers almost always benefit from the cessation of the wrongdoing even
though the gain may be only psychological (Miceli et al., 2008). The identification of
wrongdoing in relation to whistleblowing extends over and above organisational
norms and national cultures to embrace universal standards (Near and Miceli, 2011;
Vandekerckhove et al., 2014) needed for the development and survival of essential
background institutions in society, invoking hypernorms (Warren, 2003). Such a stance
is important since organisational ethos and/or societal values could tolerate practices
that are unacceptable worldwide (Near and Miceli, 2011).
Wrongdoing, which goes beyond criminal behaviour and financial irregularity,
could be clear or ambiguous and formal or informal, operating at personal or
organisational levels with or without support from the workplace, with outcomes for
individuals or groups. Ambiguous wrongdoings (e.g. sexual harassment) are difficult to
detect, being termed insidious workplace behaviour (Blenkinsopp and Edwards, 2008),
contrast with badly manufactured drugs and food (Mathews, 1987). Informal
wrongdoing includes ostracism and neglect whereas systematically rejecting job
applicants from certain countries constitutes formal wrongdoing (Bjørkelo, 2014).
Occupational wrongdoing at the personal level could involve mis-stating individual
accounts or wilfully concealing information from colleagues. Organisational
wrongdoing involving the entire corporation is evidenced by fraud and treatment
malpractices (Miethe and Rothschild, 1994).
 Whistleblowing could unleash various reactions encompassing the impact on the Sociocultural
whistleblowers, the effect on the wrongdoing and the action taken towards the reported dynamics in
wrongdoer (Bjørkelo et al., 2011). Most inquiries have investigated whistleblowers’
perspectives (Bjørkelo, 2014) and findings are divided. Studies conducted among
whistleblowing
employees find that whistleblowers report more positive than negative effects after
whistleblowing, while research conducted among selected samples of whistleblowers
reports more unfavourable than favourable outcomes ( Jos et al., 1989; Near and Miceli, 145
1996). Adverse responses, commonly labelled as retaliation (Parmerlee et al., 1982),
could be formal workplace reprisals (Cortina and Magley, 2003) like plain notice,
selective downsizing, unfavourable job evaluations and expulsion from work (Baucus
and Dworkin, 1994) or informal negative acts like bullying and harassment (Bjørkelo,
2013), with further consequences on health (Peters et al., 2011).
The power of whistleblowing is that it can eliminate wrongdoing and bring
rewarding effects to both the employee and the organisation (Rothschild and Miethe,
1999). In some cases, whistleblowers not only maintain but even improve the efficiency
of their workplaces (Miceli et al., 2008). Rothschild and Miethe (1999) found that a
sizable minority (27 per cent internal and 44 per cent external) of the whistleblowers in
a nationwide study thought their organisation had changed for the better due to their
efforts. Yet, though employees report their effectiveness in stopping wrongdoing, the
frequency of rewards can be low (Bjørkelo et al., 2011).
Whistleblowing as a process has been captured by a spectrum of models
(see, Bjørkelo, 2010, pp. 20-26), summarised in Table I. Moving from occupational
experiences (e.g. Rosecrance, 1988; Soeken, 1986) to theoretical grounding (e.g. Graham,
1986), the models highlight the stages involved in whistleblowing. The sequencing in
Table I is ordered in terms of the scope of the models rather than an evaluation of their
explanatory power. While some of the models focus on the steps prior to an employee’s
decision to report a perceived wrongdoing or not, others describe whistleblowing as a
phenomenon that occurs along a time line and ranges from an identified wrongdoing to
a decision and a reaction from various protagonists, including an evaluation of the
response and a potential aftermath. All the models describe that whistleblowing in
principle may be followed by positive and/or negative consequences (Bjørkelo, 2010).
The models are linear, reflecting sequential stages. Yet, while emergent perspectives
allude to the relevance of context (Miceli and Near, 2013), these dynamics do not inform
any of the models. Through our focus on India, we address this gap by identifying
sociocultural and other influences, including international factors, institutional framework,
workplace ethos and individual orientation, which impinge on the phenomenon.

Wrongdoing at work in India

Wrongdoings at the workplace are common in India across public, private and
voluntary organisations and formal and informal economies, regardless of industry
(Barman, 2011; Chaki, 2014; Goel, 2013; Layak, 2012). Given the high prevalence
of corruption in the subcontinent (Akbar and Vujić, 2014; Chaddha, 2004), it is
not surprising that wrongdoings are commonly associated with financial rather
non-financial issues (Barman, 2011; Bhargava and Madala, 2014; Goel, 2013), though
both are present (e.g. Chaki, 2014; Kapur, 2013; Layak, 2012), and hence corporate
governance is more closely identified with the former (Barman, 2011; Bhargava and
Madala, 2014). Accordingly, the academic (Barman, 2011; Bhargava and Madala, 2014;
Nagpal, 2013) and popular (Dhawan, 2014; Narayan, 2013; Press Trust of India
(PTI), 2011) writing on the subject of whistleblowing in Indian workplaces has until
 8,2

146

Table I.
Models of
APJBA

whistleblowing
1 2 3 4 5 6
Column/ McLain and
illustrative Keenan
stages (1999) O’Day (1974) Rosecrance (1988) Graham (1986) Miceli and Near (1992) Soeken (1986)

