Under which conditions are whistleblowing "best practices" best?

Jian Zhang, Kurt Pany, Philip Reckers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Public companies are required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to establish an anonymous reporting (whistleblowing) channel for employee reporting of questionable accounting practices. Corporate audit committees are provided flexibility in implementing this requirement and a controversial choice is the type of reporting channel. Most commentators argue that "best practices" call for an externally administered "hotline." To examine the efficacy of externally administered versus internally administered channels we conducted a behavioral experiment. Our results reveal a significant main effect with reporting intentions being greater if the hotline is administered externally. We then examine whether this finding is robust across selected environmental and employee-specific conditions and find that it is not. Our results suggest that the primary reporting benefits of an externally administered hotline are for organizations with a history of poor responsiveness to whistleblowing and for employees registering relatively low on the proactivity scale. Specifically, we find that an externally administered hotline obtains higher reporting intentions under conditions wherein a previous incidence of whistleblowing notably failed to achieve a good outcome. Also, this effect is only statistically significant for participants registering as relatively low on a "proactivity" scale.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-181
Number of pages11
JournalAuditing
Volume32
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2013

Fingerprint

Employees
Whistle blowing
Best practice
Proactivity
Audit committee
Responsiveness
Efficacy
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Experiment
Accounting practices

Keywords

  • Anonymous reporting channel
  • Fraudulent financial reporting
  • Proactivity
  • Whistleblowing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Finance
  • Accounting
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Under which conditions are whistleblowing "best practices" best? / Zhang, Jian; Pany, Kurt; Reckers, Philip.

In: Auditing, Vol. 32, No. 3, 08.2013, p. 171-181.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zhang, Jian ; Pany, Kurt ; Reckers, Philip. / Under which conditions are whistleblowing "best practices" best?. In: Auditing. 2013 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 171-181.
@article{1d8650cc2d1f41d18a0f47b7347fa53a,
title = "Under which conditions are whistleblowing {"}best practices{"} best?",
abstract = "Public companies are required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to establish an anonymous reporting (whistleblowing) channel for employee reporting of questionable accounting practices. Corporate audit committees are provided flexibility in implementing this requirement and a controversial choice is the type of reporting channel. Most commentators argue that {"}best practices{"} call for an externally administered {"}hotline.{"} To examine the efficacy of externally administered versus internally administered channels we conducted a behavioral experiment. Our results reveal a significant main effect with reporting intentions being greater if the hotline is administered externally. We then examine whether this finding is robust across selected environmental and employee-specific conditions and find that it is not. Our results suggest that the primary reporting benefits of an externally administered hotline are for organizations with a history of poor responsiveness to whistleblowing and for employees registering relatively low on the proactivity scale. Specifically, we find that an externally administered hotline obtains higher reporting intentions under conditions wherein a previous incidence of whistleblowing notably failed to achieve a good outcome. Also, this effect is only statistically significant for participants registering as relatively low on a {"}proactivity{"} scale.",
keywords = "Anonymous reporting channel, Fraudulent financial reporting, Proactivity, Whistleblowing",
author = "Jian Zhang and Kurt Pany and Philip Reckers",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.2308/ajpt-50451",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "171--181",
journal = "Auditing",
issn = "0278-0380",
publisher = "American Accounting Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Under which conditions are whistleblowing "best practices" best?

AU - Zhang, Jian

AU - Pany, Kurt

AU - Reckers, Philip

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Public companies are required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to establish an anonymous reporting (whistleblowing) channel for employee reporting of questionable accounting practices. Corporate audit committees are provided flexibility in implementing this requirement and a controversial choice is the type of reporting channel. Most commentators argue that "best practices" call for an externally administered "hotline." To examine the efficacy of externally administered versus internally administered channels we conducted a behavioral experiment. Our results reveal a significant main effect with reporting intentions being greater if the hotline is administered externally. We then examine whether this finding is robust across selected environmental and employee-specific conditions and find that it is not. Our results suggest that the primary reporting benefits of an externally administered hotline are for organizations with a history of poor responsiveness to whistleblowing and for employees registering relatively low on the proactivity scale. Specifically, we find that an externally administered hotline obtains higher reporting intentions under conditions wherein a previous incidence of whistleblowing notably failed to achieve a good outcome. Also, this effect is only statistically significant for participants registering as relatively low on a "proactivity" scale.

AB - Public companies are required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to establish an anonymous reporting (whistleblowing) channel for employee reporting of questionable accounting practices. Corporate audit committees are provided flexibility in implementing this requirement and a controversial choice is the type of reporting channel. Most commentators argue that "best practices" call for an externally administered "hotline." To examine the efficacy of externally administered versus internally administered channels we conducted a behavioral experiment. Our results reveal a significant main effect with reporting intentions being greater if the hotline is administered externally. We then examine whether this finding is robust across selected environmental and employee-specific conditions and find that it is not. Our results suggest that the primary reporting benefits of an externally administered hotline are for organizations with a history of poor responsiveness to whistleblowing and for employees registering relatively low on the proactivity scale. Specifically, we find that an externally administered hotline obtains higher reporting intentions under conditions wherein a previous incidence of whistleblowing notably failed to achieve a good outcome. Also, this effect is only statistically significant for participants registering as relatively low on a "proactivity" scale.

KW - Anonymous reporting channel

KW - Fraudulent financial reporting

KW - Proactivity

KW - Whistleblowing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880836815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880836815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2308/ajpt-50451

DO - 10.2308/ajpt-50451

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84880836815

VL - 32

SP - 171

EP - 181

JO - Auditing

JF - Auditing

SN - 0278-0380

IS - 3

ER -