Risky Rescues and the Duty to Blow the Whistle
University of Greenwich Business School
Eva E. Tsahuridu
affiliation not provided to SSRN
May 5, 2010
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97
This paper argues that while the idea of whistleblowing as a positive duty to do good or to prevent harm may be defendable, legislating that duty is not feasible. We develop our argument by identifying rights and duties involved in whistleblowing as two clusters: one of justice and one of benevolence.
Legislative arguments have evolved to cover the justice issues and the tendency exists of extending rights and duties into the realm of benevolence.
The paper considers the problematic assumptions and implications of whistleblowing as a positive duty, by examining the extent to which the Good Samaritan argument holds with regard to whistleblowing.
We argue that three criteria necessary for whistleblowing as a legally enforceable positive duty are not met, namely that we need to be able to (1) specify who should know what, (2) minimise the risk to the whistleblower, and (3) adequately deal with mistaken concerns being raised.
Keywords: duty, legislation, obligation, right, whistleblowing, whistleblowing policies
JEL Classification: J53, J59, M12, M14
Date posted: December 12, 2010
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.422 seconds