I 1. Awareness 1. Awareness of an issue 1. The triggering event 1. Discovery

of principle
II 2. Judgement 2. Attribution of personal 2. The decision-making 2. Reflection
responsibility of process
responding
III 3. Choice 1. Internal criticism 3. Decision to blow the 3. The whistleblowing act 3. Confrontation
2. State of whistle
intransigency 4. Magnitude of behavioural
3. External response
disclosure
IV 1. Indirect intimidation, 4. Organisational 5. Perceived organisational 4. The reactions from others 4. Retaliation
nullification and reaction response to behaviour directed at the wrongdoing
isolation and the whistleblower
2. Direct intimidation, 5. The assessment of the
defamation and reactions previously
expulsion mentioned
V 5. Aftermath 5. The long haul
VI 6. Closure
VII 7. Resolution
Source: Bjørkelo (2010, p. 24)
now generally been associated with financial-related wrongdoings, even though Sociocultural
other nations have documented that interpersonal issues also are a relevant type of dynamics in
wrongdoing (Miceli and Near, 2013).
Interestingly, reports of wrongdoing and whistleblowing in the public sector are
whistleblowing
more common than the private and voluntary sectors in India, despite evidence of
corruption in the latter cases (Chaki, 2014; Ernst & Young (EY), 2012b; Goel, 2013).
The provisions for complaints and information have led to the idea that wrongdoing is 147
only present in the public sector though, in reality, the private and voluntary sectors
are not without blemish (Chaki, 2014; Goel, 2013).
Wrongdoing in the Indian context sits at the cusp of contradictory tensions – morals
and principles on the one hand and personalised relationships linked to identity-based and
networked exchanges and focus on material gain on the other. The evidence of deep-seated
values that subscribe to universally accepted forms of behaviour is well documented in the
subcontinent (Chakraborty, 1993) and is reflected in the Constitution and wide-ranging and
comprehensive legislations touching all aspects of life including basic human rights,
civil matters, workplaces, misbehaviour, etc. ( Jain, 2014). Paradoxically, this coexists with
improper conduct which invokes unsatisfactory ethics and unleashes illegal processes and
outcomes (Chaddha, 2004). Such deviance usually arises from the personal orientations
and motives of individuals operating singly or in tandem, but often receives indirect
support from observers who turn a blind eye. Socioculturally, this collusion of bystanders
could stem from homophilic bases, with common backgrounds stepping up allegiances
and attachments (Beteille, 2006; Sinha, 2008), and/or from the need to ensure one’s
livelihood combined with the quest for upwards mobility in a resource poor but status
conscious society (Misra and Tripathi, 2004; Sinha, 2008), apart from, of course, the
influence of power distance where authority invokes fear and compliance (Sinha, 2008).
A range of motivations and dynamics may encourage passive witnesses to assume
more active roles in the wrongdoing as instrumentalism and exchange facilitate their
own individual benefits. Even in the absence of category-related affiliations and self-
centred interests, sycophancy and ingratiation as culture-specific tendencies (Pandey,
1981), perhaps linked to hierarchy contingent on the particular situation, could lead
observers to tacitly or obviously support the protagonist(s). Wrongdoings are not
necessarily merely individual phenomena but could also represent class interests, being
engaged in regardless of social position in the quest to retain, protect or improve one’s
standing (Kumar, 2002). Present in all spheres of life, Indian workplaces are no
exception (Layak, 2012). With India being in the throes of a social, economic and
political crisis, marked by lack of morality and ethical bankruptcy that permeates all
arenas of life, wrongdoings can only be expected to persist (Goel, 2013).
Wrongdoings have been documented in Indian workplaces, irrespective of sector
and location (EY, 2012a). The organisational position of the perpetrator makes no
difference, with misbehaviour occurring across hierarchy (EY, 2012a). Literature on
financial wrongdoing is revealing. Three out of five respondents in an EY study said
that their companies suffered from fraud in the year preceding the inquiry (Layak,
2012), with EY reporting 204 fraud cases in 2012 of which 61 per cent were inside jobs
(whereas 23 per cent were by senior management compared to 38 per cent by junior and
middle management, the financial value of fraud was exorbitant in the former cases).
In Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler’s (KPMG) survey of 1,000 Indian organisations,
over 75 per cent of the respondents said that the incidence of fraud overall and
specifically within their industries and companies had risen, being carried out by both
junior and senior employees (Dhamija, 2014).
APJBA Goel (2013) believes that the nexus between politicians, industrialists and
8,2 bureaucrats is the primary driver underlying large-scale and high-level wrongdoing
at work, encouraging the percolation and repetition of misbehaviour at lower levels in
varying degrees. That Indian business is dominated by promoter families and
government holdings in which constituent individuals are closely linked with each
other and with political figures through affective and social ties that often span
148 generations could contribute to the situation. Accordingly, such groups who comprise
top management could collude in and/or cover up or overlook wrongdoing where it
occurs particularly when committed by their in-group (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012;
Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008). Even the few professionally managed companies in India
may reflect category-based affiliations related to caste, region, religion and class among
the larger shareholders and top management who may also be closely associated with
political circles. These dynamics could compromise the functioning of the organisation
(Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008).
Further, top management in India usually believe that corruption is integral for
business to survive and flourish in India and hence do not develop frameworks to
counter its incidence, preferring to turn a blind eye to such occurrences in their
companies (Layak, 2012). This resonates with the influence of organisational culture
which traverses from management to employees (Berry, 2004; Sims and Brinkmann,
2003). As an EY report highlights, top management is willing to sweep wrongdoing
under the carpet, tending to let the offender resign rather than taking action against
him/her and tarnishing organisational reputation (Layak, 2012).
Interestingly, while corruption is highly present in India, foreign multinational
corporations (MNCs) operating in the subcontinent are not always above board, raising
questions about differential value orientation and positions linked to location (Sehgal
and Mulraj, 2008). The failure of international audit firms to expose fraud as was
evident with Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) in the case of Satyam Computers
(Bhasin, 2013) triggers doubts about their functioning in developed versus developing
countries particularly where legal and institutional provisions are available. Do different
standards apply or do local personnel mitigate adherence to expected norms and bring
in domestic influences? (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012). Three points must be considered
while addressing this. First, the unprecedented current emphasis on competitive
advantage worldwide, the international presence of corruption and dynamics between
the global North and South/developed and developing world cannot be ignored
(Coe et al., 2009; Johnson, 2004). Second, at the same time, detecting and reporting fraud
can be challenging when businesses are owned by MNCs (Faunce et al., 2014).
An extended and global consciousness is required both to highlight matters of national
and international importance and subvert splintering and pinning down such issues at
the individual level (Bjørkelo and Madsen, 2013). Third, despite the exposure to and
impact of Western industrialism in Indian workplaces, heightened under contemporary
globalisation, the national ethos continues to prevail alongside. Crossvergence marks
Indian organisations (Budhwar, 2009; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2011).

