whilstleblowing in mozambique

Jose Mani Samuel Student No. 72117109

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 1: ................................................................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Mozambique context and whistle-blowing protection .............................................................. 10

1.3 Evidence of the impact of study ...................................................................................................... 12

1.4 Problem statement ........................................................................................................................... 14

1.5 Research objectives ......................................................................................................................... 15

1.6 Research hypotheses/questions ....................................................................................................... 16

1.6.1 Hypothesis 1............................................................................................................................. 16

In Mozambican state owned companies, there are formal policies in place but the policies are not

applied consistently. .......................................................................................................................... 16

1.6.2 Hypothesis 2............................................................................................................................. 16

There is no enough information about where and how to blow the whistle in state owned

companies. ........................................................................................................................................ 16

1.6.3 Hypothesis 3............................................................................................................................. 18

Lack of faith in management integrity .............................................................................................. 18

1. 6.4 Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................................................................ 18

There is impunity of persons in positions of power........................................................................... 18

1.7 Scope of the study ..................................................................................................................... 19

1.8 Structure of theresearch ............................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 1: Background to the study .................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 2: Theoretical/conceptual framework .................................................................................. 20

Chapter 3: Literature review ............................................................................................................. 20

Chapter 4: Research design and methods ........................................................................................ 20

Chapter 5: Presentation and discussion of the research results ......................................................... 20

Chapter 6: Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 7: Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 23

Theoretical/conceptual framework ....................................................................................................... 23

2.1 History of whistle-blowing ............................................................................................................. 23

2.2 The concept of whistle-blowing ...................................................................................................... 24

2.3 Types of whistle-blowers ................................................................................................................ 26


2.4 Whistle-blowing programs .............................................................................................................. 27

2.5Types of whistle-blowing ................................................................................................................ 27

2.5.1 Internal whistle-blowing .......................................................................................................... 27

2.5.2 External whistle-blowing ......................................................................................................... 30

2.5.3 Anonymous whistle-blowing ................................................................................................... 30

2.6 Reasons to blow the whistle ............................................................................................................ 33

2.6.1 Whistle-blowing and public interest ........................................................................................ 33

2.6.2 Whistle-blowing and ethical principles .................................................................................... 34

2.6.3 Whistle-blowing and moral obligations ................................................................................... 36

2.7 When to blow the whistle................................................................................................................ 36

2.8 Reasons for not blowing the whistle ............................................................................................... 39

2.9 Implications of whistle-blowing ..................................................................................................... 39

2.10 Whistle-blowing and organizational culture ................................................................................. 40

2.11 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 44

Literature review ................................................................................................................................... 44

3.1 Whistle-blowingtheories ................................................................................................................. 44

3.1.1 The reinforcement theory ......................................................................................................... 45

3.1.2 The expectancy theory .............................................................................................................. 45

3.1.3 The efficacy theory ................................................................................................................... 45

3.1.4 The threat of retaliation theory ................................................................................................ 45

3.1.5 The positional behavioural theory ........................................................................................... 45

3.1.6 Resource-based dependency theory ......................................................................................... 46

3.1.7 Power distance theory .............................................................................................................. 46

3.1.8 Uncertainty avoidance theory .................................................................................................. 47

3.2Whistle-blowing societal dimension ................................................................................................ 48

3.3 Factors that influence Whistle-blowing .......................................................................................... 49

3.4 Whistle-blowing protection initiatives ............................................................................................ 50

3.4.1 United Nations conventions on whistle-blowingprotection ..................................................... 51

3.4.2 Sarbanes-Oxley act .................................................................................................................. 51

3.4.3 African and southern Africaprotection Initiatives ................................................................... 52

3.5 What to consider when introducing and implementing whistle-blowing policy............................. 54

3.6 Whistle-blowing awareness and evaluation mechanisms ............................................................... 56

3.7 whistle-blowing policy framework ................................................................................................. 57


3.7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 57

3.7.2 Purpose of the Policy ............................................................................................................... 57

3.7.3 Related documents to support whistle-blowing policy ............................................................ 58

3.7.4 Required definitions in the whistle-blowing policy ................................................................. 58

3.7.5 Whistle-blowing policy statement ........................................................................................... 59

3.7.6 Reporting system for the whistle-blowing policy .................................................................... 59

3.7.7 Protected disclosure coordinator .............................................................................................. 60

3.7.8 Anonymous disclosure ............................................................................................................. 60

3.7.9 Disclosure methods .................................................................................................................. 60

3.7.10 Roles and responsibilities in the whistle-blowing policy ....................................................... 60

3.7.11 Employees of state owned companies ................................................................................... 60

3.7.12 Protected disclosure coordinator ................................................................................................ 61

3.7.13 Whistle-blowing Investigator ..................................................................................................... 62

3.7.14 Whistle-blower welfare manager ........................................................................................... 62

3.7.15 Whistle-blowing confidentiality ............................................................................................ 63

3.7.16 Collation and publication of statistics .................................................................................... 64

3.7.17 Reception and assessment of disclosures ............................................................................... 64

3.7.18 Investigation of reported malpractices ................................................................................... 64

3.7.19 Terms of reference the investigations .................................................................................... 65

3.7.20 Investigation plan ................................................................................................................... 65

3.7.21 Natural justice ........................................................................................................................ 66

3.7.22 Conduct of the investigation .................................................................................................. 66

3.7.23 Whistle-blowing reporting requirements ............................................................................... 66

3.8 Reporting of actions ........................................................................................................................ 67

3.8.1 Investigator’s Final Report ...................................................................................................... 67

3.8.2 Actions to be taken ................................................................................................................... 68

3.9Management of the welfare of the whistle-blower .......................................................................... 68

3.9.1Commitment to protect whistle-blowers ................................................................................... 68

3.9.2Keeping the whistle-blower informed ....................................................................................... 69

3.9.3 Occurrence of detrimental action ............................................................................................ 69

3.9.4 Whistle-blowers implicated in improper conduct .................................................................... 70

3.9.5 Management of the person against whom the disclosure has been made ................................ 71

3.9.6 Whistle-blowing Review Process ............................................................................................. 72

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 73


4.1 Research design and methods ......................................................................................................... 73

4.2 Research sample .............................................................................................................................. 75

4.3 Research procedure: methods of data collection ............................................................................. 75

4.3.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 75

4.3. 2 Questionnaires ........................................................................................................................ 76

Chapter 5: .............................................................................................................................................. 77

5.1 Presentation and discussion of the research results......................................................................... 77

Hypothesis 1.......................................................................................................................................... 77

Hypothesis 2.......................................................................................................................................... 79


companies. ........................................................................................................................................ 79

Hypothesis 3.......................................................................................................................................... 81

Hypothesis 4.......................................................................................................................................... 86


5.2 Analysis of the research results ....................................................................................................... 89


companies. ........................................................................................................................................ 90

Lack of faith in management integrity .............................................................................................. 92


Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 96

Chapter 6: .............................................................................................................................................. 98

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 98

References ........................................................................................................................................... 102


Figure 1Research Sequence adapted from Hassan (2010) .................................................................... 22

Figure 2the internal whistle-blowing process adapted from Miceli et al (2008) .................................. 29

Figure 3Anonymous adapted from Celland and Dehn (2004) .............................................................. 32

Figure 4Situational and organizational variables affecting whistle-blowing adapted from Near and

Miceli (1985) ........................................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 5Individual Variables that Affect Whistle-blowing Source: Near and Miceli (1995) ............... 50

Figure 6 Existence of whistle-blowing processes and procedures ........................................................ 77

Figure 7Existence of ethics officer in state owned companies ............................................................. 78

Figure 8 Awareness of whistle-blowing protection mechanism available ............................................ 78

Figure 9 Applicability of whistle-blowing processes and procedures to all staff ................................. 79

Figure 10 Familiarity with whistle-blowing processes and procedures ................................................ 80

Figure 11 Awareness of whistle-blowing protections mechanism........................................................ 80

Figure 12Whistle-blowing is part of employee’s job ............................................................................ 81

Figure 13not sure to who report to ........................................................................................................ 81

Figure 14 Whistle-blowing protection law is one more regulation to have on paper ........................... 82

Figure 15 expected changes with the new law ...................................................................................... 82

Figure 16Anonymous whistle-blowing to the enforcement authority .................................................. 83

Figure 17 Anonymous whistle-blowing within the organization .......................................................... 83

Figure 18 whistle-blowing protection law effectiveness ...................................................................... 84

Figure 19 Effectiveness of new whistle-blowing protection law .......................................................... 84

Figure 20 blowing the whistle through the media ................................................................................. 85

Figure 21 Actions taken after whistle-blowing ..................................................................................... 86

Figure 22 Management of funds in state owned companies ................................................................. 87

Figure 23 Abuse of authority in state owned companies ...................................................................... 87

Figure 24 Types of retaliation ............................................................................................................... 88

Figure 25 Findings from interviews testing hypothesis 1 ..................................................................... 89

Figure 26 Summary of findings for awareness on whistle-blowing ..................................................... 90

Figure 27 Survey results for faith in Management................................................................................ 92

Figure 28 Impunity for persons in position of power .......................................................................... 93

Figure 29 Retaliation employees believe that may face ........................................................................ 94


Acknowledgements

Words alone are not enough to express my heartfelt gratitude to have this programme heading

to the end.

I am heartily thankful to my supervisor Mrs M.S Vettori, whose encouragement, supervision

and the support from the preliminary to the concluding level enabled me to develop an

understanding of the subject. It could not have been possible with her guidance to complete

this dream. I had many times to understand her strongly and believe that I will make it.

I owe my deepest gratitude to my wife Nilsa Costa Chilengue Samuel and my lovely

daughter Lilian Julieta Jose Mani for their encouragement, patience, support and

understanding. It is to them that this work is dedicated.

It would be totally impossible without a support from Professor Rebana Mmereki who

accepted to have an academic view of the paper, to whom I would like to express my sincere

gratitude. God bless you Professor.

Lastly, I offer my regards and blessings to all my workmates who, when sometime I neglected my

duties backed me up. However, my appreciation also goes to all study group members who always

gave their support and encouragement during the hectic time with work. I owe a tremendous debt of

gratitude and appreciation to Miss Chanda Mazana, Mrs Rudo Nthobatsang not forgetting Messer’s

Blessing Chindzindzi and Everton Maisiri who from as far away as Botswana and China continued to

provide their support.


Executive Summary

Whistle-blowers play a vital role in exposing corruption, fraud and mismanagement and in

preventing disasters that arise from negligence or wrongdoing. Globally, whistle-blowers

have revealed cover-up and other activities that otherwise would threaten the society at a

large.

In order to protect the public good, whistleblowers expose themselves to high personal risks.

The most known whistleblowers in Mozambique are Siba-Siba Macuacua and Carlos

Cardoso who paid their integrity with their lives. Nevertheless, rather than being heard and

praised for their courage, most whistleblowers face indifference or mistrust and their reports

are not properly investigated. The only investigated case in Mozambique relates to Carlos

Cardoso, which was probably due to pressure from the donor community. Eleven years after,

nobody knows who ordered neither who executed Antonio Siba-Saba Macuacua.

However, the value and importance of whistle-blowing in the fight against corruption is

increasingly being recognized. International conventions commit the signatory countries to

implement appropriate legislation, and an increasing number of governments are willing to

put related regulations in place. Ever more companies, public bodies and non-profit

organizations put whistle-blowing mechanisms in place for effective risk management and to

ensure safe and accountable workplaces.

Legal frameworks are essential in supporting this practice, provided they ensure full

protection of the whistle-blower as well as adequate and independent follow-up to the

disclosure. Given that whistleblowers are in most cases insiders who are the first to detect

wrongdoing, functioning internal whistle-blowing systems are excellent tools for effective

risk management in organizations.

With the aim of contributing to more effective whistle-blowing frameworks and protection

mechanisms in Mozambique, this research assessed the whistle-blowing legislation, polices

and the perceived protection available to employees of the state owned companies who come

forward to report any malpractice.


Chapter 1:

Generally we don’t need to justify an act unless we have reason to think it is wrong and we

also do need a justification if we believe that the act in question is wrong – Michael Davis

1.1 Introduction

Mozambique is located in Southern Africa and it is bordered by Tanzania in the north,

Madagascar in the Indian Ocean on the east, South Africa and Swaziland in the south,

Zimbabwe on the west, whereas Zambia and Malawi on its north-western side. The total land

area of Mozambique is 799 390 square kilometres with estimated total population of about

21,669,278 million people according to the statistics of 2009 from the Institute of National

Statistics of Mozambique)

The Mozambican business environment has been changing since 1992 after the signing of the

peace agreement between Frelimo and Renamo. This was followed by the introduction of a

multi-party system, changing from closed economy to an open market economy with huge

investments taking place.

The economic boom encouraged greedy managers to take advantages to enrich themselves

financially primarily because law enforcement and protection mechanisms for reporting

unlawful activities were not clear.

In Mozambique, reporting misconducts is commonly based on anonymous letters to the

supervising authorities, newspapers and TV channels. In many cases reporting is triggered

by managers who lose their benefits from the transgressions perpetrated in those

organizations.

Whistle-blowing is relevant to all organizations and all people, because every business and

every public body faces the risk of things going wrong.

Whistle-blowers are viewed under two different perspectives in the society. According to

Boyle (1990), whistle-blowers play an important role in the society by “helping to fill the

gaps in the regulatory structure that is intended to check the abuse of organizational power”

whereas Barnett (1992) pointed out that, “whistle-blowers are seen as figures of controversy,

disloyal traitors and troublemakers who sell out their employers for personal gains”.

Near and Miceli (1998) on the other hand noted that “unless the culture, practice and the law

indicate that it is safe and acceptable for employees to raise a genuine concern about


malpractice or illegality, employees will not assume the risk of victimization, losing jobs and

damaging their career”.

Around the word, fraud is common. The Enron and WorldCom scandals are notable

examples and Mozambique is not immune from the occurrence of this as was the case of

Mozambique Airport Scandal

The Mozambique airport scandal was brought to justice after anonymous letters were sent to

media that the CEO of the company was embezzling the company’s funds. It should be noted

that the pivotal element on pronouncing was someone who benefited from the wrongdoing

and on finding himself excluded from the benefits he decided to blow the whistle.

As result of the proceedings, the Maputo City Court on 27 February year?? Sentenced the

former chairperson of the publicly owned Mozambique Airports Company (ADM), Diodino

Cambaza, to 22 years imprisonment for his role in embezzlement of almost 91 million

meticais which was equivalent to 3.3 million dollars based on exchange rate when case was

on court.

Along with Diodino Cambaza, Judge Dimas Marroa also sentenced the former ADM

financial director, Antenor Pereira, and the former Minister of Transport, Antonio

Munguambe, to 20 years for their role in the scandal.

Authors such as Culp (1995), De Maria (1999) and Felt and O’Connor (2006) agree that

there is no safe procedure nor accepted way to blow the whistle. In Mozambique the Siba-

Siba and Carlos Cardoso murders are self-explantory.

António Siba-Siba Macuácua was due to submit a report on the financial situation of Austral

Bank, the largest commercial bank in Mozambique, when he was murdered, in the bank's

offices on 11 August 2001. As the Director of the Department of Banking Supervision at the

Central Bank, he had been made acting chairman of Austral Bank to oversee its re-

privatization. Before his death, he published a list of the bank's debtors, and tracked down

and cancelled bogus contracts linked to the ruling class. His murder to this day remains

unresolved.


Carlos Cardoso after independence also worked in government media since 1980; then

worked as Samora Machel Adviser. He was imprisoned after Samora Machel was murdered

and when released from prison, founded an independent press. He was shot dead on 22

November 2000, while investigating a 14 Million dollars fraud connected with the

privatization of Mozambique’s largest bank, The Commercial Bank of Mozambique:

Whistle-blowing has gained recognition worldwide as an important means of ensuring the

transparency and integrity of global markets. This is due to the contribution of insiders with

information about wrongdoings that would otherwise be hard to obtain.

According to Miceli and Near (1985, 1998), the increase in the numbers of whistle-blowing

cases worldwide is linked to serious wrongdoings such as dangers to the community, large

sum of money misappropriated, strong evidence about the malpractices that are perpetrated

by managers and/ or organizations. It has also been linked to the perceived likelihood that

the wrongdoing would be corrected through an organizational atmosphere of openness that

encourages openly speaking within clear reporting channels.

Worldwide, hotlines have become the dominant mechanism for whistle-blowing. This

supports the idea of anonymity which, according to Dworkin (2007), is based on the premise

of fear of retaliation preventing the observers of wrongdoings from coming forward openly.

The internal complaint reporting mechanism in Mozambique, whether it is in the state owned

companies or government bodies has been based on “suggestion boxes”, placed in an open

area where the management, from time to time would open the boxes and see what has been

reported. However, so far, there has been no report of results from any suggestion boxes

placed in public institutions or state owned companies.

This suggests that either people don’t deposit their concerns or the management doesn’t use

the suggestion boxes to inform the wider public of any concerns raised

1.2 Mozambique context and whistle-blowing protection

Mozambique is considered to be a democracy success story in the Southern Africa region.

