Whistleblowing: incentives and situational determinants

Abstract Law makers increasingly try to capitalize on individuals having acquired knowledge of corporate crimes or other misconduct by inducing them to blow the whistle. In a laboratory experiment we measure the effectiveness of incentives on the willingness to report such misconduct to a sanctioning authority. We find that fines for non-reporting insiders, rewards, and even simple commands, increase the probability of whistleblowing. We find the strongest effect for fines. Situational determinants also influence the willingness to blow the whistle: Insiders who are negatively affected by the misconduct are more likely to blow the whistle than non-affected or profiting insiders. Those (negatively affected) victims are also sensitive to the misconduct’s impact on the authority sanctioning the misconduct (public authority or employer): Whistleblowing is more likely if the enforcement authority is negatively affected compared to positively or not affected.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Business Economics
Published
2025-02-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-025-01223-0
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Ethics in Business and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.34

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Whistleblowing: incentives and situational determinants

Klaus Ulrich Schmolke, Verena Utikal
2 citations
Journal of Business Economics
Ethics in Business and Education
8.34
article

Whistleblowing: incentives and situational determinants

Klaus Ulrich Schmolke, Verena Utikal
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Law makers increasingly try to capitalize on individuals having acquired knowledge of corporate crimes or other misconduct by inducing them to blow the whistle. In a laboratory experiment we measure the effectiveness of incentives on the willingness to report such misconduct to a sanctioning authority. We find that fines for non-reporting insiders, rewards, and even simple commands, increase the probability of whistleblowing. We find the strongest effect for fines. Situational determinants also influence the willingness to blow the whistle: Insiders who are negatively affected by the misconduct are more likely to blow the whistle than non-affected or profiting insiders. Those (negatively affected) victims are also sensitive to the misconduct’s impact on the authority sanctioning the misconduct (public authority or employer): Whistleblowing is more likely if the enforcement authority is negatively affected compared to positively or not affected.

Journal of Business EconomicsVol. 95(5)
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Seeburg Castle University (AT), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Ethics in Business and Education
8.34
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.