The Indian institutional framework

Recognising the various forms of wrongdoings present in the country and the relevance
of tackling them to improve the business context nationally and internationally, Indian
governments and policy makers have initiated several institutional measures towards
facilitating whistleblowing, being also affected by reactions within and outside the
country. Distress about corruption and outrage over slain whistleblowers expressed by
sections of the Indian public have been important underlying factors (Dhawan, 2014; Sociocultural
Srividhya and Shelley, 2012). Greater integration into the global economy and heightened dynamics in
influence from the international political community have contributed to Indian
initiatives, given that India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against
whistleblowing
Corruption since 2005, which enjoins states to provide for reporting of corruption by
public officials and ensure protection to whistleblowers and witnesses (Dwivedi and
Agrawal, 2013; Goel, 2013). Yet, the sociocultural dynamics which influence the 149
emergence and persistence of wrongdoing at work play a role in the measures instituted
to address such malpractices. As this section shows, whereas pressure at home and
abroad have resulted in legislations and policies, the creation of these mechanisms has
been marked by dialectical contextual factors which impinge on or are anticipated to
impinge on their implementation and effectiveness.
India has recently adopted the Whistleblowers Protection Act (Dhawan, 2014).
Though the groundwork on the legislation began in 2001 with the Law Commission of
India and continued in 2007 with the second Administrative Reforms Commission
(ARC), the Bill was prepared in 2002 and then received a fillip around 2006 following
high-profile cases like Satyendra Dubey and Manjunath Shanmugam (Kaur, 2012)
who were murdered for exposing wrongdoing. It was introduced in Parliament in
August 2010, passed in the lower house in December 2011 (Dwivedi and Agrawal, 2013;
Goel, 2013) and in the upper house in February 2014, receiving Presidential approval in
May 2014 (Dhawan, 2014).
The Act seeks to protect whistleblowers reporting wrongdoings committed by a public
servant. Complaints must be filed with the Central Vigilance Commission/State Vigilance
Commissions (CVC/SVC) within five years of the occurrence of the misbehaviour.
While the complainant must self-identify himself/herself at the time of reporting the
offence, the CVC/SVC will maintain his/her anonymity. Frivolous and false complaints
invite punishment without the opportunity for appeal. CVC/SVC officials or others who
disclose the whistleblower’s identity face severe penalties. While the CVC/SVC ensure that
the complainant is not victimised by notifying the offender, the latter receives no penalty
for his/her actions. The Act falls short not only by failing to allow for anonymous
complaints, penalise perpetrators of victimisation and protect witnesses but also does not
let the CVC/SVC initiate criminal proceedings against offenders. Excluding the private
sector from the purview of the Act, particularly following the Satyam Computers case, is
seen as a major omission, dampening the opportunities to rectify wrongdoings there.
In any case, public consultation and debate which would have augmented the potential
effectiveness of the Act, did not inform its drafting and development (Dwivedi and
Agrawal, 2013; Goel, 2013). The extent of safeguarding the whistleblower is partial
(Bhargava and Madala, 2014), inadequate and therefore questionable (Liu, 2014). The Act
itself is a watered-down version of that recommended:
(1) in 2001, by the Law Commission of India which also included ministers as
offenders and empowered the CVC/SVC to begin criminal proceedings against
them with a time limit of upto 24 months for the process; and
(2) in 2007, by the second ARC which sought the addition of the private sector,
prescribed penalties for victimising complainants and permitted anonymous
complaints (Goel, 2013).
Dwivedi and Agrawal (2013) question the exemptions granted to the defence
services, intelligence agencies and judiciary and recommend the inclusion of the
APJBA voluntary sector. They maintain that the onus of providing proof further burdens
8,2 complainants who may already be disadvantaged, calling for its review. Moreover,
to date following the President’s approval of the Act, its rules have neither been drafted
nor notified by the government. Until the Act comes into force, the vulnerability of
whistleblowers is perpetuated (Dhawan, 2014).
The Act’s effectiveness remains to be seen (Dwivedi and Agrawal, 2013; Goel, 2013;
150 Liu, 2014). Only a strong and efficacious law will encourage whistleblowers to expose
wrongdoing (Dwivedi and Agrawal, 2013; Srividhya and Shelley, 2012), thereby realising
the objectives of the legislation (Dwivedi and Agrawal, 2013; Goel, 2013). Whether it will
deliver its mandate or be riddled with corruption/delays and fail to inspire confidence in
people as is customary in the subcontinent is as yet unknown (Liu, 2014).
The Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) listing agreement Clause
49 addressing corporate governance recommends a whistleblower policy under the
non-mandatory section. Through these guidelines, in place since 2003-2004, every listed
company is asked to formulate a policy that allows employees to report unethical and
improper accounting and financial matters against those occupying higher positions
in their companies, without any fear of suspension or retrenchment, but under full
protection from unfair termination and other prejudicial employment practices.
All employees must be made aware of the provision. Interestingly, this
recommendation was initially mandatory for all listed companies but was modified
to non-mandatory following the lack of agreement of many firms. Apart from not being
compulsory, the commendable suggestion excludes unlisted companies (Dhamija, 2014;
Nagpal, 2013; Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Srividhya and Shelley, 2012).
Nagpal (2013) points out that many top companies have whistleblowing policies to
promote a culture of sound governance, though these may remain unenforced and hence
ineffective as occurred in the Satyam Computers case (Bhasin, 2013; Goel, 2013). Yet,
there are many other companies which have avoided this move, believing that it may
operate as a means by which employees settle scores among themselves precipitating
unnecessary problems due to misuse (Srividhya and Shelley, 2012). Dhamija (2014)
concludes that whistleblowing policies remain a relatively new concept in India.
Further to the aforementioned measures linked directly to whistleblowing, there are
numerous well-developed laws on exposing corporate fraud (Layak, 2012; EY, 2012b)
and policies on corporate governance (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj,
2008). Unevenness in actioning and progressing the various requirements and/or
suggestions between public and private and listed and unlisted companies is apparent
(Nagpal, 2013; Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008), owing to
sociocultural dynamics and regulatory weaknesses (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012) with
the efficacy of legal provisions (Goel, 2013; Layak, 2012) and governance standards
(Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008) to be established.
The current neoliberal project in India has a contradictory influence. On the one
hand, engagement in wrongdoing is on the rise owing to the pursuit of organisational
survival and success in the face of competition (EY, 2012b). On the other hand,
integration into the global economy has been matched by growing regulatory activity
seeking to curb wrongdoing and to facilitate whistleblowing, though these latter
initiatives are marked by unevenness and ineffectiveness in implementation
(EY, 2012b; Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008). This is in
keeping with Layak (2012) who points out that though up to 2008, forensic experts
maintained that whistleblowing mechanisms did not work, contemporaneously, some
Indian organisations use third-party operators such as Global Compliance and Ethics
Point to facilitate an anonymous process. Yet, this improvement being limited, there is Sociocultural
a long way to go for whistleblowing to become more common and better used (Layak, dynamics in
2012). These paradoxical tones within India’s neoliberal agenda build on the polemics
inherent in the ideology’s wider emphasis on individualism. Having to “go it alone” in
whistleblowing
the pursuit for survival takes away from considering “sticking out” one’s neck to
highlight wrongdoings. Obviously, individual responsibility at work is not linked
merely to personal characteristics but also tied in with historical, social and political 151
circumstances (Bjørkelo and Madsen, 2013). It is vital to research whistleblowing not
only from the lens of the actor but also through links with the surrounding ideology
and culture (Uys, 2010).