This “success” has brought along a remarkable foreign investment which when combined

with the long period in which Mozambique went through internal fighting has , created

system that lacks of transparency in all state affairs.


The influx of foreign investors brought along with it greedy managers no regard for the rule

of law. They embarked in mismanagement, fund embezzlement and many other corporate

wrongdoings as demonstrated by Mozambique airport scandal as well as the Austral Bank

collapse.

This can be testified by the scandals revealed in the independent media, which unfortunately

had not been followed with proper investigation by those tasked with enforcement structures.

Although the country is considered a market economy, according to the US department of

state, the institutional framework for transparency is very weak with considerable

shortcomings in the area of business law, labour regulations, taxes, registration’ and is also

burdened by a huge administrative bureaucracy.

To worsen the situation, the majority of members of the Parliament (from the Frelimo ruling

party) have refused to include in the parliamentary discussions any proposal for drafting a

policy on conflict of interest from members of parliament serving as board members in the

state owned companies. The proposal was based on the premise that the members of

parliament were to provide an oversight responsibility for their own management in state

owned companies.

Since his first term in office in 2004, and in response to international community pressure,

President Armando Guebuza pledged in addition to building state transparency, to fight

corruption through the establishment of ant-corruption initiatives.

However, the report produced by USAID in 2005, stated that “in spite of the government’s

strong (declared) stance against the corruption and donor pressure to enhance transparency

and accountability corruption remained rampant across the country almost causing a state

capture at higher levels of government”.

Macamo (2006) went further to say that despite all the public intention displayed by President

Armando Guebuza, “with the course of political developments taking place in the country it

would be difficult to build a transparent, accountable and on the rule of law environment”.

This was later supported by the US state report released in 2007.

Mozambican constitution guarantees individual rights and the independence of the court.

However, as reported by global integrity report 2007, intimidation of witness and freeing of

key suspects is still occurring.


These following statements to mention a few are based on studies conducted across the

country. The corruption perception index (2011), pointed that within scale of 0 – 10

Mozambique scored 2.7. The country ranked 120 out of 180 globally and 24 out of 48 in Sub-

Saharan region. The Heritage Foundation’s index of Economic freedom of 2012, ranked

Mozambique 27 on a scale of 0 to 100, and being 15th

out of 46 in Sub-Saharan region. All

these factors have lead donors to show dissatisfaction, embarking almost in a strike in 20101

Due to its recent past, Mozambique is regarded as bureaucratic country. According to Pillay

and Dorasamy (2011), bureaucratic countries are associated with problems around

accountability and irregularity.

With this in mind, Mozambique made some attempts to introduce a Protected Disclosure Act

in early 2012 aiming at encouraging employees and all citizens to disclose information on

unlawful or irregular conduct.

The purpose of this dissertation is to analyse the whistle-blowing process, the whistle-

blowers protection and how to assist in the elimination of corruption in Mozambique.

Reference will be made to amongst others the UN conventions, the USA Sarbanes-Oxley,

and the South African Protection Disclosure Act.

1.3 Evidence of the impact of study

Like many other African countries, Mozambique has not been immune to financial scandals

in state owned companies. For Example, top senior managers of Mozambique cellular

company (MCEL), Mozambican mobile phone leading company, were discharged from their

duties after media allegations that they apparently did not prevent financial scandals

involving local business entrepreneurs doing business with the company causing a loss of 7.9

Million dollars.

The Mozambican Tax Authority (AT) has ordered the public sale of goods imported by a

company that defrauded Mozambique’s major provider of cell phone services out of 276

million meticais (about 7.9 million dollars).

The company in reference is Modas Niza, which was one of the main channels used by the

mobile phone company Mcel to sell pre-paid phone cards to its customers. Mcel managers


allowed Modas Niza to run up huge debts, and this scandal led to the removal of two

members of the Mcel board, Luis Mhula and Gomes Zita

In May 2009 the general director of Mozambique's National Social Security Institute (INSS),

confirmed allegations from the media that between 2004 and 2009 the INSS delegation in the

western province of Tete embezzled about 453,000 US dollars.

As at the time writing of this research, new allegations are again in the media, pointing for a

fund’s mismanagement, where the same INSS is paying about 900,000 dollars in

procurements granted to a company without proper bidding process.

Less than one week after the above allegations, again based on information blown by

employees, using anonymous letters to the media, the same INSS is reported as paying

250,000 US dollars for the refurbishing of a two bedroom house for the managing director.

On the same newspaper, it is said that INSS has paid the equivalent to 7.5 Million USD

dollars for a house for the non-executive chairperson.

In 2010, Mozambique Postal Company was in the spotlight when employees of the state

owned company sent anonymous letter to the media, claiming that the board of directors was

undergoing funds mismanagement. Using the media, in 20 August 2010, employees stated

that in 2009, they presented to Ministry of Transports and Communication in Mozambique,

the supervising body for Mozambique Postal Company, that the CEO was mismanaging the

company equity.

According to the group of employees who signed the letter, they opted to approach the media

after all attempts made through the official entities failed to correct the situation.

Right before this alleged claims, the CEO of management Institute for the state owned

companies (IGEPE), the State Board responsible to oversee all state owned companies was

fired after allegations of funds embezzlement and mismanagement of companies’ affairs.

This move was initiated after allegations in the media raised anonymously by employees of

the IGEPE.

In an independent weekly magazine Savana of 17th

of March 2012, it has been noticed, after

receiving anonymous letter from employees, that the equity of Mozambique

Telecommunication Company was being subject of a deliberate misappropriation by the top


executives. There was no comment from top management of Mozambique

Telecommunication Company neither from the responsible government oversight body, the

Ministry of Transport and Communications.

In all the above mentioned case it has never been reported that any internal mechanism in

those state owned companies were put in place to curb malpractices. The only thing known is

that in all cases, there has never been any known action to prevent malpractices using reports

from the media as evidence. Also, if actions were taken, those actions were never brought to

the attention of the public.

Looking to all stated facts, by conducting this study the aim is to understand the reasons why

almost all wrongdoings are reported through the media. By understanding the reasons why

the disclosures of wrongdoings are brought up through the media, draft a framework whereby

stated owned companies may be guided through in order to create an environment where

malpractices are genuinely reported within the organization or through any statutory body.

1.4 Problem statement

As stated earlier, historically, since independence, reporting wrongdoing in Mozambique has

been based on “complain Boxes”, placed usually in the main entry of the institutions. The

current reporting of events on wrongdoings based on anonymous letters to the supervising

authorities through newspapers, TV channels and all other possible available media sources

has become possible after the introduction of independent media in Mozambique.

There is a claim that at present there is no effective authority, neither a willingness to curb

malpractices within state owned companies. These claims point to the fact that employees

will not be protected when embarking in whistle-blowing.

The main objective of this research is to investigate and identify the reasons why reporting on

wrongdoing is done anonymously. Based on that, design mechanisms whereby the reporting

process can be transparent, based on sustainable facts and create a mechanism that the

reporter can feel safe with clear protections mechanism in place along with the enforcement

procedures for that mechanism.


The study aims also to understand why potential whistle-blowers within Mozambican context

remain silent; further the study will provide a way forward that all wrongdoings can be

reported and whoever comes forward can feel comfortable to embark on whistle-blowing..

1.5 Research objectives

The overall objectives of this study are:

1. To identify the reasons why wrongdoing reporting in public enterprises is done in

anonymity;

2. To evaluate the protection mechanisms available in the public sector for reporters of

wrongdoing and

3. To come up with recommendations on what should be done in order to minimize

anonymous reporting and create a safe environment where any stakeholder can report a

wrongdoing and feel protected.

The specific objectives are:

1. To help reduce fund embezzlement in Public and State Owned companies by

ensuring that all malpractices must be reported and the reporters are fully protected;

2. To promote public and timely denouncement of wrongdoing;

3. To contribute to the improvement of protection of Whistle-blowers as well as

to hold accountable all employees whoknowing the existence of wrongdoing do not report

it internally or externally;

4. To critically analyse the legislation on employee protection and enforcement

mechanisms against employees who embark in malpractices;

5. To raise among the Mozambican employees that whistle-blowing is a

protected act and that managers who fail to protect genuine Whistle-blowers will be held

accountable and brought to the rule of law whenever required;

6. To critically analyse the legislation and other frameworks that deal with the

protection of whistle-blowers and propose possible enforcement Mechanisms to protect

legitimate Whistle-blowers and

7. To raise awareness among all employees that by not reporting any

malpractice witnessed,such employees will be held accountable .


1.6 Research hypotheses/questions

, according to Creswell (1994), research is an inquiry, with the aim of collecting data to

come up with conclusions, facts or principles; one such format of research is the one that

employs a guiding hypothesis, followed by sub-questions or make use of a “ground tour”

question .

In doing research, a researcher asks for the purpose of gaining knowledge or useful

information on a topic, to determine possibilities and gain valuable insights. It will be on this

premises that this research will be carried out.

1.6.1 Hypothesis 1

In Mozambican state owned companies, there are formal policies in place but the policies are

not applied consistently.

Background

The rule based organizations are those that reinforce the necessity to comply with detailed

rules and laws. Principle-based organizations are those that reinforce the need to apply

overall principles in ethical decisions. Dillard and Yuthas (2002) suggest that “individuals

make better decisions in principle-based organizations than in rule-based organization”.

Mozambican state owned companies are organizations governed by policies and procedures,

which according to the news coming from the media suggest that management on these

organizations does not always apply these policies.

1.6.2 Hypothesis 2


companies.

Background

Open communication in organizations is paramount. The flow of information must be

sufficient to enable all stakeholders to have a clear picture of what is happening in the

organization. Of particular relevance in this regard are concerns that have been raised and a

determination of the kind oft actions that have been taken as a consequence of any grievance


or raised concern. This will result in any misunderstanding within the organization being

averted. Consequently the real situation cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

after careful investigation, of some of the cases reported in the media by employees

regarding malpractices in the workplace, the allegations were found not to be evidence based

and that the process followed to blow the whistle ended up violating the constitutional rights

of a Mozambican citizen. A Former ministry of Interior was alleged of mismanagement and

fund embezzlement and after a careful investigation by the court; the result was that the

minister was not guilty of any alleged wrongdoing he was accused of.


1.6.3 Hypothesis 3

Lack of faith in management integrity

Background

Conceptually, according to Near and Miceli (1995), whistle-blowing is a two stage process.

In the process, the Whistle-blower first attempts to report the wrongdoing internally and if

internally it is not resolved the Whistle-blower may decide to report the wrongdoing

externally.

Although, whistle-blowing is conceptually conceived as a dual process, however depending

on the circumstances, the Whistle-blower, may decide to report the wrongdoing to an external

party right at the onset it. It may happen this way, when the Whistle-blower perceives that,

the matter would not receive an appropriate response and that the only way to secure an

appropriate response is to report the matter to an external entity.

According to Mayer et al. (1995)at a general level, trust is willingness to accept vulnerability

based on positive expectations about another’s intention or behaviours According to Uzzi

(1997), trust represents positive assumptions, which turns the decision making more efficient.

In McEvily et al (2003)’s view, in organizations where the emphasis is placed on the direct

effects that trust has in communication, conflict management, negotiation processes and

satisfaction, it creates an environment where behaviour is conducive to obtain cooperation

and high performance.

Whistle-blowing is considered as being the end result of a decision making process subject to

several influences as perceived by the potential whistle-blower. Near and Miceli (2005)

argued that “individuals who observe wrongdoing are more likely to blow the whistle if they

believe their whistle-blowing will be effective. This is based on the fact that the intention of a

Whistle-blower is to exert power to change the behaviour of some member(s) of the

organization in order to terminate the wrongdoing.

1. 6.4 Hypothesis 4

There is impunity of persons in positions of power


Background

The relative power of the transgressor plays a crucial importance on the intention to blow the

whistle. As stated by Near and Miceli (1995), while the less powerful employees are

sometimes involved in wrongdoing, it is the senior and the more powerful employees who

commit acts of greatest harm to their organizations and society.

Based on their assumptions, they proposed that the power of the wrongdoer may be based on

his/her position in the hierarchy, professional status, tenure, support from superiors and

membership of majority group. In Mozambique the managers of all major state owned

companies are appointed based on their political affiliation with the ruling party.

1.7 Scope of the study

The scope of the study is limited in terms of content and space. It will analyse the impact of

whistle-blowing within the State Owned Companies in Mozambique, by looking at the

alleged cases of malpractices of senior managers reported through anonymous whistle-

blowing. This study will take place in Maputo the Capital of Mozambique where most of the

state owned companies have their headquarters.

in pursuit of the objectives of the study, I will be looking at reported cases of malpractices,

how the reporting of wrongdoings was handled internally in organizations and which factors

led employees to blow the whistle anonymously to the media. Also, as part of the study I will

be looking for the actions taken by the regulatory bodies charged with responsibility of

overseeing state owned company’s management after external whistle-blowing through the

media has taken place.. The study will also be looking at mechanisms put in place in state

owned companies in Mozambique to ensure that employees are fully protected according to

the law, after all wrongdoing have been addressed including stopping all potential

wrongdoing before it happens.

1.8 Structure of the research

Chapter 1: Background to the study

This is a general introduction to the study, presenting the background, orientation, the

problem statement and the research/study objectives. In this chapter broad research questions

are outlined. Also, it is in this chapter where the significance of the study is drawn with the

key definition of concepts that will be used through the study.


Chapter 2: Theoretical/conceptual framework

In this chapter the theoretical/conceptual framework that supports the study will be explained

as well as the underlying the relevance of the study within Mozambican context whilst also

taking into account international developments around whistle-blowing. In line with this, this

chapter will deal with the current status of whistle-blowing and whistle-blowing protection

concepts and how according to research previously conducted, whistle-blowing should be

processed in organization for it to make the desired impact.

Chapter 3: Literature review

This chapter will look at the research developments on whistle-blowing and the theoretical

perspectives of Whistle-blowing, assuming that the whistle-blowing is a communication

process which must be promoted and protected aiming to assist the development of a healthy

economic environment. Further, this chapter will look at the current status of whistle-blowing

in Mozambique aligning it with the legislation and all ethical considerations surrounding the

whistle-blowing.

Chapter 4: Research design and methods

In this chapter the research methodology that was followed through the study will be

highlighted, indicating how the field work was conducted and documented as well as how the

data was analysed. Special attention will be drawn on qualitative as well as the quantitative

research paradigm used to carry out the study as well as data collection methodology applied

to get the data for the study.

This chapter will also discuss the data analysis techniques applied, pointing out the reliability

and the validation techniques applied outlining all possible ethical issues that could have been

raised and the mitigation mechanism put in place to avoid ethical problems and ensure the

full confidentiality in regard to the information collected.

Chapter 5: Presentation and discussion of the research results

Through this chapter, a full presentation and discussion of the results will be provided

outlining the findings of the study. This will be done by presenting the results and discussing

the responses of the participants in the study and the result of the research questionnaire

aligned to the research questions.


Chapter 6: Recommendations

This Chapter will draw the recommendations based on the findings of the research. As part of

the chapter the summary of the preceding chapters will be related to the objectives of the

study and the research will be concluded. This will be done by proposing recommendations

based on the findings on how better employees can blow the whistle and what actions

management should implement in order to encourage genuine whistle-blowing as well

putting in place mechanisms that protect all whistle-blowers raising concerns with evidences.


Chapter 7: Conclusions

This chapter will draw the conclusions and the recommendations from the study.

Diagrammatically, the project will follow the sequence depicted below.

Research ProblemResearch ObjectivesResearch Questions

Research Definition

Analysis

Analysis and Comments on

Findings

Discussion

WhistleblowingFactorsDrivers

Consequences

Literature Review

Conclusions and Recomendations

Presentation of the Findings

Data Collection

InterviewQuestionnaires

Surveys

Figure 1Research Sequence adapted from Hassan (2010)


Chapter 2

Theoretical/conceptual framework

2.1 History of whistle-blowing

The known modern legal framework for whistle-blowing protection dates back to 1863, when

the American Congress passed The False Claim Act in order to combat Civil War profiteers,

by allowing citizens to bring a suit against an alleged offender on behalf of the government.

The early whistle-blowing activism in the United States in the early 1970s tried to break

through organizational secrecy, by claiming that “such secrecy should not be considered as

normal or obvious. Those activists claimed that the interest of society must take priority over

those of organizations”.

In 1963 a staff member of the state department, namely Otto Otopeka, revealed classified

documents related to security risks to the chief counsel for the senate subcommittee on

internal security. Otto was thereafter dismissed from his job on the ground of improper

conduct, by the Secretary of State on function, Petersen and Farrel (1986). This was a major

blow to the willingness of employees to spill the beans.

There are also many other documented cases of whistle-blowers, who suffered retaliation in

the literature. From this, as noted by Vinten (2000), various actions have been taken

worldwide in support of whistle-blowing. One of the good examples to mention is the

suggestion made by the United Kingdom Government Committee that whistle-blowers need

to be included in the British honouring system.

The question on what happens to people who raise concerns is well documented in many

studies. Culp (1995) found that 82% of whistle-blowers suffered harassment and 60% were

fired. This alarming results, was also found by Rothschild and Miethe (1999) and Brown and

Olsen (2008).


