Page 4 - Secrets, Sanctions & Smear Campaigns
P. 4
1.Abstract
This paper examines whistleblowing Organisational and regulatory responses
through an integrated methodology that are shown to be consistently shaped by
combines autoethnography, regulatory political pressure and budgetary
engagement, and empirical analysis.
Drawing on five years of direct imperatives, producing tokenistic
confrontation with one of the world’s procedures and settlements that
most litigious multinationals, alongside prioritise expedience over accountability.
collaboration with sovereign Cultural strategies of institutional
governments and regulatory agencies, betrayal—such as gaslighting, policy-
the study fuses lived experience with washing, and career shelving—further
systematic evidence. The research
integrates survey data from 31,976 corrode trust and credibility.
leaders, qualitative testimony from 203– The paper concludes that whistleblowing
91 whistleblowers, and insights from 10 research and policy are fatally
regulatory professionals, cross- undermined by the absence of
referenced with global legal precedent. enforcement. Current regulators and
My concern is simple: psychological
safety is functionally absent—fear- legal frameworks fail to protect
driven silence and routine retaliation whistleblowers; too often it remains one
turn ‘speak-up’ into theatre unless individual against a global Goliath, with
retaliation is criminalised, remedies are no independent body or meaningful
automatic, and protection is truly recourse. Ethics without enforceable
independent.
protection is performative. Bridging this
Findings highlight systemic failures within gap demands a fully independent
whistleblower protection regimes, statutory regulator with investigative and
including regulatory capture, retaliation, criminal powers, and the criminalisation
and recidivist corporate behaviour where of retribution itself. Protecting those
companies routinely pay fines, admit no who speak out must become a non-
guilt, and avoid accountability.
Whistleblowers are persistently negotiable pillar of institutional
reframed as disruptive actors, while legitimacy.
those who retaliate are shielded by
organisational power and legal
ambiguity. The author’s personal Keywords: Whistleblowing; retaliation;
experience—marked by financial regulatory failure; institutional betrayal;
retaliation, reputational attack, and
severe impacts on family wellbeing— organisational justice; compliance; ethics;
provides a visceral anchor, but every qualitative research; quantitative
conclusion is benchmarked against analysis.
empirical data to ensure rigour rather
than rhetoric.