The chances of engaging in whistleblowing

The likelihood that Indians will undertake in whistleblowing is considered to be low
(Goel, 2013; Srividhya and Shelley, 2012) and empirical studies of whistleblowing intent
of a cross-cultural nature have provided varying results (see, Bjørkelo, 2012, 2014).
When confronted with wrongdoing at work, Indians are believed to usually respond by
turning a blind eye to the situation as this option is seen as the safest route (Goel, 2013;
Srividhya and Shelley, 2012). The disinclination to engage in whistleblowing is not
surprising given that, across the subcontinent, in the last five years, some 150
whistleblowers have been allegedly harassed or jailed for exposing corruption while as
many as 20 have been killed (Goel, 2013), reinforcing the popularly held view that
whistleblowing is a high-risk activity which precipitates vulnerability (Dhawan, 2014;
Srividhya and Shelley, 2012).
Alongside oft-cited and obvious institutional factors, sociocultural dynamics are
also responsible for Indians’ reluctance to take part in whistleblowing. On the one hand,
there is weak enforcement of legal and policy measures in a corrupt context where even
the judiciary is not always independent and litigation is costly and prolonged
(Goel, 2013). People lack the confidence that institutional mechanisms can be relied
upon to report wrongdoing (Layak, 2012) and hence even those who have strong value
orientations generally choose not to go down this path due to the risks involved.
Together with personal safety and false charges and allegations, materialistic
considerations play a pertinent role here, being particularly pronounced due to class
factors. Having to ensure one’s livelihood in order to survive and progress takes
precedence, given the limited resources and tight labour market (Misra and Tripathi,
2004). Those with job options available more easily or sought out specifically due to
unease of conscience prefer to quit and take up fresh employment (D’Cruz and Rayner,
2013). On the other hand, personalised connections linked to social identities and
network-based exchanges either render witnesses into passive accomplices (Bhal and
Dadhich, 2011) and/or inhibit law and order custodians from discharging their duties.
People privilege relational ties and emotional bonds, thereby overlooking and excusing
wrongdoing. HIgh power distance could inhibit whistleblowing (Goel, 2013) due to
the ensuing sense of disenfranchisement arising from sociocultural factors as well as
the ineffectiveness of legal and policy measures resulting from a sense of entitlement
accompanying authority position.
Literature on corporate governance highlights how sociocultural dynamics affect
the enforcement and effectiveness of institutional measures at company board and top
management levels. It is not uncommon for wrongdoings to be ignored or excused,
not just by organisational leaders and directors including independent board members
but also by auditors, due to interpersonal relationships even if this involves violating,
APJBA working through or disregarding legal and policy requirements and hurting
8,2 shareholder interests (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008).
Such incidents are particularly so in family controlled businesses and public sector
firms, though it cannot be ruled out in professionally run companies which are
generally associated with better practices (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal and
Mulraj, 2008). Independent directors, once aware of wrongdoing, especially by senior
152 management, prefer to resign or wait their term and leave rather than pursue action
(Layak, 2012). In fact, rather than represent shareholders, the mandate of independent
directors lies more with providing strategic guidance while auditors seek to further
organisational interests (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012). Shareholders, being minority
groups comprising the general public largely from the middle and working classes,
focus on their own interests which revolve around returns rather than nature of
business or quality of management, given the resource poor environment, emphasis on
materialism and pursuit of upward mobility. Involved in their own lives, they may not
have the time, resources or energy to attend to these matters (Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008).
Taking on more powerful and well-connected forces is considered detrimental to one’s
current and future well-being and a lost battle, particularly given the poor institutional
framework (regulatory and judicial) which does not assure fairness and propriety.
Further, companies can engage with minority shareholders in such a way that their
participation is minimised or inconvenienced, impeding their contribution to the
organisation (Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008).

Actual instances of whistleblowing

Those who decide to engage in whistleblowing at work in India take the risk knowing
fully well the likely consequences, being particularly forewarned by media reports
about the tragic fate of publicly known whistleblowers (Dhawan, 2014; Goel, 2013;
Srividhya and Shelley, 2012). Though an EY report indicates that two-third of frauds
are exposed by whistleblowers who speak directly to top management or use a
whistleblowing mechanism that allows for anonymity (Layak, 2012), the perspective of
these individuals has not been studied. Systematic inquiries into whistleblowers’
motives and experiences are called for, even as anecdotal evidence is instructive.
The outcomes they experience represent the combination of the success or failure of the
mission and the presence (positive or negative) or absence of personal consequences,
determined by the interplay of a myriad influences.
Documentation on unsuccessful whistleblowers enhances our understanding.
A handful of blue-collared workers at Union Carbide India alerted their bosses about
the defective Bhopal chemical plant. Their claims were brushed aside as irrelevant,
paving the way for the tragic industrial disaster that followed (Drew, 2003; LaPierre
and Moro, 2001). Personal power stemming from organisational position resulted in an
autocratic managerial style which precluded listening to the informed, vigilant and
experienced voices of subordinates and precipitated grave and far-reaching effects.
Information available on slain whistleblowers is illuminating (Kaur, 2012). The grip
of corruption across social structure and geographical location is widespread, pointing
to the nexus between business and crime which thrives in the pursuit of vested
interests and the absence of strong institutional checks. In these instances, the attempt
to correct wrongdoing is complicated by the power and number of transgressors
who also influence the enforcement of legal and policy safeguards. Whistleblowers,
who may be in a minority both power-wise and number-wise, experience heightened
personal vulnerability, apart from short-lived, limited or no success in achieving their
agenda. Following their murders, the struggle against the particular wrongdoing and Sociocultural
against corruption in general continues, along with more concerted efforts to protect dynamics in
whistleblowers and to establish effective institutional frameworks. A protracted and
complex ongoing dialectic ensues (Narayan, 2013; PTI, 2011).
whistleblowing
Acquaintances of the first author who have engaged in whistleblowing highlight a
variety of factors that affect on these dynamics. In one case, the strategy adopted in
undertaking the whistleblowing endeavour is relevant. In exposing the corruption 153
involved in a public sector financial services firm, the whistleblower worked along with
external stakeholders and the press. Not only were concerted efforts set into motion to
rectify the situation but the whistleblower’s identity remained undiscovered. The issue was
successfully resolved with no adverse consequences for the whistleblower. In another case,
the value orientation of the redresser is pertinent. In bringing up directly with superiors the
wrongdoing present in a multinational pharmaceutical firm, the whistleblower faced
reprisal resulting in loss of employment. Organisational culture and managerial ideology
facilitated wrongdoing, demonstrating affiliation with the offender(s) rather than support
for uprightness and protection towards the whistleblower. Despite this adverse trajectory,
the entire situation, namely, the wrongdoing and the whistleblowing with its outcomes,
remained contained within the organisation.
Media reports on successful whistleblowers provide additional insights. Indian MNCs
in pharmaceuticals and information technology were exposed by American nationals
through lawsuits filed in US courts. That both whistleblowers were successful in having
the wrongdoing halted and in being compensated for their actions not only underscores
the significance of a robust institutional framework but also points to the accountability
of Indian firms operating overseas via host country legislations and policies.
Interestingly, one whistleblower here is a naturalised American of Indian origin. Both
whistleblowers pursued legal action after their attempts at resolving the wrongdoing
internally through bringing up the issue with their superiors failed due to the latter’s
disregard of the matter (Chaki, 2014; Das and Rajagopal, 2013).
The foregoing analysis is based on information available through popular sources
and personal contacts and provides limited, though relevant, insights. Meticulous
research including a large representative sample of the Indian workforce thereby
capturing a range of experiences is called for. Such an initiative would result in findings
with wide and strong explanatory power that develops indigenous knowledge and
feeds into domestic applications as well as contributes to scholarly endeavours, with a
view to furthering theory in the substantive area. Various questions pertaining to
different stages of the whistleblowing process come to mind. Ascertaining the
underlying triggers is important. Do whistleblowers’ motives reflect the view that
whistleblowing is a choice-less-choice (Alford, 2001), with some employees describing
how they actually thought they were performing a loyal act by reporting wrongdoing
at work (Bjørkelo et al., 2008) or others recounting that they did not have a choice if
they wanted to “live with themselves” (Alford, 2000), given their value for eliminating
corruption and instituting upright practices. Understanding the effects of whistleblowing
not just for the whistleblower but also for the wrongdoing he/she sought to correct is
significant. Does the trajectory of whistleblowing turn into a case of the whistleblower
alone such that the wrongdoing is lost sight of, and why? Moreover, the implications
for the offender and the workplace warrant attention. What is the role of context at
this point? How do cultural factors affect the transition from intent to action and
what are the implications of societal dynamics for whistleblowers’ disclosure
strategy and for consequences?
APJBA Discussion
8,2 Though whistleblowing is a global phenomenon, the relevance of a national
understanding has only recently been recognised (Miceli and Near, 2013). Through a
review of available literature on whistleblowing in India, the present paper distils
various dimensions that make up the sociocultural dynamics while also underscoring
to the importance of other contextual factors like international influences, institutional
154 framework, workplace ethos and individual orientation. After listing the sociocultural
aspects evidenced in India, the discussion presents the theoretical contribution of the
paper via the contextualised process model of whistleblowing and highlights areas for
further research and application in India.
The Indian experience stresses three points. First, the stages of whistleblowing
involve the existence of wrongdoing, recognising wrongdoing, deciding to engage in
whistleblowing, actually blowing the whistle and the emergence of outcomes for the
whistleblower, the offender, the wrongdoing and the workplace (see, Figure 1 (Column 1)).
The stages not only subsume all the turning points referred to by the different process
models in Table I but also emphasise that the mere presence of wrongdoing is not
sufficient to label it as such. The distinction between the presence and labelling of
wrongdoing is important because corruption may exist but may be glossed over.
Moreover, as against consequences only for whistleblowers which is most commonly
referred to in the literature, outcomes for the offender, the wrongdoing and the workplace
are also important.
Second, sociocultural dynamics reflect various nuances pertinent to both wrongdoing
and whistleblowing. Given that the Indian literature demonstrated numerous aspects,
thematic analysis to consolidate and streamline the factors was undertaken, following
Miles and Huberman (1994). Through this nomothetic approach, categories were
identified and then grouped into sub-themes and themes, based on similar and distinctive
features. Six unique themes subsuming related sub-themes and their categories were
discerned, common across wrongdoing and whistleblowing. These included social
relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense of propriety and
fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. Whereas the Indian context
pinpointed the influence of these six sociocultural dimensions, other nations may have
overlapping, additional or fewer themes. Nonetheless, in this manner, sociocultural
dynamics move beyond an ambiguous catch-all term to refer to specific recognisable and
operationalisable constructs/features that can be explored and measured.
CONTEXT (2) PROCESS (1)