2.2 The concept of whistle-blowing

Within the different range of definitions, whistle-blowing is regarded as “an action taken by

an employee, alerting society to potential damage to the public as a result of a present or

future action of a firm” ()Velasquez (1982), and DeGeorge (1982) “the act of complaining

about an illegal or dangerous corporate practice” (Desjardins and McCall,(1985)“the act of

communicating to the public of the illegal or immoral conduct of one’s employer that is

likely to result in unnecessary harm to third parties”( Rongine ,1985) ; “an attempt by an

employee or former employee of an organization disclose what he or she believes to be

wrongdoing in or by organization”( James ,1985).

Building on this, Elliston et al. (1985) came up with a more restrictive definition, asserting

that whistle-blowing is an intentional action with four elements:

An individual who performs an action or series of actions intended to make

information public

The information is made a matter of public record

The information is about the possible or actual, nontrivial wrongdoing in any

organization

The individual who performs the action is a member or a former member of

the organization.

.

Whistle-blowing is viewed in different perspectives. Hunt (1988) proposed that whistle-

blowing should be viewed as a symptom of shortcoming in the organizational system that

should be provided by the expectations of accountability, entailing the vigilance to provide

clarifications and justifications for stakeholders interested in the business.

King (1997) proposed that whistle-blowing should be examined from a communication

perspective; by focusing on how interpersonal relationship interacts with a situational

variable especially the severity of the wrongdoing. He suggested that the relational closeness

between an observer and a wrongdoer influences the decision to report it.

Whistle-blowing always involves revealing information that would not be revealed. It

involves in addition an actual (or at least declared) intention to prevent something bad that


would otherwise occur. Boyle (1990) pointed out four essential elements that comprise

whistle-blowing. The elements are the following:

There must be a good disclosure of information either internally or externally

to others outside the organizations

The disclosure must be made by a current or past members of the

organization or an applicant for employment

The information disclosed must relate to the misconduct of the employer,

being it real or perceived normally involving mismanagement, gross waste of funds,

abuse of authority, harm to public or private welfare, violation of laws, rules, and

regulations, and unethical or immoral conduct

The individual making the disclosure should have evidence of the reported

misconduct and should be able to ascertain who is responsible for it.

According to various authors whistle-blowing entails:

The disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal,

immoral, or illegitimate practice under the control of their employers, to persons or

organizations that may be able to affect action”, Near et al (1985);

an action taken by an employee, alerting society to potential or actual damage

to the public as result of present of future actions of the organization; “the act of

complaining about an unethical, illegal or dangerous practice Desjardins and McCall

(1985);

Communicating to the public of the illegal or immoral conduct of one’s

employer that is likely to result in unnecessary harm to third parties Rongine (1985);

“An attempt by an employee or former employee of an organization to

disclose what he or she believes to be transgression in or by the organization James

(1995).

These definitions cover any form of wrongdoing in an organization, including wrongdoings

that harm organizations (e.g. embezzlement), individuals in the organization (e.g. sexual

harassment or illegal discrimination), or society at large (e.g. mismanagement or waste).

In a more restrictive way, Jubb (1999:page number) defined whistle-blowing as “a deliberate

non-obligatory act of disclosure which gets onto public record and is made by a person who


has privileged access to data or information of an organization about non-trivial illegality or

other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the

control of that organization, to an external entity having potential to rectify the wrongdoing”.

In later developments, De Maria (1999), Shafritz and Russell’s (2000) and Alford (2001),

defined a whistle-blower as “ an individual who believes that the public interest overrides the

interest of his or her organization and publicly exposes corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful

activities”.

As part of the developments on whistle-blowing, Westman (1991) posits whistle-bloweris,

“the employee who questions an agency’s improper practices through internal hierarchy as

well as, those who refuse to follow illegal command”.

Employees owe not only a certain amount of work but also certain positive attitude toward

that work and to their fellow workers. Whistle-blowers stop being obedient to organization at

that moment when companies demand that they collaborate directly in illegal activities and or

reprehensible, antisocial workplace norms or behaviour, related to questions of identity and

identification (Mansbach 2011).

2.3 Types of whistle-blowers

According to Westman (1991), “whistle-blowing can involve acts that violate codes of

professional ethics and acts that may be legal but nonetheless dangerous to public health and

safety”. He goes further, to include employees who make allegations directly to the media

outlets or organizations not involved in law enforcement. According to him, there are three

categories of whistle-blowers:

Passive whistle-blowers – people who appear before government authorities

to provide legal legally requested information as an employee testifies before any

parliamentary enquiry

Active whistle-blowers – people who voice concerns about their fellow

employees’ practices either internally or externally

Embryonic whistle-blowers / who are individuals who are terminated before

they can share their concerns with internal or external authorities

Near and Miceli (1996), had proposed a theoretical perspectives for any employee to embark

on whistle-blowing, suggesting that whistle-blowing should be viewed as a dynamic


relationship between members of the society, being them the whistle-blowers, the

wrongdoer(s), the recipients of complaints, co-workers, the immediate supervisor and the

dominant group (top management) of the organization.

2.4 Whistle-blowing programs

According to Sangweni (2003), an organization that positively encourages whistle-blowing

stands a far better chance of demonstrating that it is properly run and managed. He went

further to point out that the key obstacles faced by employees willing to blow the whistle is

the fact that they are intimidated to speak out on transgression or unlawful activities although

in the terms of employment conditions employees are obliged to report any wrongdoing.

While recognising that internal controls and audits are critical to uncover and deter

misconduct, Jernberg (2004), noted that whistle-blowing has been regarded in various

surveys as either the first or the second most common means by which misconduct is

detected.

Whistle-blowing programmes should be conceived with the aim of reducing the probability

of occurrence of wrongdoings and reduce the severity of damages it may cause. Therefore, in

line with Jernberg (2004), whistle-blowing programmes must encourage earlier reporting.

The programmes must convince the would be fraudsters that reporting will occur, that the

information provided by informants will be properly investigated, provide assurance that

effective follow up will be carried out and maintain the proper recording of reported matters

and the actions taken.

Any organization embarking on whistle-blowing programmes, according to Barket and

Dawood (2004) must look at the steps to be followed during the whistle-blowing process and

how to deal with it within the organizational context, combined with the impact it would

bring to the organization should the information be leaked outside the organization.

2.5Types of whistle-blowing

2.5.1 Internal whistle-blowing

DeGeorge (1990) had defined internal Whistle-blowing as “the disclosure or allegation of

inappropriate conduct made to someone within the organization or system”. This according,


according to Miceli et al (2008), can be done inside the regular chain of command, via for

example the confidential hotlines.

Near and Miceli (1985), pointed out that “organizations prefer to see whistle-blowing about

valid allegations pass through internal channels so that the misconduct can be corrected and

prevented in the future”.

According to Callahan and Collins (1992) and Dworkin and Near (1997), corporate whistle-

blowing policies that facilitate the internal reporting of suspicious behaviour as well as the

protection of the whistle-blower, shield the company from external whistle-blowing, which in

general is considered to be detrimental to the company, the whistle-blower and the society at

large.

If employees are required to report internally as a first resort, this forces organizations to

develop effective reporting procedures in order that problems could be reported and corrected

internally without external investigations.

In support, Barnett et al. (1993) s found that companies with internal whistle-blowing

procedures experience a significant increase in the number of internal disclosure and a

decrease in the number of external disclosure.

The offense that is corrected by the organization in a timely manner will avoid external

disclosure and the potential reputational and financial damage, because proper management

response to wrongdoings enhances the organizations performance Rothschild and Miethe

(1994).

Furthermore Lewis (1997) noted that managers who introduce internal reporting procedures

are perceived to contribute to their image as both ethical and efficient. This clearly shows that

internal whistle-blowing policies results in increased role of internal whistle-blowing, which

according to Vandekerckhove and Commers (2004) and Van Es and Smit (2003) should be

the preferred way for blowing the whistle.

According to Celland and Denh (2004), employees are the people best placed to raise concern

and enable the risk to be removed or reduced. According to the same source, they are people

who have the most to lose if a wrongdoing occurs in the organization.


Jubb (1999) noted that, employees who observe wrongdoings can resolve the wrongdoing by

approaching and confronting the wrongdoer(s) before going for internal whistle-blowing

path.

Although the employee can successfully resolve the wrongdoing through direct intervention,

in the event of impossibility, the employee can take the next step and report the wrongdoing

to the supervisor and in the event that the wrongdoer is the supervisor to the immediate

manager.

It should be noted that, if the supervisor or manager does not respond appropriately,

employees are entitled to report the wrongdoing to higher management until the matter is

handled satisfactory.

Observed Wrongdoing

Approach the Wrongdoer to

correct the action

Corrected

Close the CaseInternal

Structures

Close the Case Report Externally

Yes

NoYesCorrected

Figure 2the internal whistle-blowing process adapted from Miceli et al (2008)

Therefore, it is crucial that organizations encourage employees who suspect or observe

wrongdoing not to look the other way but to respond in such a manner that the wrongdoing

and the wrongdoer(s) can be stopped and corrected Miceli, Near and Dworkin (2009).


For this reason, the U.S. Federal Sentencing guidelines and Sarbanes-Oxley act (Section 806,

301 and 1107) encourage organizations to provide sufficient opportunity to employees for

internal reporting of wrongdoing. The same applies to South African Protected Disclosure

Act (PDA)

2.5.2 External whistle-blowing

Rothschild and Miethe (1999) and Miceli et.al (2008), defined external whistle-blowing as

“reporting wrongdoing to someone outside the organization who may be able to stop or

correct it”, whilst Lewis and Vandekerckhove (2011), suggest that “the vast majority of cases

of external whistle-blowing is preceded by the raising of concerns internally, and a deaf hear

or harsh reaction to this by the organization is likely to result in people going to the media”.

Many organizations have adopted whistle-blowing policies that make external disclosure

unnecessary by solving the problem internally, through a “set of procedures allowing

potential whistle-blowers to raise the matter internally before blowing the whistle externally“

Near and Miceli (1985).

Most of the existing literature Callaham et al. (2003 and Kaptein (2009) suggests that

“corporate whistle-blowing policies are more important in affecting whistle-blowing

behaviour as compared to regulatory framework”.

Because External whistle-blowing exposes the internal wrongdoings and the failure of the

organization to correct or stop the wrongdoing it leads to public embarrassment and

government scrutiny Barry (2004). Thus, how organization manages its internal

communications processes is important not just in the interest of the organization, but also in

the interest of the public.

Mesmer-Magnus and Viswervaran (2005) and Miceli and Dworkin (2008), as recorded by

Hassink et al. (2007),indicate that legal protection of whistle-blowers and the presence of

internal whistle-blowing policies play an important part on employees not to prefer external

whistle-blowing but rather internal whistle-blowing.

2.5.3 Anonymous whistle-blowing

Elliston (1982), defines anonymity as being “neutral, the middle ground between secrecy and

privacy” and stated that “blowing the whistle anonymously creates the perception of bad


manners or snitching behind a person’s back, not leaving the room for the person to defend

himself”

A consequence for this as earlier stated by Near and Miceli (1996), is that organizations

creates a culture that discourages normal and decent people from questioning wrongdoing.

In many organizations, there is a culture of aversion toward whistle-blowers, whom are

perceived as being the troublemaker (DeGeorge 1992;, Dworkin and Near ,1997; Alford’

2001,& 2002; Felt and O’Connor,2006);this according to Jernberg (2004), lead employees to

leave other people to deal with the matter, contact regulatory authorities or in the extreme

cases the media anonymously.

According to Celland and Dehn (2004), unless organizations foster a culture that declares and

demonstrates that it is safe and acceptable to raise a genuine concern about malpractices,

employees will assume that they face victimisation, losing or damaging their careers and

therefore is much better and safe to blow the whistle anonymously.

Figure III provides an outline of one approach for dealing with issues of anonymity and

confidentiality if any employee would prefer that approach


Do you Whish to report the matter? YesAre you happy to provide details of your

identity?

No Yes

Do you whish to have your identity protected?

NoYes

Make an anonymous report providing full details

Do you wish to continue with Report?Yes

No Yes

Investigation and Support strategy

Do you whish to have your identity protected?Yes

Figure 3Anonymous adapted from Celland and Dehn (2004)

By their nature, anonymous whistle-blowers cannot experience retaliation since a would be

retaliator would not know whom to target. Research suggests that observers of wrongdoing

may be more likely to blow the whistle if they have strong evidence of wrongdoing

Mansbach (2011). Accordingly Hutton (2004) and Felt and O’Connor (2006) , noted that,

individuals who disclose the illegal or immoral practice of powerful actors, even without

being their direct employees are also in danger. He supports his argument, by pointing at the

case of Mark Felt, who exposed the illegal activities undertaken by Members of United States

President Richard Nixon’s re-election team.

Mark felt due to fear, did not reveal his identity for more than 30 years. Another case was of

David Kelly who after disclosing material from British government’s dossier on weapon of

mass destruction in Iraq, committed suicide in the wake of the interrogations and pressure.

This is also true of Mozambique, where Carlos Cardoso, a journalist was shot dead after

revealing a bank fraud in Mozambique, Antonio Siba-Siba Macuacua, was murdered after


being thrown 11 floors down from his office, before revealing a list of powerful individuals

not honouring bank loans they owed to the Bank.

2.6 Reasons to blow the whistle

There are many reasons that are pointed as relevant to blow the whistle. While Westin (1981)

attributes it to changes in social, legal and business environment, Glazer and Glazer (1989),

pointed that the consumer rights regulations enacted during the 1960s and 1970s to protect

consumers from unsafe products and business practices as factors that boosted the likelihood

of whistle-blowing

Another important factor that influences individual’s tendency to blow the whistle is the

climate within the organization as suggested by Near and Miceli (1992). According to the

author, the increase in whistle-blowing reflects the way that employees who become more

aware of their responsibilities to their employers.

Johnson (2003) pointed out that changes in legal environment have promoted whistle-

blowing by introducing mandatory ethics trainings, where employees are required to disclose

waste, fraud and abuse to appropriate authorities. He also went further arguing that

organizational support for whistle-blowing such as the one provided by Government

accountability project, ensuring legal assistance through the adjunct attorney program have

been key supports of the reason for blowing the whistle.

Appelbaum, Grewal and Mousseau (2006), stated that “the main reason why whistle-blowing

is an important issue, amongst other elements, is that it has to do with the fact that many

public and corporate wrongdoings are never disclosed”. According to them, estimating the

percentage of situations for which the whistle is blown in comparison to when it is not blow

is a very hazardous undertaking.

2.6.1 Whistle-blowing and public interest

According to Banisar (2009), most whistle-blower laws provide protection for the identity of

the whistle-blower, which is kept confidential unless the whistle-blower provides his/her

consent to disclose it. The US law, for example prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the

whistle-blower without consent, unless the Office of the Special counsel determines that the

disclosure of the individual’s identity is necessary. However, the anonymity is debatable.


Although, anonymity can provide incentive for a whistle-blower to come forward as there

are many whistle-blowing protection laws that excludes anonymous reporting. Such is the

case for Brazil where a supreme court of 11 May 2005, concluded that “an anonymous tip

cannot by itself warrant the opening of a criminal investigation.

The other element of controversy regarding anonymity is that in some instances the authority

dealing with case may not be able to engage in future follow up to gather more information

should it be required. In this case, the most common recommendation is that the whistle-

blower provides to the complaint receiver and the complaint receiver must ensure that it is

kept confidential; otherwise he/she is subject to criminal offense proceedings.

Other, protection mechanism have provision in the law that may lower the burden of proof,

when the employer must prove that the conduct taken against the employee is unrelated to his

or her whistle-blowing action

2.6.2 Whistle-blowing and ethical principles

Blewer and Selden (1998), proposed that “some people are imbued with a unique public

service ethic that attracts them to public government service and drive their subsequent job

performance”, making them to act in the public interest, even when doing so runs counter

their self-interest, what ultimately may lead them to engage in whistle-blowing behaviour.

The same authors when studying the US merit systems protection Board concluded that

“whistle-blowers are more motivated by complaint success than their non-whistle-blowing

counterparts”. They stated further, that “overall whistle-blowers are high performers, with a

high level of job satisfaction and commitment working in high performing work group”.

The motives of individuals blowing the whistle can be classified as rational, norm-based or

affective. In regard to rational motives, Perry and Wise (1990) stated that “the rational

motives comprises not only the altruistic needs for public servants, but also their personal

needs, such as the desire to help formulate policy, individual commitment to a program due

to personal identification and advocating for a special interest group”.

The norm-based motives encompass a desire to serve the public interest and advance social

equity while preserving an individual level of loyalty to the responsibilities of the position.

The affective motives are commitment to a program due to a belief in a social importance

which may lead which may lead to a spirit of scarifying for others.


On the credibility point of view Berry (2004), noted that the leadership behaviour is a key

determinant of employee perception, arguing that “if leader do not follow or uphold the

standards, the standards will be perceived by the followers as not being meaningful”.

Because employees will compare leadership behaviour with what is stated in formal policies

it is of extreme importance that leaders must align the behaviour with formal policies. In

Mozambique state owned companies the reality is up-side-down, because while managers

advocate that, companies are running in financial difficulties, almost all managers are driving

for example the most expensive cars in the market even when in some instances, salaries are

due.

