Whistle-blowing and CSR culture in companies
Introduction
Corporate Social responsibility describes the procedures out in place by companies to promote sustainable development through internal policies and programs and targeted investments. CSR’s concepts and ideas are usually embedded in the organisation’s strategy as part of its socially and environmentally acceptable practices as expectations and demand for involvement continue to grow. Also, the rise in scrutiny by the media, governments, and NGOs has motivated companies to engage in socially responsible ventures. Whistle-blowing generally refers to the practice of disclosing illegal or unethical practices to individuals or bodies outside the typical management structures. Concepts on whistleblowing and corporate social responsibility are presented in this paper.
Whistle-blowing and CSR culture in companies
Employee whistleblowing refers to the practice of disclosure of information regarding unsafe unethical or illegal methods to persons or institutions outside the usual channels and management frameworks. The act of speaking out is controlled by the level of retaliation perceived by those working there. That is, if the action of disclosure of information outside the reasonable standards and protocols does not result in any repercussions, then such an act cannot be considered as whistleblowing. The act of speaking out is defined entirely by the retaliation that might be meted on the whistleblower. Dangerous, unethical practices and fraud might warrant people coming out and speaking about some of the illegal practices that are taking place. However, the level of whistleblowing depends on the response and retaliation delivered on those disclosing such information (Mannion & Davies, 2015). One troubling aspect of whistleblowing is that they receive much of the backlash from their peers and colleagues who are content with the unethical or illegal operations taking place.
Retaliation and backlash are often based on fear and insecurities, and this is partly the reason why whistleblowing hardly takes place in the healthcare setting. Only a third of doctors feel that their colleagues support the practice of speaking out as one whistleblower points out that her colleagues stopped considering her as a “team player” because of her actions (Mannion & Davies, 2015). Speaking out usually attracts retaliation and reprimand, particularly from supervisors and directors. However, being shunned by friends and colleagues at the workplace has much higher implications on levels of work satisfaction and morale. Being ignored by colleagues and friends acts as a significant deterrence for those who may want to speak out on the violations taking place at their workplace.
In South Korea, where group-oriented culture is still widespread across several communities, whistleblowing or coming out is much lower compared to the West. South Koreans are generally more willing to give up certain privileges to belong. Although Westerners, may be willing to give up certain degrees of autonomy to belong, they are more likely to open up about malpractices. Togetherness and commitment are considered part of organisational culture and whistleblowing interferes with the sense of belonging in a group (Alford, 2016). Such aspects of corporate culture explain why individuals who speak up get shunned away shut out by their peers and related organisations. As one whistleblower recounts ” once I was fired, no one else would hire me; they were all afraid of someone who might disclose the truth” (Alford, 2016). This points out that organisations are afraid of individuals to dedicate their utmost loyalty to citizens rather than the organisation. Healthcare workers as citizens should recognise that their responsibilities should be devoted to the safety and welfare of their patients and the affected public. However, in several organisations, every act, practice, and ritual of promoting loyalty acts as an attempt to persuade the individual that their loyalty first lies with the organisation. Those in the organisation often perceive such perspectives, regard whistleblowing as defiance and something outside the normal functioning of the company.
The UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) was enacted to provide increased protection and safety to whistleblowers and encourage them to come forward and expose unethical practices. The excellence of the 1998 PIDA Act attracted a lot of interest and was used to design South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act 2000 in addition to receiving positive appraisals from several countries, including New Zealand and the Netherlands. However, there have been questions on whether the UK model provides appropriate protection to individuals who come forward to expose malpractices. The act set out to protect circumstances termed as “qualifying disclosures.” For instance, for security to be accorded, the information must be relevant in regards to the ascribed conditions and should be revealed to appropriate institutions or people. However, several factors and consideration have to been taken into account before it is regarded as “qualifying disclosures.” For a disclosure to be considered as a “qualifying disclosure” it must satisfy several conditions, including qualify as a criminal offence, hint to a failure to follow set down legal obligations, be a miscarriage of justice, endangering the lives of an individual or a group of individuals, or harm the environment (Lewis, 2017). Other general observations concerning these requirements include that fact that disclosures are not limited to confidential information and the fact that there is no requirement for an association between the matter disclosed and worker’s employment.
Also, the disclosure of information may not earn one protection if the individual involved committed an offence in the process of revealing the information. According to critics of the legislation, the public interest provisions of the law create a lot of uncertainty. The general rule that one should report when in doubt, a significant feature in whistleblowing policies, comes into question with regards to this piece of legislation. The existing statutory formula provides no simple objective test with regards to whether the disclosure was carried out in the interest of the public. According to Lewis (2017), there are no clear guidelines concerning the circumstances of disclosure. For instance, it may be sensible to think that a disclosure was made in the public interest. Nowadays, a potential whistleblower has to analyse and make a choice on whether the information they are about to disclose is of public interest or whether it is a personal or minor matter. For example, it can be said that disclosing information on bullying and harassment in a particular company may be of public interest. However, this view might still be dependent on the frequency or nature of the harassment and whether it impacts a few individuals, or it is widespread across the whole organisation.