Sociocultural dynamics
• Social relationships
• Power distribution
• Materialistic
considerations
• Sense of propriety
and fairness
c
Individual orientation a Existence of wrongdoing
(Potential) whistleblowers
i Supervisors/managers/leaders
h g b Recognition of wrongdoing
a
f c Decision to engage in whistleblowing
Workplace
ethos d Actual whistleblowing
d
l

Figure 1. e Outcomes for whistleblower

• Public/civic orientation offender
A contextualised j
wrongdoing
process model • Ideological leanings k
e workplace
of whistleblowing
at work International influences
b Institutional
framework
Third, international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and individual Sociocultural
orientation operate in conjunction with sociocultural dynamics to affect the whistleblowing dynamics in
process. Context comprises all these five parts as Figure 1 (Column 2) shows.
whistleblowing
Theoretical contribution: a contextualised process model of whistleblowing
Integrating existing process models of whistleblowing (Table I) holistically along with
our analysis on the influence of context, especially sociocultural factors, based on the 155
Indian situation, we present a contextualised process model of whistleblowing (Figure 1).
The stages of whistleblowing start with the existence of wrongdoing, recognition of the
situation as wrong, the decision to blow the whistle, actual whistleblowing and outcomes
for the whistleblower, the offender, the situation and the workplace (1a-e). Contextual
factors (2) comprising sociocultural dynamics, international influences, individual
orientation, workplace ethos and institutional framework play a role at each stage.
We explain the linkages in the following paragraphs.
Sociocultural dynamics (2a) and international influences (2b) are the backcloth of the
whistleblowing process. National factors, as we have seen, comprise social
relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense of propriety and
fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. The constituents of
international influences must be identified via further research. Sociocultural
dynamics and international influences play a role in deciding the contents and
implementation of the institutional framework. On the one hand, national activism and
multilateral and bilateral agreements could result in institutional arrangements. On the
other hand, national factors like social relationships and materialistic orientation could
affect the execution of the institutional framework in workplaces or international
influences like being a foreign MNC could result in stringent workplace policies.
This has implications for whether people will decide to blow the whistle when they
observe and label wrongdoing and the outcomes of their exposure for themselves, the
offender, the situation and the workplace.
Individuals refer to (potential) whistleblowers and supervisors, managers and
leaders. Individuals who, due to national identification, are impacted by sociocultural
dynamics (2c), could also be guided by international factors (2d). Further, regardless of
these antecedents, their personal value systems which cohere with or run counter to
national or international influences also contribute. For example, potential
whistleblowers observing wrongdoing but strongly swayed by sociocultural factors
which do not label it as such and discourage whistleblowing will turn a blind eye,
though if their personal value systems specify otherwise, they may expose the
situation. Individuals, mainly supervisors, managers and leaders, affect the workplace
position on wrongdoing and its exposure as well as the implementation of the
institutional framework, going by their independent orientations or due to national and
international factors, with these dynamics operating singly or jointly. Accordingly,
individuals with high degrees of integrity can insist on accessing institutional
mechanisms to expose wrongdoing even if this hampers their social relationships and
threatens their material well-being (2e). Similarly, individuals, especially supervisors,
managers or leaders, can initiate or sustain a workplace ethos (2f) that eschews
wrongdoing and encourages whistleblowing without harming whistleblowers,
ensuring the effectiveness of the institutional framework (2e). Whistleblowers can
then expect protection for themselves, sanctions for the offender (once the wrongdoing
is established), rectification of the situation and strengthening of organisational
values. At the same time, the presence of an institutional framework can clinch an
APJBA individual’s decision to blow the whistle despite unfavourable sociocultural and
8,2 workplace dynamics, particularly when such mechanisms cohere with his/her personal
values or seal his/her moratorium towards a particular action (2g). Informed decision-
making precedes whistleblowers’ actions since they anticipate negative consequences
for themselves and a status quo or deterioration of the wrongdoing. Further, workplace
cultures can determine potential whistleblowers’ choices (2h). How workplaces view
156 wrongdoing and whistleblowing can clinch an individual’s decision on the matter.
Even where the institutional framework and personal values tilt towards exposure,
perhaps also impacted by sociocultural and international factors, an individual may
choose to maintain silence observing an indifferent or punitive workplace ethos.
Whistleblowers can thereby avoid unpleasant personal consequences though the
situation persists and the offender remains untouched.
Sociocultural dynamics (2i) and international influences (2j) together affect workplace
ethos, in varying combinations and degrees. Domestic firms may espouse stronger
national leanings while MNCs could either display crossvergence as is common in India
or be more international oriented. Depending on how these antecedents, singly or jointly,
view wrongdoing and whistleblowing, exposure or silence results. Workplace ethos could
support/weaken an individual’s orientation (2h) or facilitate/obstruct institutional
frameworks (2k). Cultures which sanction wrongdoing and value whistleblowing will
encourage individuals to behave likewise, especially when personal value systems and/or
institutional frameworks are aligned. Cultures where wrongdoing is condoned could
confuse individuals, stalling their autonomous thinking and action, and/or could prevent
the appropriate execution of institutional mechanisms when exposure of wrongdoing has
been initiated. Undoubtedly, strong supervisory, managerial and leadership influences of
individuals (2f) and available institutional frameworks (2l) can make a difference to the
workplace stance. Accordingly, despite unfavourable national cultures, top management
due to their personal value systems could ensure a workplace ethos that condemns
wrongdoing and rewards its exposure (2f), perhaps further shaped by international
factors or MNC affiliations. Commitment to or weight of the available institutional
framework could transform workplace culture towards valuing integrity and propriety (2l)
even if sociocultural dynamics are contrary. Contingent on workplace ethos, the outcomes
of whistleblowing unfold. In enabling workplace cultures, whistleblowers are protected,
inquiries are instituted, offenders are sanctioned if the wrongdoing is upheld, the situation
is addressed and an ethos of propriety is perpetuated. In indifferent or hostile
workplace cultures, whistleblowers are victimised, offenders are protected and the
situation persists, transmitting the message that wrongdoing is acceptable.
The value of the model is that it combines time and context to capture chronology
and causality in instances of wrongdoing and whistleblowing. Through movement
over phases impacted by various factors operating singly or in tandem to include
outcomes beyond whistleblowers, the model displays complexity and holism.