Intolerance of unethical and illegal practice should be demonstrated through consistent

discipline. According to Berry (2004), rewarding managers with promotions or high visibility

assignments when these managers are known for tolerating questionable or unethical

practices will undermine credibility. In Mozambique, it is common for a demoted senior

manager from one state owned company, being appointed to other managerial position within

the immense portfolio of the state owned companies.

According to Rothwell and Baldwin (2006), the ethical climate in which employees work is

predictive of whistle-blowing behaviour. They further stated that “employees in a rule

climate display strict obedience to the policies of the organization and use these policies to

make ethical decisions and resolve problems, while in contrast, employees in a law-and-code

climate look to rules or professional conventions to resolve dilemmas ethically”.

Since the early days of its independence, Mozambique has been a society based on strict

compliance with decision taken by top leaders, without room for questioning any decision.

Ensuring the consistent application of disciplinary action is also critical to employee

perception of fairness, which is related to whistle-blowing. Immunity from consequences or

different standards for leaders who engage in wrongdoings as compared to everyone else will

undermine the organization’s credibility. Likewise, punishing individuals who report

misconduct by denying them advancement opportunities communicates the organization’s

indifference toward whistle-blowing.

As a concluding remark, managers must act as role models in order to reinforce the

importance of ethics and the clarity of standards, because it will help employees to report

upward if they trust their superiors.


2.6.3 Whistle-blowing and moral obligations

DeGeorge (1982) pointed out that a permissible whistle-blowing to be morally justifiable

should ensure the following:

There is serious concern on the part of the whistle-blower as to the infliction

to harm to the public at large;

The matter is reported to the superior in the line of managerial command; and

In the absence of appropriate action by the supervisor, the line of command is

notified in ascending order.

The morally obligatory whistle-blowing must ensure

There is immediate danger to the public, which could inflict serious harm;

The next supervisory level is notified;

Lack of action at this level results in objection being carried upward through

the line of managerial command;

Documentation is available and

The whistle-blower has sufficient reason to believe that if external reporting

arises, such action will affect the necessary changes to protect the public.

Bok (1980) and Cavanagh (1984) classified whistle-blowing as either permissible (justifiable

or defensible) and obligatory. They established norms which outline the legitimacy of

whistle-blowing, which includes the essence of morality of purpose for the benefit of the

common good and the necessity for specific, important aspect to be under consideration.

Within the established norms it includes proper internal efforts to correct the situation and the

absence of personal gain for the whistle-blower if the action does not take place in the public

sector.

2.7 When to blow the whistle

Whistle-blowers are crucial for white collar crime enforcement, because it is different from

most street crime, white collar crimes are usually undertaken in the privacy of executive

suites with minimal underlying presents and usually only the employees are present.

Therefore, they can see when taxpayer’s money is wasted and are usually the first to see the

signal of corrupt or incompetent management.


In their article “Whistle-blowing: an ethical issue in organizational and human behaviour”

Heacock and McGee (1987) stated that “observers of wrongdoing who elected to blow the

whistle generally

reported having more evidence of wrongdoings than did non-reporters,

and they perceived that the observed wrongdoing had a greater personal

impact upon them and;

Those whistle-blowers were more likely to approve whistle-blowing

generally and to believe that it should be encouraged by organizations”.

The whistle-blower’s personal characteristics (modesty, arrogance, credibility, educational

level or standing within the organization) are appointed by Near and Miceli (1992) as

influencing factor for acceptance or not of the whistle-blower’s claims. Near et al (1993),

pointed several reasons that would lead someone to blow the whistle. Below are some of the

reasons pointed:

If the firm, though its product or policy will be serious and considerable harm

to public, whether in person of the user of its product, an innocent bystander or the

general public. Since because the whistle-blowing cause harm to the firm, this firm must

be offset by at least equal amount of good if the act is to be permissible. If the harm is not

serious and considerable, if it will do only slight harm to the public, or the user of the

product, the justification for whistle-blowing will be least problematic

Once employees identify a serious threat to the user of the product or to a

general public, they should report it to the immediate superior and make their moral

concern known. Unless they do so, the act of whistle-blowing is not clearly justifiable.

Whistle-blowing is a practice that to be effective, cannot be routinely used. Reporting

one’s concern is the most direct and usually quickest way of producing the change the

whistle-blower desires

If one’s immediate superior does nothing effective about the concern or

complaint, the employee should exhaust the internal procedure and possibilities within the

organization. This usually will involve taking the matter up the managerial ladder, and, if

necessary- and possible – to the board of directors

The whistle-blower must have, or have accessible, documented evidence that

would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that one’s view of the situation is correct


and that the company’s product or practice poses a serious and likely danger to the public

or to the user of the product

The employee must have good reasons to believe that by going public the

necessary changes will be brought about. The chance of successful must be worth the risk

one takes and the danger to which she he is exposed to.

Dillard and Yuthas (2002), stated that the “organizational climate, environmental moral

atmosphere, and the organizational culture, organizational authority are likely a play a role in

amoral decision making.

On the organizational setup they stated that principle based organizations convey to their

members the necessity of following the general principles in the formulation of professional

judgment, resulting therefore in more ethical decisions outcomes.

Taking also from them, the authority structure of rule based organizations is likely to be more

bureaucratic than a principle based organization. This suggests that the greater the

bureaucracy, the less responsible are individual for ethical outcomes and less likely would

individuals blow the whistle internally.

While Pershing (2003) pointed that employees will be divided in either to “snitch or not

snitch, Berry (2004), is of the opinion that employees may be asking themselves, either to tell

the truth. In this regard, Miceli and Near (2006) are of the opinion that, employees who

observe wrongdoings may ask themselves either to stand up or stand by;

Ramirez (2007) suggests that there are two points of views on how the law can curb the

political and economic power. In his dissertations, he argues that the law is subservient to

power and that the powerful economic and political interests are able to easily overcome the

collective interests on the expense of general welfare. He further argues that whistle-blowing

is crucial to effective law enforcement efforts and that in the business sectors serves to

enhance transparency and integrity.

The elite influence is paramount to all reforms to take place, because successful law reforms

often emerge from ideas advanced in policy cycles by taking advantage of policy windows,

that open when there are shifts in national moods. This was the case of Mozambique when

the members of government cabinet proposed the clear delimitation of conflict of interests for

the Members of parliaments and CEO, Members board of directors.


Whistle-blowing is an avenue for maintaining integrity by speaking one’s truth about what is

right and what is wrong. It is a strategy for asserting rights, protecting interests, influencing

justice and righting wrongs. Therefore, whistle-blowing is the voice of conscience. It includes

disclosure both internal and external to organization.

2.8 Reasons for not blowing the whistle

While the reasons are many, Mesmer-Magnus and Wiswesran (2005), pointed out that one of

the reasons may be “that organizations often do not welcome reports of wrongdoings”.

Adding on this, Verschoor (2005) argued that the “prime motivation for not reporting

wrongdoings are the belief that no remedial steps will be taken and concern and that the

details of the informant will not be kept private.

Nitsch et al (2005) when studying the reasons why employees fail to report violations in their

companies, proposed a framework classifying the motivation for not reporting in four

categories: Factual non-responsibility, moral non-responsibility, consequential exoneration

and functional exoneration.

Further elaborating on this, Appelbaum, Grewal and Mousseau (2006), pointed out that “the

effort an interested party makes will be in proportion to the advantage to be gained from the

favourable outcome associated with the likelihood of influencing decision making”,

otherwise the informant will not likely to blow the whistle.

Miceli, Near and Dworkin (2009), noted that employees who are aware of wrongdoing often

refrain from reporting. There are many reasons appointed as preventing employees or normal

citizen from reporting wrongdoing.

Adding on this, Pillay and Dorasamy (2011), quoting Mavuso and Balia (1999), pointed out

that among many reasons for reluctance to blow the whistle, is victimization, power distance

and bureaucracy, lack of faith in criminal justice system and loyalty to colleagues were

regarded as the most prevalent.

2.9 Implications of whistle-blowing

The implication of whistle-blowing can be on individuals reporting or being reported about

the wrongdoing or on the organizations, targeted with the reporting. On individuals,

according to Vinten (1995), whistle-blowers are frequently mistreated. Facts showing that


whistle-blowing leads to adverse effects in individuals are many. As pointed by Chiu (2002),

this can range from loss of employment, threats of revenge and social isolation at work.

On top of this, in several cases, counter-accusations are made against the employee being

referred to as a trouble maker. Firth-Cozens and Booth (2003), and Vinten (2004), pointed

out that “many employees may need to change their jobs, countries, take earlier retirement or

remain unemployed.

At the managerial level , the consequence, according to Appelbaum, Grewal and Mousseau

(2006), is “even when CEOs or directors were not involved in the unethical behaviour, they

have still discharged whistle-blowers as menaces.

Examples of whistle-blowing can be found in popular media outlets. As the case of

Mozambique, Savana News Paper, O Pais News Paper and Zambezi News Paper are at the

front line on denouncing wrongdoings within the state owned companies, while the Noticias,

Diario de Moçambique and Domingo are less vocal in denouncing wrongdoings in state

owned companies.

2.10 Whistle-blowing and organizational culture

The ethical culture of an organization is one component of the organizational context and

being national culture part of the organizational context it can influenced and shape

powerfully the institution’s accountability system and its power structure.

This may be the case of Mozambique, where top management employees of state owned

companies are appointed based on their political affiliation with the ruling party

(Frelimo),that has been in power since 1975. This party is well known in applying the

principle of “if not with me you are against me”An example being the case of Urias Simango

This fact suggest that laws that encourage whistle-blowing might be neglected by competing

codes that encourage silence, due to a fear of retaliation which as observed by Moore (1978),

“the average civil servant is expected to follow order from superior without question and

seldom participate in changing policy.

Clarity is part of the culture. Near and Miceli (1985) pointed out that the degree of clarity of

the organization may determine how an employee responds to observed wrongdoing. Taking

cue from Near and Miceli (1987), clarity “provides grounds on which to call alleged

wrongdoer to account and to denounce the wrongdoing”.


They went further stating that “the greater the clarity there is, the greater the responsibility

employees will feel in acting against wrong doing”. This was later supported by Jubb (1999)

and Callahan et. al (2002), who pointed out that greater the level of lack of clarity, the more

employees will regard inaction as rendering them complicity. It supports the statement from

Enz (1988), who stated that “it is more likely that a transgression will be reported to a

manager if the manager has not committed the same type of transgression in the past or is not

implicated in the current observed transgression”.

Murphy (1988) pointed out that culture represents part of the informal organizational context.

It resides in the eyes of the beholder Weick,(1995) and Schein (2004) and it involves

perceptions, interpretation, experiences and observations.

The organizational culture exists in many levels and can be described by examining

organizational structures and policies, stories and rituals, and behavioural norms and exposed

values.

By embodying, the values and norms of the organization, it indicates the acceptable and

unacceptable behaviour that employees take into account when they decide to respond or act

in response to any circumstance (Miceli and Near (1984);thus, the organizational culture is

important for those reporting wrongdoings as well as to the recipients of reports of

wrongdoings.

The organizational culture can be viewed as a “pattern of basic assumptions, invented,

discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problem of external

adaptation and internal investigation” Schein (1992).

According to Miceli and Near (1994), employees are less likely to act if they believe that the

action would harm the existing organizational culture. They go further arguing that “the

stronger the shared culture, the greater the legitimacy employees feel to act in a manner that

is consistent with the dominant culture”. The same author added that “this sense of legitimacy

imparts the degree of power to urge others to follow up wrongdoings as they and others know

that responding to observed wrongdoings is consistent with prevailing culture”.

With regard to this point of view, Gundlach, Douglas and Martinko (2003), pointed out that

when employees perceive that the wrongdoing is an “effect of failing culture” they are less

likely to respond to wrongdoings. This may be case of Mozambique.


Conversely, they are more likely to respond if they believe that “the wrongdoing is an

aberration and that the organization can and should learn from its shortcomings in order to

prevent similar wrongdoings in the future”.

According to Barry (2004), the ethical culture of an organization plays a crucial role in

stimulating employees to report wrongdoing. Therefore, for an organization it is relevant to

know how different, complementary responses of employees contribute to detecting and

correcting wrongdoing in the organization.

Berry (2004) proposed 7 dimensions of organizational culture comprising of vigilance,

engagement, credibility, accountability, empowerment, courage and options, noting that “the

collective culture influences employee reflection that ultimately result in a decision to speak

out or not”.

The organizational culture informs members how to relate to each other and to outsiders, how

to analyse problems and how to respond to situations encountered in the organizations. Jones

(2004), pointed out that there is a need in each organization to promote a shared

understanding of which code to follow, by creating employee’s ability to accurately interpret

the ethical standards the organization abides by.

In commenting on vigilance, Berry (2004) states that “prior to pondering whether or not to

communicate an ethical, compliance, or legal concern, an employee must first be in a position

do detect violations”. Therefore, the first step in supporting employee communication and

reporting behaviour is to influence a culture that promotes awareness of an organization’s

commitment to integrity and the shared understanding of organizational standards.

Enabling an employee to move forward with reporting misconduct requires clarifying that

awareness of potential wrongdoing is in itself an ethical dilemma that requires a specific

response on the part of the employee. According to Berry (2004), “while most employees

understand that they abide by a code of conduct, they may not consider the reporting of

observed violations as part of their condition of employment”

2.11 Conclusions

The term whistle-blowing refers to several forms of disclosure. According to Mansbach

(2011), some acts of whistle-blowing are motivated by the objective to receive economic

benefit or some other type of reward; some become whistle-blowers in order to avoid a legal


prosecution; some become whistle-blowers, to expose illegal practices and challenge the

existing power. This last group is the group of interest in this research.

From the above, the definition should be extended to include illegitimate practice under the

control of the managers entrusted to act on behalf of the stakeholders in State Owned

Companies.


Chapter 3

Literature review

3.1 Whistle-blowing theories

There are identified two paradigms in dealing with whistle-blowing, being in the first, the

whistle-blower seen as “wrong-doer” and in the second as the “do-gooder”.

Whistle-blowing is an avenue for maintaining integrity by speaking one’s truth about what is

right and what is wrong. It is a strategy for asserting rights, protecting interests, influencing

justice and righting wrongs. Therefore, whistle-blowing is the voice of conscience and

according to Elliston (1982), whistle-blowing is a unique form of employee resistance and

the whistle-blowers are special no matter what form of disclosure is used.

Near and Jensen (1983) suggested that whistle-blowing represents an influence process based

on the fact that, an organizational member attempts to exert power to change the behaviour of

some member(s) of the organization, in such a way as to terminate the wrongdoing.

Whistle-blowing can be explained based on the power and the change theories. The Power

theory argues that “the extent to which a Whistle-blower will be able to bring the change

concerning the incident depends on the power that the Whistle-blower possesses in the

organization Graham (1986).

On the other end, the change theory, argue that “when the Whistle-blower attempts to

influence the organization, the Whistle-blower is asking members of the organizations to

change their behaviour bringing either resistance or acceptance”.

Whistle-blowing involves disloyalty or disobedience to one’s immediate superior or fellow

workers ( Culp 1995). When whistle-blowing is done with the intent to stop dishonesty or

immoral practice or act, aiming to protect the interests and reputations of the company, it is

on the best interest of the company to encourage it (Vinten 2000). This point of view leads

Near and Miceli (2008), to reject the statement from Cup that whistle-blowing is a form of

disloyalty or disobedience.

The evolution of Whistle-blowing has been conceptualized using various approaches such as:


3.1.1 The reinforcement theory

Defended by Skinner (1953) who argued that the “wrongdoing serves as a discriminative

stimulus for action when similar wrongdoing have been followed consistently by successful

opposition in the past positive managerial reaction”.

3.1.2 The expectancy theory

Vroom (1964), defended the fact that the individual’s eagerness to r to blow the whistle as a

“function of the perceived likelihood that outcomes such as managerial attention to the

complaint, recognition of the whistle blowers identity, public attention” would ensure action.

This was later supported by Miceli and Near (1985), when they observe “that observers of

wrongdoing would estimate the probable outcomes associated with reporting wrongdoing and

consciously choose whether or not to blow the whistle”. Put in other terms, the expected

consequence of an action influence the behaviour of employees, because if employees believe

that the reports will be handled appropriately they are more likely to take action than when

they expect management to ignore the reports;

3.1.3 The efficacy theory

Nader, Petkas and Blackwell (1972), pointed out that the “perceived efficacy and willingness

to file complaint are closely related to perceived changes in managerial attitudes, but not

retaliation”, serving therefore the efficacy as condition for action;

3.1.4 The threat of retaliation theory

Also defended by Nader et al (1972), which stands on the arguments that “threat would

prevent the would-be whistle-blowers from taking action”, postulating that “the individual’s

ability to manipulate the environment is essential to their well-being”. In line with this point

of view, according to them, this will motivate employees to act, “demonstrating self-efficacy,

with the risk of feared consequences and situational uncertainty of whistle-blowing

influencing efficacy expectations”;

3.1.5 The positional behavioural theory

Dozier and Miceli (1985) and later Near et al (1997), argued that “Whistle-blowing is not an

act of pure altruism but a positional behaviour involving selfish as well as unselfish motives

on the part of the whistle-blower”, suggesting therefore that, “it should be viewed akin in

some respects to crime reporting or bystander intervention


3.1.6 Resource-based dependency theory

Proposed by Near and Miceli (1986), which they used to predict organizational retaliation for

whistle-blowing, suggesting that “the relative power or the organization versus the individual

whistle-blower, might determine at least partially, the likelihood and comprehensiveness of

retaliation against the whistle-blower”.