CSR Culture in Companies
Corporate Social Responsibility refers to procedures set aside by organisations to achieve sustainable development through both internal policies and programs and external community investments. Currently, concepts and ideas on CSR have become fundamentally embedded in an organisation’s strategy as expectations for companies to take part in socially and environmentally acceptable activities continue to grow. Moreover, persistent scrutinising by NGOs, the media, and the government has motivated companies to assume greater social responsibilities and try to address some of the existing societal challenges (Barker, Ingersoll, & Teal, 2014). Overall, organisations today are more willing to incorporate social and environmental sustainability efforts into their primary business operations. Several studies link organisational culture to the level or degree of adoption of corporate social responsibility practices (Barker, Ingersoll, & Teal, 2014). Ideologies and concepts of organisational culture are usually broad and varied and dependent on context. Organisational culture describes a paramount set of patterns, rules, problem-solving and management styles that embody a particular company. According to this view or definition, organisational culture makes up the unitary and collective thought processes of the organisation, thus promoting the realisation of set company objectives. Directors and management often try to pick out their desired values and cultures in their organisation.
The extent to which operations are conducted in an ethical or unethical manner is determined by the values and beliefs that make up the organisational culture, and these values have a significant impact on the implementation of CSR initiatives. The concepts of modern corporate responsibility are said to have originated in the mid and late 1800s, where industrialists and philanthropists like John D. Rockefeller engaged in several charitable causes and events. Despite early variations of cooperate social responsibility, the idealogy was strengthened and challenged in the 1960s by the rise of the environmental movement. The most commonly accepted definition of CSR appeared in the 1970s as a four-part concept of legal, economic, ethical, and philanthropic obligations portrayed as a CSR code (Visser, 2010). In the 1990s, corporate social responsibility was institutionalised with standards like ISO 14001 and SA 8000 and guidelines and laws were forcefully introduced. According to Visser (2010), CSR has tremendously failed to address some of the core issues it was set up to achieve because of several factors collectively referred to as the Triple Curse of Modern CSR. These include Peripheral, Incremental, and Economic CSR. The incremental approach to CSR has been unsuccessful in dealing with the monumental sustainability issues that are currently in existence, many of which are getting worse at the moment. On peripheral CSR, a culture of greed is deeply integrated into the core of several organisations and businesses that have contributed to the sidelining of corporate social responsiveness.
Organisational culture provides the appropriate guiding approach and attitudes; thus, CSR principles and values must be incorporated with organisational beliefs and the overall culture. Moreover, the ethical values and beliefs of management play an integral role in the adoption of CSR initiatives. Acts of philanthropy and generosity define a considerable part of corporate social responsibility programs. Brazil has a longstanding history with corporate philanthropy and a census conducted in 2005 by the Grupo de Institutos, Fundações e Empresas revealed that more than 101 companies spent about $555 million in philanthropic efforts, accounting for about 25% of all donations from private equities and non-profit entities (Alford, 2016). Over the years individual acts of philanthropy in Brazil, have been channeled into well structured CSR frameworks aimed at implementing programs with transformative goals extending beyond charity. As of 2004, Brazil accounted for half of the ISO 14,001 environmental certifications in South America making the country a champion of CSR (Alford, 2016). Organisations and companies in Brazil present a unique case towards the dedication to CSR promotion and coverage that can only be observed in only a handful of other countries, such as Canada.
Individual values play an integral role in the organisational environment, as personal and corporate compatibility impacts the culture of work in the company. There is a strong positive personal correlation between the degree of person-organisation fit and positive emotions towards work. Of growing interests when it comes to the implementation of environmental and social responsibilities is the relationship between existing attributes of management and the application of ethical values and ideals (Alford, 2016). As noted, organisational decisions and choices taken by administration are often influenced by a range of personal attributes and values, besides actual corporate missions and goals. Therefore, CSR performance can be the result of existing management, personal beliefs and values aligning with the set CSR objectives. These values may be expressed through the manager’s ability to assert and exercise authority.
Conclusions
Whistle-blowing and CSR are an integral part of social responsibility and upholding integrity. Whistle-blowing exposes unethical or illegal practices that may have had negative impacts on surrounding communities. Corporate social responsibility may promote the adoption of policies and initiatives that aimed at encouraging sustainability and preservation of environments. The past few years have marked an increase in efforts to promote CSR partly due to the rise in the level of scrutiny by the media, governments and NGOs on organisational operations.
References
Alford, C. F. (2016). What Makes Whistleblowers So Threatening?: Comment on” Cultures of Silence and Cultures of Voice: The Role of Whistleblowing in Healthcare Organisations”. International journal of health policy and management, 5(1), 71.
Barker, B., Ingersoll, L., & Teal, G. (2014). Understanding CSR culture and subcultures: Consensual and conflicting narratives. International Journal of Employment Studies, 22(2), 25.
Duarte, F. (2010). Working with corporate social responsibility in Brazilian companies: The role of managers’ values in the maintenance of CSR cultures. Journal of Business ethics, 96(3), 355-368.
Lewis, D. B. (2017). Nineteen years of whistleblowing legislation in the UK: is it time for a more comprehensive approach?. International Journal of Law and Management.
Mannion, R., & Davies, H. T. (2015). Cultures of silence and cultures of voice: the role of whistleblowing in healthcare organisations. International journal of health policy and management, 4(8), 503.
Visser, W. (2010). The Rise and Fall of CSR, Shapeshifting from CSR 1.0 to CSR 2.0. CSR International Paper Series, (2).