This paper examines whistleblowing through both ethical and legal lenses, using the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" as an opening analogy for the tension between loyalty and truth-telling. It surveys the key legal frameworks governing whistleblower protection in the United States, with particular attention to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and its predecessor, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The paper also addresses the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct's confidentiality rules and the landmark case of United States v. Textron Inc., illustrating how professional obligations can complicate whistleblower decisions. The author concludes that while legal protections exist, their practical effectiveness remains uncertain.
The old story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a perfect analogy for the modern issue of whistleblowing. The boy who exposed the Emperor for being naked — when everyone else was too afraid to speak up — made himself a hero in some ways, but a scandalmonger in others. When is it right to stand up and speak the truth for the sake of others, and when is it better to keep quiet for the sake of peace and loyalty? The answers to these questions have both legal and ethical implications.
From an ethical standpoint, whistleblowing is extremely subjective. A great deal depends on the individual's own moral compass, personal values, and the level of loyalty he or she feels toward an employer. A person torn between a sense of obligation to an employer and a commitment to doing the right thing for the greatest number of people can find themselves in a hauntingly ambiguous position. From a legal standpoint, subjectivity is still a factor; however, the legal directives are much more clear and objective than the ethical issues.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is the most notable legal resource for whistleblowers because it specifically states that retaliation against whistleblowers is illegal and subject to both a monetary fine and up to ten years in prison. Section 1107 of SOX, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), states that:
"Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any federal offense, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both" (cited in Kohn, 2008).
SOX's predecessor, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, only protected government employees. SOX, by contrast, is designed to protect any type of corporate employee who works for a publicly traded company. In addition, "as part of the mandated audit committee function, publicly traded corporations must also establish procedures for employees to file internal whistleblower complaints, and procedures which would protect the confidentiality of employees who file allegations with the audit committee" (Kohn, 2008).
"Low win rates reveal SOX's practical limitations"
"AICPA Rule 301 versus SOX in Textron case"
While there are both ethical and legal issues involved in whistleblowing cases, the legal rules tend to be more straightforward than the moral ones. However, there is undoubtedly a great deal of ambiguity involved in both types of decisions. Any person contemplating blowing the whistle on their employer needs to understand that while whistleblower laws are designed to protect them, that does not always mean that they will.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.