As part of the conceptual framework, there are key considerations that tend to arise for

employees faced with the decision of blowing the whistle, being , “will blowing the whistle

change the status quo and fix the problem” or “will the employee be protected from a

destroyed career” (Blakeslee 2005).

3.1.7 Power distance theory

Mozambique has an inequal distribution of power, with the rulling party in power since 1974.

Looking for this fact combined with conclusions drawn by Brody et all (1999) who pointed

out that, in societies with a single rulling party, “scandals and disclosing information

involving people in authority are more likely to be covered up by subordinates who are under

pressure to comply with a superior’s wishes in face of intimidation and/or ethical dilemma”.

It would result in civil servants and elelcted/appointed officials enjoying a significant degree

of autonony from public pressure, suggesting this as being the reason why in Mozambique,

people are not eager to denounce publicly any wrongdoing by any seniour officails.

Hofstede (1980, 2005) refered Power distance as “the extent to which less powerful members

of the organization and institutions accept that power, wealth, influence and authority is or

will be distributed inequally”. Trompenaars (1993) linked power distance to achievement

were, power and status come from membership in groups.

According to Gurgar and Shah (2000), in organizations were power distance is high, “there is

strict respect for authority.In centralized organizations inequality in power provides setting

in which corruption is likely to take place and therefore, whistle-blowing more likely not to

take place”.

This point of view, according to Park (2003), may discourage any citizen as well as

employees from questioning authority, leading decisions not to be made on the basis of

merit.

Basied on this point of view Pillay and Dorassamy (2011), argued that “power distance is an

important factor in whistle-blowing, since significant power distance implies fewer checks


and balances against the abuse of power and strong hierachical cultures”. This is especially

visible in society like the mozambican where managers are appointed based on their political

affiliation and membership with the rulling party.

Characteristics of the Wrongdoing

Organizations Dependence on the Wrongdoing

Convincing evidence of wrongdoing

Legal Basis for the Complaint

Characteristics of the Organization Appropriateness of Whistleblowing Climate Supportive of WhistleblowingLess Bureaucratic StructureLow Organization Power in Environment

Organization’s Willingness to

Change

Termination of

Wrongdoing

Future Organizational Performance

Organization’s cobtrol of

elements in the external

environment

Support for WhistleblowerVs Wrongdoer

Predictor Variables

Figure 4Situational and organizational variables affecting whistle-blowing adapted

from Near and Miceli (1985)

In 2005 USAID published a report in which one of the key point was that “in Mozambique,

Mozambicans who achieve important positions are commonly expected to use their position

to help family members and friends and political affilates.

To support this, transparency International 2012, stated that “in Mozambique behaviours that

are usually considered conflict of interest, nepotism and favouritism are not generally viewed

as a corrupt practice in the country”.

3.1.8 Uncertainty avoidance theory

According to Hofstede (1983), “societies that are characterized by high uncertainty avoidance

have a greater concern for stability and security” and according to him, “high uncertainty

avoidance cultures are characterised by structured organizational activities, reduced risk


taking, lower labour turnover and inhibited ambition and individuals in this cultures tend to

attach themselves to the dominant group and comply with its expectations”.

Geletkanycz (1997), stated that in cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance, managers seek

strategic solutions to respond to the dynamic of the society forcing individuals not to react,

but to adhere to the norm and adjust to position themselves with the needs of the dominant

force, with the individuals exhibiting a high level of loyalty( Desmond ,2007) & Lam 2007).

Pathak et al. (2005) and Pillay and Dorasamy (2011) describe uncertainty avoidance as the

extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by uncertainty or unknown situations.

Based on this Pillay and Dorasamy (2011), argued that “the desire of predictability implies a

reliance on formal rules and regulations”, which according to Brody et al (1999), can impair

effective whistle-blowing, displayed in some instances by situations whereby financial

auditors are reluctant to question management.

This point of view, was later supported by Pillay (2008) and Pillay and Dorasamy (2011)

arguing that for this reason, “countries that are high in uncertainty avoidance will be more

tolerant of corrupt practices, making whistle-blowing more ineffective”

3.2Whistle-blowing societal dimension

One society can be regarded as being individualist or collectivist; according to Trompenaars

(1993), it is the extent to which people pursue their own goals versus group goals.

Collectivist societies are characterized by the interest of the group prevailing over the interest

of the individual; prevalent in this society is the obedience, loyalty and conformity to the

norms and duties of the group.

A collectivist culture is one in which people tend to view themselves as members of groups

(families, work units, tribes, nations), and usually consider the needs of the group to be more

important than the needs of individuals. Mozambique has been regarded as a collectivist

society with a few cosmetic changes to a western individualist behaviour.

An assessment conducted by USAID in 2009, stated that “the party loyalty also influenced

appointments to the executive, arguing further that “the desire by the head of state to appoint

any member of the cabinet was based on the expectations to demonstrate loyalty to the chief

of state” USAID (2009).


3.3 Factors that influence Whistle-blowing

Literature is rich on factors that influence whistle-blowing. While Arnold and Ponemon

(1991), Hooks et al (1994), Finn (1995), Rongine (1985), Lord and DeZoort (2001)

postulated the importance of individual characteristics and organizational factors as

influencing the tendency to blow the whistle. ,

Summarizing this, Near and Miceli (1995), pointed out five factors that influence whistle-

blowing, supported by the change theories (organizations change) and the power theories

(external control of organizations, value congruence with managers, power relationship with

and individuals and the power base of the whistle-blower). The factors are as following:

characteristics of the whistle-blower;

characteristics of complaint recipient;

Characteristics of the wrongdoer;

Characteristics of the wrongdoing and

Characteristic characteristics of the organization

Analysing the factors, Berry (2004) stated that, before blowing the whistle an employee will

ask himself or herself several questions such as the following:

Will anyone believe him/her?

Will anybody listen to him7her?

Will his action make a difference?

What will happen to him/her if he/she decides to go forward?

Will anyone support him/her?

Is it worth to embark in whistle-blowing?

What if he/she is wrong and therefore can he/she afford to lose?


Characteristics of the Whistleblower

CredibilityPower

Characteristics of the Complaint

RecipientCredibility

Power

Characteristics of the Wrongdoer

CredibilityPower

Organization’s Willingness to

Change

Termination of

Wrongdoing

Future Organizational Performance

Organization’s cobtrol of

elements in the external

environment

Support for WhistleblowerVs Wrongdoer

Predictor Variables

Figure 5Individual Variables that Affect Whistle-blowing Source: Near and Miceli

(1995)

3.4 Whistle-blowing protection initiatives

The Whistle-blowing protection mechanisms are designed to protect any employee who come

forward to report any malpractice in organizations. As is the case in Mozambique, there is a

clear lack of understanding of the benefits of systematic whistleblower protection and

encouragement that enables the state to protect those that express concern regarding the use

of public funds and encourage them to do so.

Yet, the issue of whistle-blowing remains culturally ambiguous and is often related to the

loyalty behaviour that employees are asked to display in regard to their managers as is

common in the non-democratic societies.


Many continue to regard whistleblowers as wrong-doers, disloyal and those breaching a

gentlemen’s agreement. This further indicates a clear need for a mechanism that encourages

genuine whistleblowers, while separating them from those aiming to settle scores or

malignantly abuse the whistle-blowing system.

3.4.1 United Nations conventions on whistle-blowing protection

The United Nations convention against corruption (UNCAC) adopted by the General

Assembly, which Mozambique ratified, regards whistle-blowing as an anti-corruption tool.

In its article 5, the UNCAC states that “countries are required to establish and promote

effective practices aimed at the prevention of corruption in the public and private sector”,

reinforced by its article 30, that oblige signatory states to “ incorporate in the domestic legal

systems appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment of

whistle-blowers”

This convention on, article 33, provides that “each state shall consider incorporating into its

domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against unjustified

treatment for any person who reports in a good faith and on reasonable grounds to the

competent authority any facts concerning offenses established in accordance with this

convention” regardless of who is speaking out or against whom the allegations are put

forward.

As pointed by Carr and Lewis (2010), the provisions on the UNCAC are not mandatory,

which according to them is a downside of the convention, suggesting that this in order for the

convention to be effective it should be made mandatory for signatories of the UN

conventions.

Taking cue also from Carr and Lewis (2010) , the international conventions must make their

provisions mandatory rather than including flexibility thus making it important that “those

who speak out in the public interest, be they members of the public or those working within

an organization are given protection that they can rely on”.

3.4.2 Sarbanes-Oxley act

The Sarbanes-Oxley act protects whistle-blowers from retaliation by giving them the

opportunity of civil action after reporting a violation of security laws to a law enforcement

agency. As stated earlier, this provision makes retaliation against employees disclosing any


offence committed by the company or its managers to a law enforcement officer, to be

punished with a fine or maximum of 10 years of imprisonment.

Thus, US corporations require employees to report misconduct, which makes whistle-

blowing a duty of employment. By demanding that every employee become a whistle-blower

if any employee witness misconduct, it is the recognition that whistle-blowing is part of the

internal control mechanism.

According to the , Sarbanes-Oxley act, its intention is to deter wrongdoing by allowing and

ensuring that all employees are dully required to report any wrongdoing and that by reporting

a grounded wrongdoing they are protected.

However, Ramirez (2007), pointed that “despite all its purpose to encourage and protect

Whistle-blowers, the Sarbanes-Oxley would fail”, supporting his statement based on the

statistics released 27 months after the Sarbanes-Oxley act became a law, 95% of the cases

presented were dismissed as lacking merit. Also, based on statistics released by the

Department of labour in May 2006, out of 702 reported cases 499 were dismissed and only

93 were settled.

3.4.3 African and southern Africa protection Initiatives

The protected disclosure act in South Africa came into force in February 2001, to encourage

people to raise concerns about improprieties in the workplace by ensuring that organizations

are equipped to respond by addressing the message rather than the messenger and by resisting

covering up serious malpractices.

The Act applies to people at work raising genuine concerns about crime, civil offenses which

include negligence, breach of contract, breach of administrative law, miscarriage of justice,

danger to health and safety environment and any attempt to cover up. This is applicable to

information that is whether confidential or not, occurring within South Africa or overseas, as

far as it involves any company operating in South Africa or with South African Capitals.

As part of its mandate the Act covers every employee and it is applicable to all employers,

ensuring that all may safely seek legal advice on any concerns they have about improprieties.

This Act, advocates that a disclosure in a good faith to a manager or employer will be

protected if the whistle-blower has a reasonable suspicion that impropriety has occurred, and

it is occurring or is likely to occur.


The Act also states that disclosure made in good faith to prescribed regulatory bodies where

the whistle-blower reasonably believes that the information and any information in it are

substantially true should also be protected.

In regard to wide disclosure, such as to the media, members of parliaments and non-

prescribed regulators, the Act also states that it should be protected if in addition to the test of

disclosures to prescribed regulatory bodies, they are reasonable in all the circumstances,

meeting one of the preconditions:

Reasonably believing that the whistle-blower would be subject to an

occupational detriment by raising the matter internally or within a prescribed

regulator;

Reasonably believing that a cover-up was likely to occur and there was no

prescribed regulator;

The whistle-blower had already raised the matter internally or with prescribed

regulator; or

The impropriety in question is exceptionally serious.

On the body of the Act, the concept of reasonability is stated to depend on the identity of the

person to whom it was made, the seriousness of the concern, whether the risk or danger

remains and whether it breached a duty of confidence of the employer or a prescribed

regulator, the reasonableness of its response are particularly relevant.

Regarding occupational detriment (dismissal, suspension, demotion, harassment,

intimidation, transfer against will, disadvantageous alteration in the terms and condition of

employment, refusal of transfer or promotion, a refusal to provide reference or adverse

reference, refusal of employment or appointment to office or any other adverse impact on

whistle-blower’s employment), the Act provides remedies whereby the whistle-blower can

bring a claim in any court of jurisdiction or pursue any other process allowed or prescribed by

law.

Southern Africa compiled the SADC protocol against corruption, which Mozambique is also

a signatory state member, aligning it with the AU conventions to place whistle-blowing as a

key element within an effective anti-corruption, by committing state members, to create,

maintain and strengthen systems for protecting individuals who in good faith report acts of

corruptions (Martin ,2010).


All the above mentioned efforts and the enactment of South African Whistle-blowing

protection Act is a landmark of the importance of whistle-blowing in the Southern African

Region

3.5 What to consider when introducing and implementing whistle-blowing policy

Sangweni (2003), proposed 10 points to ensure an effective introduction of whistle-blowing

policy in organizations. He suggests to managers that the organizations must:

Make it clear, through a consultative process to management and employees that it is both

safe and acceptable for workers and management to raise concerns about wrongdoing and

display this consensus-based policy in writing;

Review the procedure and rules on reporting consensus and that if there is any, or use a

consultative mechanism to generate the rules and procedures if they don´t exist;

Ensure that whenever concerns are raised by any staff member, that management will

respond within the agreed timeframe and demonstrate the response to the staff raising the

concern and later to all employees;

Ensure that where a reasonable disclosure has been made, management will take all steps

to ensure that no colleague under the managers control victimises the whistle-blower;

Check the confidentiality clauses in the employment contract;

Evaluate the organizational structure and decide on a senior person accepted by all to

whom the confidential disclosure can be made, making clear that, this person is

empowered and willing to act if concerns are not raised with ~or proper dealt with – by

immediate line management;

Make sure that the success stories are publicised, so that everybody can see the

organizational commitment to curb wrongdoings;

Ensure managers understand how to act if a concern is raised by enforcing that managers

must understand that employees have the right to blow the whistle;

Consider, whenever necessary, the need to make use of independent advice centre in

understanding and using the protected disclosure legislation and

Make sure to introduce and promote the whistle-blowing policy at all levels of the

organization.

On top of the points stated above on the introduction of whistle-blowing policy, when

implementing a whistle-blowing policy, Sangweni (2003) proposed a framework composed

by four points listed below:


Understand the issue

In this regard, he recommends that management should first ensure that all employees are

aware of what constitute wrongdoing by asking all employees to keep vigilant, display and

ensure good practices. The successful involvement of employees will give a message to those

who are tempted, that they will not get through.

Ensure employees see the policy in action

The recommendation is that “employees need to know what practices are acceptable and be

encouraged to ask management if any action is appropriate before and not after taking the

action”. Also, management must prove by action to all employees, that when finding any

serious wrongdoing, they deal with it seriously.

Be open to concern

Management must ensure that it is open to concerns and ready to deal with it before it

becomes a grievance. On doing so, management must make sure that they will support

concerned employees and protect them from reprisals, by doing whatever necessary.

Also, Management must ensure that aside from line management, employees have another

route to raise concerns and provide recommendations on how employees can approach them

in confidence or any other route provided that they fell not satisfied with the dealing with the

concern

Deal with the concerns

To effectively succeed, management must have in mind that every allegation has two sides.

Management must respect and heed the legitimate employee concerns about its safety and

career and emphasize to both management and employees that victimizing employee or

deterring him/her from raising a concern about any wrongdoing is a disciplinary offense. On

top of this, management must make it clear to employees that abusing the process by raising

unfounded allegations maliciously are also a disciplinary offence which management will

deal with accordingly. To finalize, management must report back to the concerned employee

about the outcome.

As a best practice, according to Transparency International’s recommended principles for

whistle-blowing legislation , the whistle-blowing legislation must ensure that the whistle-


blowers are entitled to a fair hearing before an impartial forum with a full right of appeal. To

demonstrate, under the South African PDA, “an employee who has been subjected, is

subjected or may be subjected to an occupational detriment in breach of the act may approach

may approach any court with jurisdiction including the labour court”.

Enforcement can also be sought through the inclusion of remedies for whistle-blowers who

have suffered harm, as recommended for example by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary

Assembly resolution on whistle-blowing protection, which according to Banisar (2009), such

remedies may take into account not only lost salary but also compensatory damages for

suffering.

3.6 Whistle-blowing awareness and evaluation mechanisms

Public employees are the first to have access to up-to-date information concerning their

workplaces and usually the first in recognizing the wrongdoings. Thus, encouraging whistle-

blowing among employees on acts of suspected wrongdoings is essential for safeguarding

public interest and promoting a culture of public accountability and integrity.

The encouragement of whistle-blowing must be associated with the corresponding protection

for the whistle-blower. Therefore, employees need to know what their rights and obligations

are in terms of exposing actual or suspected wrongdoing. This should include clear rules and

procedures for officials to follow and a formal mechanism for responsibility. Also, employees

need to know what protection will be available for them in case of exposing wrongdoing.

