Whistleblowing and Sarbanes-Oxley, SWOT Analysis Example

In order to initiate whistle blowing, following four elements must be in place:

• The whistle blower of the individual blowing the whistle
• Any complaint or any offence is reported to the management
• Any internal permanent or contractual employee who is involved in the group of people associated with crimes
• The function or party who has received the complaint of any crime or offence from the people who is blowing the whistle

One cannot say that there may be only noble causes that may lead to blowing a whistle, as this act may result in some advantages in lieu of blowing a whistle. For instance, a false whistle blow can provide incentives to the individual who was considered as the culprit in the plot of committing a crime. Likewise, these people are entitled for any financial recovery that may be collected due to wrong whistle blowing. Moreover, there are cases where people blew whistle just for the cause of taking revenge and sometimes due to achieving personal goals.

The whistle blowing methodology is a debatable issue, as one of the examples of a hospital is surrounded by scandals associated with staff raising issues for patient care standards. Likewise, the employees who blew the whistle can seek protection by legislation by reprising by employer and colleagues. Moreover, they can also bring employment tribunal claims and can be awarded incentives on victory (Blowing the whistle.2014). Further, the malpractices of the law are of many types, as they incorporates damage allegations, health and safety for all employees or any publicly exposed individuals or any fissure in legislative obligations for instance, regulations of the industry. However, for the protection of individual, the allegations must fall in the interest of the public, as it does not need to be factual, as the employee has to practically believe on factual grounds that the allegation is true.

The federal false claim act (FCA) makes the submission of a forged or false claim for government payments unlawful. Likewise, previously, the changes that were made by the congress to the federal false claim act (FCA) were not willing to protracted liability of FCA for entities that are not straight with the payment claims to the government. This is because the decree is specified for referring ‘presenting’ forged or false claims to the government. Actually, in the year 2008, the government’s decision was linked with the Supreme Court’s decision to release funds and forged or false claim made by the sub-contractor was too weak against the FCA protracted liability. Likewise, the response from the congress was strong and the law was passed to directly challenge the Supreme Court’s holding and positively making the sub-contractor accountable along with the extension of protection passing the employees (Maroney & McDevitt, 2008).

Resultantly, SOX and FCA are the two federal laws that tailored for protecting individuals who take initiative and blow whistle on the crimes that are going on. Likewise, the recent elaboration in the FCA, the private and public organizations needs to perform their due diligence and comply to the practices for assuring and detecting corporate crimes in a systematic approach. Moreover, organizations must also have policies specifically focusing on employee behavior and any negative actions that are segregated from the whistle blowing process. Further, the applicability of this policy should be on contractors and other associated employees.

References

Blowing the whistle. (2014). Chemistry & Industry, 78(3), 40-40. doi:10.1002/cind.783_12.x

Maroney, J. J., & McDevitt, R. E. (2008). The effects of moral reasoning on financial reporting decisions in a post sarbanes-oxley environment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20(2), 89-110.