Areas for research

Behavioural research on whistleblowing in India is limited, focused on intent to expose
financial or non-financial wrongdoings and often cross-cultural in nature and based on
vignettes and experimental designs (see, Bjørkelo, 2012, 2014). This poses some
challenges as intent is not necessarily associated with actual behaviour (Bjørkelo and
Bye, 2014; Vandekerckhove et al., 2014). Moving forward from existing Indian empirical
inquiries, the link between intended and actual whistleblowing can be explored.
This association is under-investigated in whistleblowing research overall and
studies that exists are likely to underestimate the relationship due to the timing of Sociocultural
measurement (i.e. measuring intentions after reporting, Bjørkelo and Bye, 2014). dynamics in
Investigating how this plays out in India goes beyond context-specific understanding,
adding to the substantive area.
whistleblowing
Studying the views of Indian whistleblowers to ascertain their purpose, experiences
and outcomes will address a critical gap in our understanding. Such endeavours are
likely to show the intrapsychic, situational, societal and ideological factors that prompted 157
disclosure, the positive and negative influences that impinged on the post-whistleblowing
experience and the consequences for the individual and for the wrongdoing.
Whistleblowing, though considered controversial and challenging, may be
motivated by prosocial intent (Cheng et al., 2015; Miceli and Near, 1997). Contingent
on how the endeavour proceeds and is received and handled, retaliation and reprisal
could result. Whistleblowers’ positive act could be met with negative reactions,
including physical violence and emotional abuse, precipitating workplace bullying.
Reported worldwide (Bjørkelo, 2010), these trends seem true in many Indian cases,
going by the available anecdotal evidence. Methodical research on Indian
whistleblowers’ experiences of workplace bullying providing insights into the
background underlying whistleblowing, the process of disclosure, the receipt of
information and the initiation and trajectory of consequences sets the stage for
appropriate measures to handle the situation.
Comparing the experiences of Indian organisations across size, listing, ownership
and industry to understand the availability and implementation of whistleblowing
policies (Dhamija, 2014) will help establish best practices that similar others can adopt.
Cross-cultural inquiries of organisational whistleblowing practices (Dhamija, 2014) and
of whistleblower experiences including developing and developed countries will
enhance the efficacy of the available mechanisms through inputs on appropriate
policies, procedures and protection on a global scene, as India is one of the world’s
largest economies.
Whereas available literature has heretofore been situated in India’s formal economy,
the informal sector cannot be ignored. The informal economy, accounting for
86 per cent of India’s workforce (National Commission for Enterprises in the
Unorganised Sector, 2007), exists at the interplay of legality and illegality (Chen, 2007)
and is considered to engage in various forms and degrees of wrongdoing (Harriss-
White, 2010). Whether, why and how members of the informal sector engage in
whistleblowing will lay the foundations for interventions to tackle the situation here.

Areas for application

Despite the available provisions, Indians are reluctant to engage in whistleblowing
(Nagpal, 2013) and resort to it in a very limited way (Goel, 2013), marking it as a
voluntary activity characterised by risk (Bhal and Dadhich, 2011). We have scarce
systematic empirical knowledge of actual whistleblowing behaviour in India.
Whistleblowing is seen as a prosocial effort equated with organisational citizenship
behaviour, making it an extra-role entity (Bhal and Dadhich, 2011). Effective steps
addressing legal and policy measures and sociocultural factors rather than mere lip
service will rectify the situation since people will feel confident rather than vulnerable
about such behaviour (Goel, 2013).
Regulatory frameworks addressing whistleblowing in India are nascent. Bringing
the Whistleblowers Protection Act into force through sturdy rules and stringent
implementation is one important dimension (Dhawan, 2014). Making SEBI’s listing
APJBA agreement Clause 49 compulsory across all firms, together with a prescription of
8,2 the expected essential policy requirements, is another (Dhamija, 2014). Maintaining the
anonymity of and protecting the safety of whistleblowers while seeking to correct
wrongdoings should form the cornerstone of both these initiatives (Dhamija, 2014; Goel,
2013). The effective execution of corporate governance legal and policy measures
would serve as complementary reinforcements (Narayanaswamy et al., 2012; Sehgal
158 and Mulraj, 2008). A sound, uniform and well-enforced institutional framework is
therefore recommended (Nagpal, 2013).
Yet, institutional mechanisms alone are insufficient. Addressing sociocultural
dynamics is a necessary part of the effort. This can be done partly through regulatory
frameworks, in particular provisions for and actual translation of their unbiased
implementation, partly through engagement with principled entities (Narayanaswamy
et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008) where scruples face no compromise, and partly
through educational initiatives where business ethics is emphasised (Ciulla, 2011).
Impartiality, autonomy, transparency and efficiency facilitated through robustly
designed and strictly implemented institutional measures are critical to tackling the
situation, linked to the will to act and the pursuit of the larger good (Narayanaswamy
et al., 2012; Sehgal and Mulraj, 2008) where integrity is accorded primacy (Goel, 2013).
While putting such measures in place at the macro level is expected to have ripple
effects on the micro level, Srividhya and Shelley (2012) maintain that within
organisations, it is the commitment of employers to good governance and ethical
functioning that determines the presence of wrongdoing, the efficacy of the
whistleblowing policy and the position of the whistleblower. Without attending to
contextual and potentially ideological factors, guidelines for and exhortations about
whistleblowing (Sehgal, 2014; Srividhya and Shelley, 2012), whistleblower and
organisational policies (Dhamija, 2014; Sehgal, 2014; Srividhya and Shelley, 2012)
are redundant in the Indian workplaces. Ciulla’s (2011) recommendation of relying
on history to learn from the past is valuable. Through reflection on forgone events,
a deeper understanding of circumstances impinging on wrongdoing and
whistleblowing can emerge, setting the stage for improvements.