The translation of whistle-blowing protection into legislation legitimizes and structures the

mechanisms under which public officials can disclose wrongdoing to protect employees

against reprisals and at the same time encourage them to fulfil their duties in performing

efficient, transparent and high quality public service. If adequately implemented, the

legislation can be one of the most effective tools to detect and combat mismanagement and

fraud( Culp ,1995),; Mavuso and Balia, 1999);& Felt and O’Connor 2006).

To accomplish its goals the whistle-blowing protection legislation should be supported by

effective awareness-raising, communication, training and evaluation efforts. As

recommended by the OECD(1998) document on improving ethical conduct in the public

services . Also, from time to time, countries and companies must evaluate the effectiveness

of the whistle-blowing mechanism in place, by a systematic collection of data as it is done in

South Africa( Martin 2010).


While the Sarbanes-Oxley as well as the King initiatives, make it mandatory that the CEO of

every public company is required to file financial statements with the Security exchanges

commission and must certify that the statements “fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of the issuer”, such requirement is not evident in

Mozambican State Owned companies. This can be supported by the fact as of the writing of

this report the Mozambique Telecommunication Company for example still not yet presented

the financial results for year 2009 –as up to now.

3.7 whistle-blowing policy framework

Global integrity recommends a whistle-blowing framework policy comprising of 21 points as

listed below.

3.7.1. Introduction

The policy should cover the controls and procedures for dealing with allegations of suspected

improper conduct. It also must address the protection and appropriate management of

individuals making allegations of suspected improper activity or ‘protected disclosures.

The whistleblower policy must be designed to cover both internal and external whistle-

blowing. The key effect of its design feature is that provision must be made for the reporting

of alleged improper activity, including reporting methods and channels that remain within the

organization and management procedures for alleged improper conduct that are confined to

the organization, subject to the need to meet legal and regulatory requirements.

This policy should be applicable to all state owned companies employees and all related

parties dealing, have dealt or to deal with any state owned company.

3.7.2 Purpose of the Policy

The purpose of the must be to outline the controls and procedures for dealing with allegations

of suspected improper activity. The Policy must provide a framework for management of the

whistle-blowing process and guidelines on managing the welfare of the whistleblower

(whistleblower protection).

The policy must establish a system for reporting disclosures of improper conduct or

detrimental action by any state owned company management, its employees or persons who


have dealings with the companies. The purpose of the policy should not to act as a stand-

alone solution to disclosure of improper conduct, or the protection of the whistleblower, but

to complement traditional business communication and increase transparency within the

organization, while facilitating increased confidence in disclosure and assurance of the

whistleblower.

More specifically, the purpose of the policy should be to:

Create awareness of the whistleblower policy and whistleblower protection;

Act as a reference guide to potential whistleblowers wishing to make a disclosure;

Define the structure of the whistleblower system, including:

Reporting System;

Roles and Responsibilities;

Assessment of Disclosures;

Investigation;

Post-Investigation Procedures;

Whistleblower Protection;

And Confidentiality

3.7.3 Related documents to support whistle-blowing policy

The policy should be read in conjunction with the following documents:

The companies code of ethics and

The prevailing regulatory framework applicable.

3.7.4 Required definitions in the whistle-blowing policy

The Policy should clearly define the meaning of:

Whistle-blowing

Whistle-blower

Improper Conduct

Harassment

Improper Business Conduct

Corporate Malfeasance

Protected Disclosure

Detrimental Action


Employee

Persons Who Have Dealings the state owned companies

3.7.5 Whistle-blowing policy statement

The Policy must clearly state and embrace the company’s commitment to complying with the

laws and regulations by which it is governed, laws and regulations that are in force within the

country. An integral component of this commitment is the dedication to abiding by the

controls and procedures.

The companies must recognize the value of transparency and accountability in its

administrative and management practices and supports the making of disclosures that reveal

improper conduct or mismanagement of the state owned resources.

The internal controls and operating procedures are intended to detect and prevent improper

conduct, as set out in the Code of conduct of state owned companies. However, by

recognizing that even the best systems of control cannot guarantee absolute immunity from

inappropriate workplace behaviour. Therefore, the company’s management bodies must

recognizethat intentional and unintentional violations of laws, regulations, policies and

procedures may occur and will constitute and constitute improper conduct.

Understanding these potential, state owned companies in coordination with the supervising

body must implement an efficient and effective whistle-blowing system that contains

procedural requirements and guidelines. Specifically, this system must address the reporting

system, assessment of disclosures, the investigation of alleged improper activity, the

management of the whistle-blower (to include welfare and confidentiality) and the review

process for ensuring the policy and procedures remain effective.

The management of the companies and the supervising bodies must take all reasonable steps,

and do all things necessary, to protect those who make protected disclosures from any

detrimental action in reprisal for the making of the disclosure. This must entail dealing fairly

with employee (s) who is the subject of the disclosure.

3.7.6 Reporting system for the whistle-blowing policy

A sound reporting system that instils confidence in employees and persons who have dealings

with the state owned companies and promotes trust in the integrity and effectiveness of that


same system is vital to the successful design and operation of the whistle-blower policy.

Therefore, the state owned companies must employ the following mechanisms to facilitate

the disclosure of suspected improper conduct:

3.7.7 Protected disclosure coordinator

The policy must provide recommendations to appoint the head of risk / audit or legal counsel

who will function as the nominated protected disclosure coordinator for the state risk and

auditing management.

3.7.8 Anonymous disclosure

In some exceptional circumstances, the whistle-blower may wish for their identity to remain

unknown even to the protected disclosure coordinator. In this case, the assessment and

investigation of the disclosure may be more difficult without the on-going authority and

cooperation of the whistle-blower; however, the allegation must still be investigated if the

protected disclosure coordinator believes the allegation serious enough to warrant

‘anonymous investigation.

3.7.9 Disclosure methods

There are many methods by which whistle-blowers may make a disclosure. The whistle-

blowing policy must to provide a few examples of the possible methods and provide

assistance to whistle-blowers who are unsure of how to make a disclosure.

3.7.10 Roles and responsibilities in the whistle-blowing policy

It is important that the roles and responsibilities of all parties associated (or potentially

associated) with the whistle-blowing process are clearly defined and transparent. Having

clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all parties involved will reduce the potential for

misunderstanding, miscommunication and mismanagement of the whistle-blowing process.

Therefore:

3.7.11 Employees of state owned companies

All companies’ employees and management must be encouraged, and have the responsibility

to, report any known or suspected incidences of improper activity or detrimental action in

accordance with this policy.


All employees of any company must have an employment duty concerning the welfare of the

whistle-blower within the organisation. Therefore, all employees must refrain from any

activity that is, or could be perceived to be, victimisation or harassment of a person who

makes a disclosure. In line with this, all employees must not, under any circumstance, engage

in any activity that would constitute detrimental action (as defined by this policy).

3.7.12 Protected disclosure coordinator

The nominated protected disclosure cluster coordinator should be accountable for the core

operation of the whistle-blower policy and holds the burden of responsibility. On performing

his/her role of the protected disclosure the responsibilities must bedefined to include, but not

be limited to:

Provide a general advice about the operation of the whistle-blower policy for any person

wishing to a disclosure about any detrimental action;

Act as point of contact for employees and persons who have dealings with state owned

companies to field questions, provide assistance or support during the disclosure process

and more specifically:

Receive all call, Emails, letters from employees and persons who have dealing with state

owned companies seeking to make a disclosure;

Make arrangements for the disclosure to be made privately and if necessary outside the

work environment;

Receive any disclosure made orally or in writing;

Commit to write any disclosure made orally without omissions;

Impartially access the allegations and determine whether it is a disclosure made in

accordance with procedures set out by the policies;

Take all steps necessary to ensure the identity of the whistle-blower and the identity of

the person subject to the allegation remain confidential;

In cases involving harassment have the matter handled in accordance with the grievance

procedure/ employee handbook, ensuring that only those individuals with a “need to

know” will be involved in or informed of the harassment claims;

The Protected Disclosure Coordinator is also responsible for:

Liaising with the appropriate authorities (both internal and external), through Enterprise

Risk and Audit Manager when a disclosure occurs or to the Company management in a

case by case analysis


After consultation with the required authorities, carrying out, or appointing an

investigator to carry out, an investigation resulting from a disclosure;

Overseeand coordinate the investigation where an investigator has been appointed;

Appoint a welfare manager to provide support to the whistle-blower and to protect them

from any reprisals or detrimental action resulting from making a disclosure;

Keep the whistle-blower and the subject of the disclosure informed as to the progress of

the investigation into the disclosed matter;

Establish and maintain a confidential filing system;

Collate and publish statistics on disclosures made; and

Take all necessary steps in consultation with the Enterprise Risk and Audit Manager to

ensure the whistle-blower process is fair and just.

3.7.13 Whistle-blowing Investigator

The whistle-blowing investigator may be an internal investigator or an investigator appointed

by the protected disclosure coordinator in consultation with the company Legal department

and the enterprise risk and audit manager. The investigator will be responsible for carrying

out an internal investigation into the disclosure that has been made.

3.7.14 Whistle-blower welfare manager

The Welfare Manager should be responsible for the general welfare and protection of the

whistle-blower against reprisal and detrimental action. The specific responsibilities of the

welfare manager must include:

Examine the immediate welfare and protection needs of a whistle-blower who has made a

disclosure and seek to foster a supportive work environment;

Advise the whistle-blower of the legislative and administrative protections available to

them;

Listen and respond to any concerns of harassment, intimidation or victimisation in

reprisal for making a disclosure; and

Ensure the expectations of the whistle-blower are realistic.


The welfare manager must be appointed by the Protected Disclosure Coordinator in

consultation with the Legal Officer and Enterprise Risk and Audit Manager on a case-by-case

basis. In certain circumstances a suitably qualified Welfare Manager independent to company

may be appointed, with prior approval of the company’s management or supervising body.

3.7.15 Whistle-blowing confidentiality

The state owned companies must take all reasonable steps to protect the identity of the

whistle-blower. Therefore, all disclosures will be kept confidential, subject to the need to

meet legal and regulatory requirements.

It is the duly responsibility of protected disclosure coordinator to ensure that all files, whether

paper or electronic, are kept in a secure room and can only be accessed as necessary by

protected disclosure coordinator, Management official if the matter requires, the investigator

or welfare manager (in relation to welfare matters).

In addition to this:

All printed material must be kept in files that are clearly marked as a whistle-blower

protection matter with a clear visible war of the criminal penalties that apply to any

unauthorised disclosure of information concerning a protected disclosure;

All electronic files will be produced and stored on in a computer with a secured access

and given access permission rights;

All materials relevant to an investigation, such as notes or tapes from interviews, will also

be stored securely with the whistle-blower files;

All documents relevant to a whistle-blower matter must not be shared and all phone calls

and meetings must be conducted in private;

All disclosures must be kept confidential, subject to the need to meet legal and regulatory

requirements; and

In cases involving harassment, the matter must be handled in accordance with local

Grievance Procedure Guidelines or the local Employee Handbook. Only those individuals

with a “need to know” will be involved in or informed of harassment claims.


3.7.16 Collation and publication of statistics

The protected disclosure coordinator must establish a secure register to record the

information surrounding the nature and status of whistle-blower disclosures. The register will

be confidential and should not record any information that may identify the whistle-blower.

The register must contain the following information:

The number and types of disclosures made during the year;

The number and types of disclosures referred by the state owned companies to an

independent consultant for investigation;

The number and types of investigations taken over from the state owned company by

independent investigators;

The number of requests made by a whistle-blower for the investigation to be taken over

by an independent consultant;

The number and types of disclosed matters that were declined for investigation;

The number and types of disclosed matters that were substantiated upon investigation and

the action taken on completion of the investigation; and

Any recommendations made as a result of the investigation.

Statistics such as (but not limited to) those above must be published in a report to the risk and

audit committee/ quarterly, with a report to be produced on demand if and when the board

deems necessary.

3.7.17 Reception and assessment of disclosures

When receiving and assessing disclosures the following issues must be considered:

Made in accordance with the Policy?

Made to the appropriate person?

Is it a protected disclosure?

3.7.18 Investigation of reported malpractices

Where assessment of the disclosure reveals the need for an investigation, the protected

disclosure coordinator in consultation with the legal officer and enterprise risk and audit

Manager will appoint an investigator to carry out the investigation. The objectives of an

investigation must be:


To collate information relating to the allegation as quickly as possible. This may involve

taking steps to protect or preserve documents, materials and equipment;

To consider the information collected and draw conclusions objectively and impartially;

To maintain procedural fairness in the treatment of witnesses and the person who is the

subject of the disclosure;

To protect the identity of the whistle-blower; and

To make recommendations to the management or the supervisory body arising from the

conclusions drawn concerning remedial or other appropriate action.

3.7.19 Terms of reference the investigations

Before commencing an investigation, the protected disclosure coordinator must draw up

terms of reference and obtain authorisation for those terms by legal officer and enterprise risk

and audit manager.

The terms of reference must set a date by which the investigation report is to be concluded,

and must describe the resources available to the investigator to complete the investigation

within the time set.

The relevant manger or supervisory body may approve, if reasonable, an extension of time

requested by the investigator. The terms of reference will require the investigator to make

regular reports to the Protected Disclosure Coordinator of general progress and such reports

should be delivered to the relevant Management or supervisory body immediately.

3.7.20 Investigation plan

The investigator must prepare an investigation plan for approval by the Protected Disclosure

Coordinator. The plan must list the issues to be substantiated and describe the avenue of

inquiry. It must address the following issues:

What is being alleged?

What are the possible findings or offences?

What are the facts in issue?

How is the inquiry to be conducted?


What resources are required?

At the commencement of the investigation, the whistle-blower must be:

Notified by the investigator that he or she has been appointed to conduct the

investigation; and

Asked to clarify any matters and provide any additional material he or she might have.

The investigator must be sensitive to the whistle-blower’s possible fear of reprisals and must

be aware of the statutory protections (according to jurisdiction) provided to the whistle-

blower according to the law.

3.7.21 Natural justice

Apart from any investigation and resulting disciplinary proceedings that will be conducted

internally by the organisation if there is any criminal offense it must be reported immediately

to relevant enforcement authorities.

3.7.22 Conduct of the investigation

When conducting the investigations the investigator must store all information gathered in a

secure place. The investigator must take all steps to protect the identity of the whistle-blower.

However, where disclosure of the identity of the whistle-blower cannot be avoided, due to the

nature of the allegations, the investigator will warn the whistle-blower and his or her welfare

manager of this probability.

It should be in the discretion of the investigator to allow any witness to have legal or other

representation or support during an interview. If a witness has a special need for legal

representation or support, permission should be granted.

3.7.23 Whistle-blowing reporting requirements

The protected disclosure coordinator must ensure that the whistle-blower is kept regularly

informed concerning the handling of a protected disclosure and an investigation taking place.

The protected disclosure coordinator must report to the appropriate officers of the company

or the supervising body about the progress of the investigation. If the whistle-blower requests

information about the progress of an investigation, that information must be provided within

10 days of the date of the request.


3.8 Reporting of actions

After any whistle-blowing process a reporting procedure must be followed. According to

global integrity the reporting process must be composed of the following elements listed

bellow

3.8.1 Investigator’s Final Report

At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must submit a written report of his or

her findings to the protected disclosure coordinator. The report must contain:

The allegation/s;

An account of all relevant information received and, if the investigator has rejected

evidence as being unreliable, the reasons for this opinion being formed;

The conclusions reached and the basis for them; and

Any recommendations arising from the conclusions.

If the investigator has found that the conduct disclosed by the whistle-blower has occurred,

recommendations made by the investigator must include:

The steps that need to be taken by the company to prevent the conduct from continuing or

occurring in the future; and

Any action that should be taken by company to remedy any harm or loss arising from the

conduct. This action may include bringing disciplinary proceedings against the person(s)

responsible for the conduct, and referring the matter to an appropriate authority for further

consideration.

The report may be accompanied by:

The transcript or other record of any oral evidence taken, including tape recordings; and

All documents, statements or other exhibits received by the investigator and accepted as

evidence during the course of the investigation.

Where the investigator’s report is to include an adverse comment against any person, that

person must be given the opportunity to respond and his or her defence must be fairly


included in the report and the report should not disclose particulars likely to lead to the

identification of the whistle-blower.

3.8.2 Actions to be taken

If the protected disclosure coordinator is satisfied that the investigation has found that the

disclosed conduct has occurred, he or she must recommend the action that must be taken to

prevent the conduct from continuing or occurring in the future. The protected disclosure

coordinator may also recommend that action be taken to remedy any harm or loss arising

from the conduct.

The protected disclosure coordinator must provide a written report to the board of directors,

the enterprise risk and audit manager and the whistle-blower setting out the findings of the

investigation and any remedial steps taken.

Where the investigation concludes that the disclosed conduct did not occur, the protected

disclosure coordinator must report these findings to the enterprise risk and audit manager and

to the whistle-blower.

3.9Management of the welfare of the whistle-blower

Global integrity recommends that any whistle-blowing process must aim to ensure always the

wellbeing of the whistle-blower. Therefore, the following aspects must be taken in

consideration:

3.9.1Commitment to protect whistle-blowers

All state owned companies must be committed to the protection of genuine whistle-blowers

against detrimental action taken in reprisal for the making of protected disclosures.

In this regard, the protected disclosure coordinator must be responsible for ensuring that

whistle-blowers are protected from direct and indirect detrimental action, and that the culture

of the workplace is supportive of protected disclosures being made.

The protected disclosure coordinator may recommend a welfare manager to all whistle-

blowers who have made a protected disclosure or ask to the whistle-blower, whom he or she

would like to have as the welfare manager.


The welfare manager must:

Examine the immediate welfare and protection needs of a whistle-blower who has made a

disclosure andseek to foster a supportive work environment;

Advise the whistle-blower of the legislative and administrative protections available to

him or her;

Listen and respond to any concerns of harassment, intimidation or victimisation in

reprisal for making disclosure;

Keep a contemporaneous record of all aspects of the case management of the whistle-

blower including all contact and follow-up action; and

Ensure the expectations of the whistle-blower are realistic.

All employees must be advised that it is an offence for a person to take detrimental action in

reprisal for a protected disclosure and that it will be handled according the law. The taking of

detrimental action in breach of this provision will be ground grounds for making a disclosure

the enforcement authority. The person taking detrimental action must be subject to

disciplinary action by the company, which may lead up to the termination of contract

employment.

3.9.2Keeping the whistle-blower informed

The protected disclosure coordinator will ensure the whistle-blower is kept informed of

action taken in relation to his or her disclosure, and the time frames that apply. The whistle-

blower will be informed of the objectives of an investigation, the findings of an investigation,

and the steps taken by companyto address any improper conduct that has been found to have

occurred. The whistle-blower will be given reasons for decisions made by company in

relation to a protected disclosure.

3.9.3 Occurrence of detrimental action

If a whistle-blower reports an incident of harassment, discrimination or adverse treatment that

would amount to detrimental action taken in reprisal for the making of the disclosure, the

welfare manager will:

Record details of the incident;

Advise the whistle-blower of his or her rights under the relevant legislation; and


Advise the protected disclosure coordinator and the company’s management or the

supervising body depending on the case of the detrimental action.

The taking of detrimental action in reprisal for the making of a disclosure must be made an

offence as well as grounds for making a further disclosure. Where such detrimental action is

reported, the protected disclosure coordinator will assess the report as a new disclosure.

3.9.4 Whistle-blowers implicated in improper conduct

If a person who makes a disclosure is implicated in misconduct, the company must handle the

disclosure and protect the whistle-blower from reprisals in accordance with the relevant

legislation and the disclosure protection framework.

Companies must keep all employees aware that the act of whistle-blowing should not shield

whistle-blowers from the reasonable consequences flowing from any involvement in

improper conduct. A person’s liability for his or her own conduct is not affected by the

person’s disclosure of that conduct. However, management must be alerted that in some

circumstances, an admission may be a mitigating factor when considering disciplinary or

other action.

The Legal Officer along with the enterprise risk and audit manager must propose the final

decision on the advice of the protected disclosure coordinator as to whether disciplinary or

other action will be taken against a whistle-blower. Where disciplinary or other action relates

to conduct that is the subject of the whistle-blower’s disclosure, the disciplinary or other

action must only be taken after the disclosed matter has been appropriately dealt with. In all

cases where disciplinary or other action is being contemplated, the legal officer must be

satisfied that it has been clearly demonstrated that:

The intention to proceed with disciplinary action is not causally connected to the making

of the disclosure (as opposed to the content of the disclosure or other available

information);

There are good and sufficient grounds that would fully justify action against any non-

whistle-blower in the same circumstances; and


There are good and sufficient grounds that justify exercising any discretion to institute

disciplinary or other action.

The protected disclosure coordinator must thoroughly document the process including

recording the reasons why the disciplinary or other action is being taken, and the reasons why

the action is not in retribution for the making of the disclosure. The Protected Disclosure

Coordinator must clearly advise the whistle-blower of the proposed action to be taken, and of

any mitigating factors that have been taken into account.

3.9.5 Management of the person against whom the disclosure has been made

The state owned companies must recognise that persons against whom disclosures are made

must also be supported during the handling and investigation of disclosures.

Therefore, the companies must take all reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the

person who is the subject of the disclosure during the assessment and investigation process.

Where investigations do not substantiate disclosures, the fact that the investigation has been

carried out, the results of the investigation, and the identity of the person who is the subject of

the disclosure must remain confidential.

In cases involving harassment where it may not be possible to maintain confidentiality of the

whistle-blower, the matter must be handled in accordance with local grievance procedure or

the employee handbook. Only those individuals with a “need to know” will be involved in or

informed of harassment claims.

The person who is the subject of any disclosure investigated by or on behalf of company, the

Protected Disclosure Coordinator must:

Inform them as to the substance of the allegations;

Given the opportunity to answer the allegations;

Inform as to the substance of any adverse comment that may be included in any report

arising from the investigation; and has

Record his or her defence set out fairly in any report.


If the allegations in a disclosure have been investigated, and the person who is the subject of

the disclosure is aware of the allegations or the fact of the investigation, the protected

disclosure coordinator must formally advise the person who is the subject of the disclosure of

the outcome of the investigation.

Companies must give its full support to a person who is the subject of a disclosure where the

allegations contained in a disclosure are clearly wrong or unsubstantiated. If the matter has

been publicly disclosed, the legal officer and enterprise Risk and audit manager of the

company must consider any request by that person to issue a statement of support setting out

that the allegations were clearly wrong or unsubstantiated.

3.9.6 Whistle-blowing Review Process

These procedures must be reviewed on regular basis whenever necessary to ensure that the

policy as per this framework meets the objectives of the relevant legislation and remain

effective for the company and may be changed at any time at the discretion of the Board of

Directors or the supervising body of the state owned companies.


Chapter 4

4.1 Research design and methods

To achieve the objectives of this study, the research used a combined approach of qualitative

and quantitative research method. As stated by McMillan and Schumacher (1993), a

qualitative research is a naturalistic inquiry using a non-interfering data collection to uncover

the natural flow of events and processes and how participants interpret them.

The qualitative research is an umbrella covering several forms of enquires to understand and

explain a social phenomenon (Merrian 1998). This understanding, according to McMillan

and Schumacher (1993), can only be acquired by analysing the context and by “narrating

participant’s” feelings, ideals, beliefs, thoughts and actions.

By undertaking the qualitative research approach, in line with Sherman and Webb (1988), the

aim of the researcher was to describe the facts occurring in regard to whistle-blowing in

Mozambique, interpret the meaning and relationships of the events and give a supported

judgment to the observed facts.

According to Miles and Huberman (1994) qualitative research seems most appropriate when

the study requires substantial a) data reduction, b) clarification in the presentation of these

data and c) expectation for new theoretical proposition or managerial actions.

Within the framework of this research, the researcher would like to draw up conclusions and

recommendation on how the employees would feel motivated to stand up against

wrongdoings

Bogdan and Bikken (2003), posit that qualitative research is descriptive and according to

Merrian (1998) it involves field work.

The qualitative research has been defined as referring to the production of description of how

and why certain events occur ;it describes, by revealing the nature of the events, interpret by

gaining insight into the nature of the event, developing new concepts or theoretical

perspectives about the events or discovering the problems that exist within the occurrence;

verify, by testing the validity of certain assumptions, theories or generalizations; evaluate by

providing means by which the researcher will judge the effectiveness of a practice or

innovation.


According to this, the researcher interacted with people to investigate and collect the data

required for the study. For the purposes of this study in collecting data, the aims were to:

Determine the reasons why the employees in State owned Companies in

Mozambique blow the whistle through the media

investigate the level of trust in the mechanisms in place for curbing

wrongdoings in state owned companies

examine the implementation of whistle-blowing procedures in Sate Owned

Companies

determine the strategies and measures that can be used to encourage internal

whistle-blowing

When discussing local grounding, Lee (1999) recommends that a researcher needs to study

the site, the participants and processes with the aim to understand if they hold an intrinsic

interest. Milles and Huberman (1994) recommended to researchers to address interrelated

points when considering embarking in qualitative research, pointing specifically to the local

grounding, richness and holism, sustained period and causality and lived meanings.

On the richness and holism as suggested by Lee (1999), o Milles and Huberman (1994),

recommend that “qualitative research should strike the reader with a feel of truth about the

study and ideally should have a strong and long term effect on the reader’s memory”.

Regarding the lived meanings, the recommendation is to focus on participant’s point of view

allowing participants to describe their perspectives in their own word and from their

individual perspectives Lee (1999).

Although accepted as a valid research methodology Van der Berg (1995), qualitative research

has been largely criticised Creswell (1994);, when conducting this kind of research, the

researcher must take care of the context, the setting, the human factor, and the establishment

of trustworthiness.

During the research I will follow the case study approach aiming primarily to describe the

organizational phenomena occurring in Mozambican state owned enterprises; the case study

was based on theoretical propositions by scholars who have already studied the whistle-

blowing process or phenomena in different environments as the one Mozambique is in.


As pointed by Merriam (1998), in qualitative research ethical dilemmas are likely to surface

with regard to the data collection, the analysis of the findings, the attitude of the participants

who may feel that their privacy is being invaded or because they are being faced with

embarrassing questions.

Frustration may also arise as subjects may sometimes not willing to disclose all information

to the research getting to the point that, participants may even change their behaviour just

because they noticed that they are being made subjects of the study (Bailey 1994).

To overcome all this possible obstacles, Mouton (2001), suggests that the manner in which

the researcher will interact with participants should be based upon agreed grounds of

understanding displaying acceptable norms and values. To add on Singleton (1984), urges

researchers to be completely honest on their observations, analysis, and report findings and to

be responsible about the limits and the applications of any scientific knowledge.

4.2 Research sample

The sampling process as proposed by Gay (1992) is utilized in this dissertation. According to

Gay (1992) this is a process of selecting a number of individuals for a study in a way that the

individuals represent the larger group from which they are selected. Robson (1993) further

states that “a sample is a selection of participants from a given population, with a purpose of

gaining information about the population or from the population.

This research used a sample of six state owned companies

4.3 Research procedure: methods of data collection

The study used the qualitative Research method techniques for data collection. Due to the

nature of the study, it required the use of interviews, questionnaires and fact finding from the

newspapers to collect as much as possible the relevant facts regarding the occurrence of

whistle-blowing to the media or to the established structures within the organizations which

are the subject of the study

4.3.1 Interviews

Structured interviews were used, with the researcher asking same questions and order as per

interview schedule. The reason for using interviews was based on the fact that, according to

MacMillan and Schumacher (1993), the responses obtained are of high quality.


The questionnaires were designed, taking recommendations from Cozby (1997), that they

must have the information needed clearly tabulated, with clear and brief questions and easy to

be completed by participants.

According to Robson (1993), respondents must have the opportunity to also choose answers

to their personal liking; it was started with demographical data, a set of open ended questions

and closing with close ended questions.

4.3. 2 Questionnaires

Due to logistical constraints, the questionnaires were hand delivered to participants by the

researcher, ensuring therefore, that the questionnaires were properly delivered and creating

opportunity to immediately clarify any question that could arise.


Chapter 5:

5.1 Presentation and discussion of the research results

To conduct this study, the researcher first obtained permission from management of the

companies. After the permission, the researcher briefed all participants that participation was

voluntary, confidential and the data would be used for research purpose only, supported by

the fact that according to Babbie and Mutton (2001), while the scientist has the right to search

for the truth it should not be on the expense of the interviewee’s right to privacy.

A total of 90 questionnaires were distributed to employees of the selected companies.

Hypothesis 1



To test this hypothesis, employees were asked, to respond according to their point of view in:

a) if within the company there are structures and processes in place to handle whistle-

blowing; b) if in the company there is ethics officer, c) if employees have already reported

wrongdoings and what was the outcome; and d) if employees were aware of the existence of

any protection mechanism for whistle-blower within the company.

Figure 6 Existence of whistle-blowing processes and procedures

From the interviews , when respondingto the existence of processes and procedures within

their companies as depicted by figure 6, 54% of the employees agreed or strongly agreed that

there are processes and procedures within their companies, with 29% of employees

disagreeing that in their companies there are processes and procedures in place to deal with

whistle-blowing.


When questioned about the existence or not of an ethical officer within their organizations as

depicted in figure 7, 47% pointed categorically the non-existence of ethical officer in their

companies, with 27% pointing out that they don’t know if there is ethical officer while only

26% stated that within their companies there is ethical officer.

Figure 7Existence of ethics officer in state owned companies

When asked about their level of knowledge of existence of protection mechanisms available

to employees the result shows that almost 46% of the respondents stated that they are not

aware of the existence of any protection mechanism available and only 19% respondents are

those who are aware of the existence of the protection mechanism.

Figure 8 Awareness of whistle-blowing protection mechanism available

Very alarming is the fact that within the state owned companies 35% (more that one third of

all employees interviwed) reported to be neutral regarding the existence of ethical officer in

their companies


Hypothesis 2


companies.

To address this point, the following questions were asked a) whistle-blowing applies to all

employees; b) if employees are familiar with whistle-blowing procedures; c) if employees

know that they are protected in the event of reporting any wrong-doing; d) if employees

perceived whistle-blowing as part of the conditions of employment; e) if employees know

where to blow the whistle;

Figure 9 Applicability of whistle-blowing processes and procedures to all staff

Responding to if employees regarded whistle-blowing as applicable to all, 25% of the

interviewees were not sure if whistle-blowing policies and procedures are applicable to all

employees, with 48% stating that it applies to all employees while 29% are of the opinion

that it is not applicable to all employees as shown in the figure above.

When asked if they are familiar whistle-blowing 35% of employees stated that they are

familiar with the process. The results also show alarming figures, that 43% of employees

clealyr stated that they are not familiar with whistle-blowing processes. Apart from those who

stated that they are not familiar with whistle-blowing processes, 22% are not sure if they are

familiar or not with whistleblowing processes. These results are depicted in figure 10.


Figure 10 Familiarity with whistle-blowing processes and procedures

When responding to if employees knew that they are protected should they embark in

whistle-blowing, the results show that only 12% know that they are protected. It is alarming

that 54% reported that they don’t know that they are protected .

Figure 11 Awareness of whistle-blowing protections mechanism

The figure below represents the answers from employees, when asked if they regard whistle-

blowing as part of their job. The result show that 48% don’t’ agree that whistle-blowing is

part of their job, 30% don’t know if it is part of their job while only approximately 22% think

that blowing the whistle is part of their jobs.


Figure 12Whistle-blowing is part of employee’s job

One interesting question was if any employee had not reported malpractice and if it was the

case what was the reason for not reporting. Interestingly, 27% knew whom to, 37% didn’t

know whom to report to and 36% were neutral

Figure 13not sure to who report to

Hypothesis 3


To test this hypothesis, employees were asked to respond on what was their perceptions and

feeling about the new promulgated regulatory framework for whistle-blowing protection in

Mozambique. Employees were asked to respond if a) the new regulatory would bring changes


or it would be one more piece of law have on paper; b) if they think that the new law would

bring changes within the state owned companies; c) if the employees foresee effectiveness of

the new law.

The results from the employee’s views of the new regulation showed an alarming situation.

53% of the employees who participated in the survey are of the opinion that the new

promulgated whistle-blowing protection law will be just one more regulatory framework to

have on paper, with 25% not sure on their point of view and only 22% assuming that the new

regulatory framework will be helpful as well depicted in figure bellow.

Figure 14 Whistle-blowing protection law is one more regulation to have on paper

Adding on these questions, employees where asked where to state who they fill comfortable

to report any wrongdoing witnessed in the company. Alternatives for these questions were

within the organization, to the enforcement authority, to the supervisory board or to the

media.

Figure 15 expected changes with the new law

Responding to this, 47% strongly disagree with blowing the whistle to the enforcement

authority while 42% were not able to say if they are comfortable blowing the whistle to the

enforcement authorities. Only 8% are the employees who would be comfortable to blow the

whistle to the enforcement authority as show in figure below.


Figure 16Anonymous whistle-blowing to the enforcement authority

In regard to blowing the whistle internally , the results show the same pattern as the one

related to the enforcement authorities with 56% not opting to report internally even

anonymously, with only 17% keen to blow the whistle within the organization

Figure 17 Anonymous whistle-blowing within the organization

Similarly when asked, if they perceived the law as to be effective only 27% were of the

opinion that the law would be effective while 56% were of the opinion that the introduction

of the new law on witness/whistleblowing protection will not be effective with the remaining

without expressing an opinion as illustrated below


Figure 18 whistle-blowing protection law effectiveness

Figure 19 Effectiveness of new whistle-blowing protection law

One crucial question for the survey was to ask employees how comfortable they are with

blowing the whistle to media, as it has been occurring within the country through almost

independent medias.

Not surprising is that 77% of employees approve blowing the whistle through the media

while 20% of employees are neutral with only 3% not approving blowing the whistle through

the media.


Figure 20 blowing the whistle through the media


Hypothesis 4


With the purpose of testing the above hypothesis, employees were asked to respond on a)

how were funds allocated to the company was managed; b) how they perceived the the way

power was exercised by management in the company; c) if employees thought that they

would suffer retaliation in the event of blowing the whistle; and d) what kind of career

threatening action they think they would suffer as a result of whistleblowing . the figure

below shows the results from testing hypothesis 4.