References
Akbar, Y. and Vujić, V. (2014), “Explaining corruption: the role of national culture and its
implications for international management”, Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 191-218.
Alford, C.F. (2000), “Whistleblower narratives: stuck in static time”, Narrative, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 279-293.
Alford, C.F. (2001), “Whistleblowers and the narrative of ethics”, Journal of Social Philosophy,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 402-418.
Barman, A. (2011), “Whistleblowing exercise in Indian corporation: does it really blow?”,
available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ¼ 1733865 (accessed
12 December 2014).
Baucus, M.S. and Dworkin, T.M. (1994), “Wrongful firing in violation of public policy: who gets
fired and why”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 191-296.
Berry, B. (2004), “Organisational culture: a framework and strategies for facilitating employee
whistleblowing”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Beteille, A. (2006), Ideology and Social Science, Penguin, New Delhi.
Bhal, K.T. and Dadhich, A. (2011), “Impact of ethical leadership and leader-member exchange on Sociocultural
whistle blowing: the moderating impact of the moral intensity of the issue”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 485-496.
dynamics in
whistleblowing
Bhargava, N. and Madala, M.K. (2014), “An overview of whistleblowing status in various
continents across the world”, International Journal of Management and Social Sciences
Research, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 47-62.
Bhasin, M. (2013), “Corporate accounting scandal at Satyam: a case study of India’s Enron”, 159
European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 12, pp. 25-47.
Bjørkelo, B. (2010), “Whistleblowing at work: antecedents and consequences”, PhD thesis,
University of Bergen, Bergen.
Bjørkelo, B. (2012), “Whistleblowing at work in India?”, Indian Journal of Psychology, January,
pp. 9-16.
Bjørkelo, B. (2013), “Workplace bullying after whistleblowing: future research and implications”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 306-323.
Bjørkelo, B. (2014), “Whistleblowing at work in India?”, in Sobti, R.C., Mohan, J., Sehgal, M. and
Sharma, S. (Eds), Biopsychological Impacts: In the Era of Science and Technology, Narendra
Publishing, New Delhi, pp. 61-70.
Bjørkelo, B. and Bye, H.H. (2014), “Intended and actual whistleblowing: past, current and future
issues”, in Brown, A.J., Moberly, R.E., Lewis, D. and Vandekerckhove, W. (Eds), International
Handbook on Whistleblowing Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 133-153.
Bjørkelo, B. and Madsen, O.J. (2013), “Whistleblowing and neoliberalism: political resistance in
late capitalist economy”, Psychology and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 28-40.
Bjørkelo, B., Einarsen, S., Nielsen, M.B. and Matthiesen, S.B. (2011), “Silence is golden?
Characteristics and experiences of self-reported whistleblowers”, European Journal of
Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 206-238.
Bjørkelo, B., Ryberg, W., Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S. (2008), “When you talk and talk and
nobody listens: a mixed-method case study of whistleblowing and its consequences”,
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 18-40.
Blenkinsopp, J. and Edwards, M.S. (2008), “On not blowing the whistle: quiescent silence as an
emotion episode”, Research on Emotion in Organisations, Vol. 4, pp. 181-206.
Budhwar, P.S. (2009), “Introduction: human resource management in the Indian context”,
in Budhwar, P.S. and Bhatnagar, J. (Eds), The Changing Face of People Management in
India, Routledge, London, pp. 3-19.
Chaddha, M. (2004), “India: between majesty and modernity”, in Johnson, R.A. (Ed.), The Struggle
Against Corruption, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 109-143.
Chaki, D. (2014), “Whistle blowing and India’s giant corporations: the case of an employee
speaking out against a major IT firm has triggered calls for tougher legislation”, available
at: www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/whistleblowing-india-giant-corporations-
201411092559554454.html (accessed 15, 19 December 2014).
Chakraborty, S.K. (1993), Managerial Transformation by Values: A Corporate Pilgrimage,
Sage, New Delhi.
Chen, M.A. (2007), “Rethinking the informal economy: linkages with the formal economy and the
formal regulatory environment”, available at: www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2007/wp46_
2007.pdf (accessed 23 January 2015).
Cheng, X., Karim, K.E. and Lin, K.J. (2015), “A cross-cultural comparison of whistleblowing
perceptions”, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 15-31.
APJBA Ciulla, J.B. (2011), “Is business ethics getting better? A historical perspective”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 335-343.
8,2
Coe, N.M., Dicken, P. and Hess, M. (2009), “Global production networks: realising the potential”,
Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 271-295.
Cortina, L.M. and Magley, V.J. (2003), “Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
160 Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 247-265.
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2011), “High commitment management practices re-examined: the
case of Indian call centres”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 185-205.
D’Cruz, P. and Rayner, C. (2013), “Bullying in the Indian workplace: a study of the ITES-BPO
sector”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 597-619.
Das, S. and Rajagopal, D. (2013), “Dinesh Thakur: meet the man who won Rs 244 cr for blowing
the whistle against Ranbaxy”, available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/
2013-05-15/news/39282156_1_ranbaxy-drugs-rashmi-barbhaiya-largest-drug-maker
(accessed 18 December 2014).
Dhamija, S. (2014), “Whistleblower policy – time to make it mandatory”, Global Business Review,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 833-846.
Dhawan, H. (2014), “Centre sits on whistle blower act as toll soars”, available at: http://time
sofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Centre-sits-on-Whistleblower-Act-as-toll-soars/articleshow/
40319892.cms (accessed 12 December 2014).
Drew, K. (2003), “Whistleblowing and corruption: an initial and comparative review”, Public
Services International Research Unit, School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences,
University of Greenwich, available at: www.psiru.org/reports/2002-08-C-whistle.doc
(accessed 20 December 2014).
Dwivedi, S. and Agrawal, P. (2013), “The whistleblower protection bill, 2011: a review”, available
at: www.indialawjournal.com/volume6/issue-2/article7.html (accessed 12 December 2014).
Ernst & Young (EY) (2012a), India Fraud Indicator 2012, Ernst & Young, Mumbai.
Ernst & Young (EY) (2012b), Growing Beyond: A Place for Integrity, Ernst & Young, London.
Faunce, T., Crow, K., Nikolic, T. and Morgan, F.M.M.J. (2014), “Because they have evidence:
globalising financial incentives for corporate fraud whistleblowers”, in Brown, A.J.,
Moberly, R.E., Lewis, D. and Vandekerckhove, W. (Eds), International Handbook on
Whistleblowing Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 381-404.
Goel, S. (2013), “Protection of whistleblowers in India: a corporate perspective”, available at:
www.academia.edu/6174619/Protection_of_Whistle_Blowers_in_India-_Shivam_Goel_
NUJS (accessed 12 December 2014).
Graham, J.W. (1986), “Principled organisational dissent: a theoretical essay”, Research in
Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 8, pp. 1-52.
Harriss-White, B. (2010), “Work and well-being in informal economies: the regulative roles of
institutions of identity and the state”, World Development, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 170-183.
Jain, M.P. (2014), Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, Lexisnexis, New Delhi.
Johnson, R.A. (2004), The Struggle Against Corruption: A Comparative Study, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Jos, P.H., Tompkins, M.E. and Hays, S.W. (1989), “In praise of difficult people: a portrait of the
committed whistleblower”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 552-561.
Kapur, N. (2013), “Workplace sexual harassment”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48 No. 24,
pp. 27-29.
Kaur, C. (2012), “Whistleblowing: an anti-corruption tool”, International Journal of Advanced Sociocultural
Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 48-63.
dynamics in
Kumar, A. (2002), Black Economy in India, Penguin, New Delhi. whistleblowing
LaPierre, D. and Moro, J. (2001), Five Past Midnight in Bhopal: The Epic Story of the World’s
Deadliest Industrial Disaster, Grand Central, New York, NY.
Layak, S. (2012), “The battle against fraud”, Business Today, 18 March, pp. 59-64.
161
Liu, C. (2014), “India’s whistleblower protection act – an important step, but not enough”,
available at: http://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/indias-whistleblower-protection-act-important-
step-not-enough (accessed 12 December 2014).
McLain, D.L. and Keenan, J.P. (1999), “Risk, information, and the decision about response to
wrongdoing in an organization”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 255-271.
Mathews, M.C. (1987), “Codes of ethics: organisational behaviour and misbehaviour”, Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 9, pp. 107-130.
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1992), Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications
for Companies and Employees, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1997), “Whistleblowing as antisocial behaviour”, in Giacalone, R.A.
and Greenberg, J. (Eds), Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 130-149.
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (2013), “An international comparison of the incidence of public sector
whistleblowing and the prediction of retaliation: Australia, Norway, and the US”,
Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 433-446.
Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P. and Dworkin, T.M. (2008), Whistleblowing in Organisations, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Miethe, T.D. and Rothschild, J. (1994), “Whistleblowing and the control of organisational
misconduct”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 322-347.
Miles, A. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Misra, G. and Tripathi, K.N. (2004), “Psychological dimensions of poverty and deprivation”,
in Pandey, J. (Ed.), Applied Social and Organisational Psychology, Sage, New Delhi, pp. 118-215.
Nagpal, S. (2013), “Whistleblowing mechanism – a move towards better corporate governance”,
Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 855-860.
Narayan, H. (2013), “The extraordinary tale of an ordinary man”, available at: www.thehindu.
com/features/magazine/the-extraordinary-tale-of-an-ordinary-man/article4269047.ece
(accessed 19 December 2014).
Narayanaswamy, R., Raghunandan, K. and Rama, D.V. (2012), “Corporate governance in the
Indian context”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 583-599.
National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (2007), “Report on conditions of work
and promotion of livelihoods in the unorganised sector”, Government of India, New Delhi.
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1985), “Organisational dissidence: the case of whistleblowing”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1996), “Whistleblowing: myth and reality”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 507-526. doi: 10.1177/014920639602200306.
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (2011), “Integrating models of whistleblowing and wrongdoing”, in Jetten, J.
and Hornsey, M.J. (Eds), Rebels in Groups, Wiley-Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 302-323.
O’Day, R. (1974), “Intimidation rituals: reactions to reform”, Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 373-386.
APJBA Pandey, J. (1981), “A note about social power through ingratiation among workers”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 65-67.
8,2
Parmerlee, M.A., Near, J.P. and Jensen, T.C. (1982), “Correlates of whistleblowers perceptions
of organisational retaliation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-34.
Peters, K., Luck, L., Hutchinson, M., Wilkes, L., Andrew, S. and Jackson, D. (2011), “The emotional
sequelae of whistleblowing: findings from a qualitative study”, Journal of Clinical Nursing,
162 Vol. 20 Nos 19-20, pp. 2907-2914.
Press Trust of India (PTI) (2011), “Senior journalist who covered underworld shot dead in Mumbai”,
available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Senior-journalist-who-covered-
underworld-shot-dead-in-Mumbai/articleshow/8814402.cms (accessed 4 January 2015).
Posthuma, A. and Nathan, D. (2010), Labour in Global Production Networks in India, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
Rosecrance, J. (1988), “Whistleblowing in probation departments”, Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Rothschild, J. and Miethe, T.D. (1999), “Disclosing misconduct in work organisations: an empirical
analysis of the situational factors that foster whistleblowing”, Research in the Sociology of
Work, Vol. 8, pp. 211-227.
Sehgal, P. (2014), “Whistleblowers: traitors or heroes? A global perspective”, Proceedings of 26th
International Business Research Conference Imperial College, London, 7-8 April.
Sehgal, A. and Mulraj, J. (2008), “Corporate governance in India: moving gradually from a
regulatory model to a market-driven model – a survey”, International Journal of Disclosure
and Governance, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 205-235.
Sims, R.R. and Brinkmann, J. (2003), “Enron ethics (or: culture matters more than codes)”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 243-256.
Sinha, J.B.P. (2008), Culture and Organisational Behaviour, Sage, New Delhi.
Soeken, D.R. (1986), “‘J’ accuse”, Psychology Today, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 44-46.
Srividhya, M. and Shelley, M.C.S. (2012), “Whistleblowing protection: a watch dog for the
organisation”, International Journal of Social Science and Interdisciplinary Research,
Vol. 1 No. 10, pp. 204-211.
Transparency International (2014), “Global results”, available at: www.transparency.org/cpi2014/
infographic/ (accessed 18 March 2015).
Uys, T. (2010), “Speaking truth to power: the whistleblower as organisational citizen in South Africa”,
in Lewis, D. (Ed.), A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure. What Can We Learn from
Existing Whistleblowing Legislation and Research? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 109-127.
Vandekerckhove, W., Uys, T., Rehg, M.T. and Brown, A.J. (2014), “Understandings of
whistleblowing: dilemmas of societal culture”, in Brown, A.J., Moberly, R.E., Lewis, D. and
Vandekerckhove, W. (Eds), International Handbook on Whistleblowing Research, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 37-70.
Warren, D.E. (2003), “Constructive and destructive deviance in organisations”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 622-632.

Corresponding author
Premilla D’Cruz can be contacted at: pdcruz@iima.ac.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com