Figure 21 Actions taken after whistle-blowing

From the survey, 52% of employees reported that whistle-blowing had been exercised in their

companies but nothing has been done to curb the malpractices with 23% not sure about the

actions that have been taken as a consequence of whistle-blowing.

When responding to what the employee’s thinking is regarding the management of the funds

available in the companies they are working for, 40% are of the opinion that there is funds-

mismanagement, with approximately 22% thinking that there is no funds-mismanagement,

while approximately 38% has no idea of how the funds are managed within the company as

shown by figure 22


Figure 22 Management of funds in state owned companies

When asked to respond to how they perceived power and authority being used within the

organizations, 40% of employees reported that there was abuse of authority while only 22%

stated that within their organizations there was no abuse of authority by the management.

These results are summarized in figure below.

Figure 23 Abuse of authority in state owned companies

When asked regarding the type of retaliation employees think that they would be subject to

,approximately 52% are of the opinion that they would be subject to high scrutiny from the

management on every action on day-to-day activity, 55% are of the opinion that they would

be subject to verbal harassment, 52% believe that they would be fired from their jobs, 53%


believe that they would be assigned to less desirable duties and 63% think that they would be

subject to career denial.

Figure 24 Types of retaliation


5.2 Analysis of the research results

Hypothesis 1



The result from testing the above stated hypothesis is summarized in figure bellow.

Figure 25 Findings from interviews testing hypothesis 1

The outcome from the survey in regard to the existence of structures and processes show that

majority of employees agree that that they are in place. However, the statement that there are

structures in place could not be supported when employees were asked to respond if within

their companies there was an ethical officer.

In this regard, majority of employees stated that within their companies the ethical officer

was not present. This contradiction might suggest that wither the structures and processes

may exist only formally on paper without an effective presence.


The fact that employees are not aware of the protection mechanisms suggests that this may be

the reason why they may not report suspected or witnessed malpractices occurring within the

company within the company preferring to do so anonymously through the media.

Conclusion

As per evidence from the survey, the results seem to be that in fact within state owned

companies although the processes are in place and apparently the structure are also in place,

the policies are not applied consistently and therefore accept the hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2


companies.

Figure 26 Summary of findings for awareness on whistle-blowing

Looking from the figure above the results of the questionnaires clearly indicate that

employees in state owned companies understand that whistleblowing policies applies to all.

However, the results regarding familiarity with whistle-blowing processes show that majority

of employees although knowing that it applies to all, they are not familiar with the whistle-


blowing processes and procedures.This suggests that both the process and procedures are not

clear or are not well communicated across the board within the state owned companies.

On the other end, the fact that majority of employees totally disagree or disagree, with is also

a significant number neutral is on regard to their protection is an alarming signal. More

alarming is the fact that employees in majority are not aware that exercising whistle-blowing

is part of the condition of employment, suggests also that within the state owned companies

whistle—blowing processes and procedures are not effectively communicated.

The results also show that employees in majority know where to blow the whistle. The fact

that, although knowing where to blow the whistle and employees preferring to blow the

whistle through the media, may be correlated to the assumption that they will not be protected

if embarking on whistle-blowing activity as demonstrated by the interview results.

Conclusion

Summarizing all the finding from the testing of the hypothesis 2, the result clear support that

in Mozambican state owned companies although the employees know where to blow the

whistle, the information available to them on how to embark on whistle-blowing is not

sufficient, turning employees unfamiliar with the whistle-blowing processes and procedures


Hypothesis 3


Figure 27 Survey results for faith in Management

The hypothesis 3was intended to test the level of trust that employees in state owned

companies have regarding to the enforcement authorities available in the event of embarking

in whistle-blowing as well as testing how employees though regarding the effectiveness of

the new promulgated law on whistle-blowing protection.

The fact that majority of employees believe that the new law is “one more law to have on

paper”, is critical. Suggesting that employees in the state owned companies have no trust in

regard to the effectiveness of the framework put in place.

Also, from the results of the questionnaires, employees are of the opinion that the

introduction of the new law will change nothing. This suggests that, the perceptions from the

employees are that the possible law enforcement authority, either have no power to enforce it

of their have no willingness to enforce law.

This position can be also supported by the fact that majority of employees either strongly

disagree or disagree that they are comfortable with the enforcement authority.


The non-comfortability with enforcement authority in regard to whistle-blowing engagement

suggests that the employees do not trust the enforcement authorities entrustedto ensure rule of

law. This is also supported by the fact that also majority of employees feel more comfortable

to report wrongdoing if it is done anonymously.

Conclusion

Based on the results from the survey, the evidences suggest that employees in state owned

companies have lost their faith on management of the state owned companies which seems

to be the reason why employees on state owned companies embark in whistle-blowing

anonymously through the media

Hypothesis 4


This hypothesis was tested looking on the results of past reports of wrong-doings, existence

of funds mismanagement, existence of retaliationand the perceive career denials employees

may be facing

Figure 28 Impunity for persons in position of power

Taking from the results from the questionnaires, employees stated that they have already

reported wrong-doings in the past but according to them nothing has been done. They also

stated that, according to their perceptions in state owned companies there is funds


mismanagement. From the results also majority of interviewees are keen to affirm that they

will suffer retaliation and verbal harassment should they embark in whistle-blowing as

graphically depicted above.

The statement from the employees that malpractices has been already reported with a claim

that nothing was done and the belief from employees that there is a high likelihood for career

denial is suggestive that within the state owned companies there is a certain level of impunity

enjoyed by individuals in position of power.

Figure 29 Retaliation employees believe that may face

Regarding the career denial employees, the fact that majority of employees believe that they

can be subject to verbal harassment, be fired from job, be under tight scrutiny on their

activities by management can also suggest that in the state companies individuals in position

of power may not be full accountable for their behaviour, supporting the hypothesis that in

state owned companies there is impunity for individuals in position of power.

The fact that employees reported that they may be isolated by colleagues in the workplace

may suggest that the even employees who do not embark on whistle-blowing may also be

subject to verbal harassment, be fired from job or be under tight scrutiny on their activities by

management only by the fact of interacting with employees who embarked in whistle-

blowing activities.


Conclusion

Although the results are not conclusive, confidence that there is impunity of persons in

position of power the evidence from the survey suggests that from the employee’s point of

view there is impunity. Based on this, more research for evidence based is required to either

accept the hypothesis or reject it.

.


General Conclusions

The Mozambican Whistle-blowing protection act approved by the parliament in 2012, is a

document composed by simply 8 pages without enough details in regard to the disclosure

process. The above mentioned act does not states in which circumstances the whistle-blower

is protected, neither when a whistle should be protected nor better stated when a whistle-

blowing should be considered a protected act.

Laconia and Murphy (1991), pointed out that organizations that do not effectively deal with

whistle-blowing will incur considerable costs as a result of the negative publicity as a result

of disclosure of corporate illegalities or unethical actions.

There are two schools of thoughts as to how best to view whistle-blowers. One school of

view regard the whistle-blowers as disgruntled employee who vents his/her frustrations and

anger by accusing targeted individuals (usual superiors) of impropriety as a way for

achieving some measure of satisfaction or revenge.

The other school of thought regards whistle-blowers as individuals who have the

organization’s interest at the heart. However, as recommended by Donaldson (1982), a more

realistic perspective of whistle-blowing should be to recognize it as an instrument for

organizational change and well-being.

This was later supported by Dozier and Miceli (1985) who pointed out that whistle-blowers

can alert leaders and managers to the need for corrective measures by calling to their

attention dubious actions they might not have been aware. Therefore is on the best interest of

management to instil a culture where whistle-blowers with a god faith should be encouraged

and protected.

From the research the outcome is that, while the procedures and processes are in place in

state owned companies as per regulations, it seems that those processes and procedures are

not applied consistently across all state owned companies.

Also, while the processes are there the results from the survey show that the internal

communication within the state owned companies to raise awareness on the processes and

procedures have never been systematically passed to the employees. The existence of


growing whistle-blowing cases through the media anonymously may be linked to the lack of

communication from the management about the procedures on how to blow the whistle.

The increasing number of whistle-blowing cases through the media may also be associated,

based on the evidences from the research, to the lack of faith by the employees to the

management integrity and to the fear by the employees to a possible retaliation that they may

be subject should they embark in whistle-blowing activities.


Chapter 6:

Recommendations

Individual members if staff has the right and the duty to raise matters of concerns which they

may have about any malpractice, fraud, misconduct or wrongdoings witnessed by them or

associated to any employee.

To better respond to this rights and duties within the state owned companies, a policy must be

drawn up to ensure that mechanisms exists whereby State owned companies should not

tolerate any kind of improper conduct by any employee or any entity engaging in business

with.

There should be no adverse consequences for employees or the public at large raising

concerns in accordance to the policy unless the concerns was raised with a malicious intent.

The policy should make unlawful to dismiss, discipline or victimise employees who blows

the whistle on criminal behaviour or other malpractice.

The protection to be afforded should be applicable to all employees who follow the

prescribed procedure laid down in the legislation in disclosing malpractices within the state

owned companies, regardless the level in the the hierarchy of the company.

All allegations of suspected improper activity must be dealt with a level of severity consistent

with the desire to eradicate the same, as stated in the government anti-corruption act.

For this to happen, companies must design and put in place processes that allow employees or

any citizen to report any suspect/witnessed malpractice occurring according to the rules of the

company or the regulatory framework in the country.

Ensuring that a process is in place to allow employees or any persons who work for or have

dealings with any state owned company to report alleged improper conduct without fear of

retribution is an integral component of zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour in any

organization.


Maintaining an atmosphere of mutual workplace respect and proper business behaviour is

vital to the integrity and success of the organization and implementing a structurally sound

and business effective whistle-blower policy is a significant step towards this end.

The study results show that there is Lack of faith in management integrity. The lack of faith

bring along a lack of trust. Based on this, it is paramount that within the state owned

companies actions must be taken to restore and bust the trust ship between management and

employees.

Whistle-blowing is an important mechanism in the prevention and detection of improper

conduct, harassment or corruption. To ensure the theoretical notion of whistle-blowing is

utilized to its fullest potential for these purposes, guidelines and procedures for reporting,

assessing and investigating allegations of suspected improper conduct must be set in place.

Strategies incorporated in any whistle-blower policy (including whistle-blower protection)

must aim to address issues such as reporting, responsibility, confidentiality and effective

investigation and resolution.

Attention must be given to improving the systems and procedures, changing the attitudes of

staff in regard to reporting any misconduct and improving the overall integrity and

performance of the state owned companies employees.

In this regard, the policy must aim to raise awareness about whistle-blowing and eliminate

the possibility of reprisal and detrimental action in any state owned company extending it to

any governmental body. The measures documented in this policy endeavour to improve the

operation of the whistle-blowing process, eliminate the risk of reprisal and detrimental action

against whistle-blowers and to improve the integrity of the organisation as a whole through

transparent policies and effective procedure.

Adding to the guidelines a communication process must be initiated to clearly inform all

employees and all citizens regarding what, when and where to report. Most important on this


is to inform all employees as well as all citizens who decide to embark on whistle-blowing in

a good faith the mechanism process and structures in place and how to get access to them.

Addressing specifically to the hypothesis drawn for this research:

Existing policies not applied consistently

Management should not tolerate a discriminatory behaviour within the employees. With this

in mind no matter what is the rank in the company hierarchy if there is a malpractice the rule

should be applied equally to all involved.

Lack of information about where and how to blow the whistle

Taking from research results managers in state owned companies must explain to new

employees as part of the standard induction process, where they can find policy and

procedures, how these procedures operate and how they should raise concerns. Management

should build a culture in which employees feel comfortable in openly expressing concerns.

In order to achieve this, management should respond quickly and arrange with employees to

discuss any raised concern and always remind employees that they are bound to safeguard the

welfare of the company and of ot the public at a large. In line with this goal it should be

management responsibility to explain careful to the employees, what steps the management

intend to take to address any raised concern and how and when management will

communicate with the employee during and end at the end of the process

.


It is sole responsibility of the management to ensure that employee is aware of the support

and protection mechanism available within the company. Also it should be the management

responsibility to reassure that management will provide support and protection from any form

of reprisal from any source

Impunity of persons in position of power

As a way forward to address this issue it should be management responsibility to not pre

judge or ignore issues because the concerns are are linked to any person at the top level

hierarchy of the company. In addressing this, management should not leave employees in a


doubt about the consequences of any proved malpractice or a consequence of making any

vexatious allegation.


References

Alford, C.F. 2001, “Whistleblowing and the Narrative of Ethics”, Journal of Social

Philosophy 32, 402 – 418

Alford, C.F. 2002, “Whistleblower: Broken Lives and Organizational Powers”, Cornell

University Press

Babbie, E. and Mutton, J., 1994, “The Practice of Social Research”, Cape Town Oxford

University Press.

Bayley, K. F., 1994, “Methods of Social Research”, New York Rutledge.

Berry, B., 2004, “Organizational Culture: A Framework and Strategies for Facilitating

Employee Whistleblowing”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal.

Bhal, K. L. and Dadhich, A., 2011, “Impact of Ethical Leadership and Leader-Member

Exchange on Whistleblowing: The Moderating impact of Moral Intensity of the Issue”,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 103, 485 – 496.

Brewer, G.A. and Selden, S. C., 1998, “Whistleblowers in the Federal Civil Service: New

Evidence of Public Services Ethics”, Journal of Public Administration Resources.

Brody, R. G., Coulter, J. M. and Lin, S., 1999, “The Impact of National Culture on

Whistleblowing Perceptions”, Journal of Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 43, No. 4, 275 –

288.

Brown, A. K. and Olsen, J., 2008, “Whistleblowing Mistreatment: Identifying the Risk”, In

A. J. Brown (Ed) Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector, Australian National

University.

Callaham, E.S., Dworkin, T. M., Fort, T. L. and Schipani, C. A., 2003, “Integrating Trends

in Whistleblowing and Corporate Governance: Promoting Organizational effectiveness,

Societal Responsibility and Employee Empowerment”, American Business Law Journal, Vol.

40, 177 – 215.

Clugston, M., Howel, J. P. and Dworkin, P. W., 2000, “Does Cultural Socialization Predict

Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment”, Journal of Social Philosophy 31, 402 – 418

Cozby, P. C., 1997, “Methods in Behavioural Research”, Mountain View: Mountain

Publishing Company

Creswell, L. W., 1994, “Research Design, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches”,

London, Sage Publications

Culp, D., 1995, “Whistleblower: Corporate Anarchist or Heroes. Toward a Judicial

Perspective”, Labour Law Journal, Vol. 13, 64 – 75.


De Maria, W., 1999, “Whistleblowing and The Ethical Meltdown of Australia”, Kent Town,

Australia: Wakefield Press.

DeGeorge, R. T., 1982, “Business Ethics”, New York, Macmillan

DeGeorge, R. T., 1990, “Whistleblowing in Business Ethics”, 3rd

Edition New York

Macmillan

DeGeorge, R. T., 1992, “Agency Theory and Ethics of Agency”, In N.E. Bowie and E.R.

Freeman, (Ed) Ethics and Agency Theory: An Introduction, 3rd

Ed. Oxford University Press,

59 – 74. of Social Philosophy 32, 402 – 418

Dryburgh, M.M., 2009, “Personal and Policy Implications of Whistleblowing: The Case of

Corcoran State Prison”, Public Integrity, Vol. 11, No. 2, 155 – 170.

Dworkin, M. T. and Near, P. J., 1997, “A better Statutory Approach to Whistleblowing”,

Business Ethics Quarterly, 1 – 16.

Enz, C., 1988, “The Role of Value Congruity in Organizational Power”, Administrative

Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, 504 – 529.

Felt, M. and O’Connor, D. J., 2006, “A – G Man’s life: The FBI, being Deep Throat and the

Struggle to Honour in Washington”, Public-Affairs

Glazer, M. and Glazer, P.M., 1989, “The Whistleblowing: Exposing Corruption in

Government and Industry”, Basic Books

Graham, J. W., 1986, “Principled Organizational Dissent: A Theoretical Essay”, In L. L.

Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 8, 1 – 52.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Gurgar, T. and Shah, A., 2000, “Localization and Corruption: Panacea or Pandora Box?”,

World Bank Working Paper

Heacock, M. V. and McGee, C., 1987, “Whistleblowing: An Ethical Issue in Organizational

and Human Behaviour”, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 6, No.4 35 – 46.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, M., 2005, “Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind”,

Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 6, No.4 35 – 46.

Jernberg, G.R., 2004, “Whistleblower Programmes: The Counsel Assisted Option”, Chicago,

Illinois

Johnson, R.A., 2003, “Whistleblowing: When it Works and Why”, Boulder Colorado, Lynne

Rienner

Jones, G.R., 2002, “Organizational Theory, Design and Change”, 4th

Edition, Princeton,

New Jersey, Princeton University Press.


Jubb, P.B., 1999, “Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 21, 77 – 94.

Kaptein, M., 2009, “From Interaction to external Whistleblowing: The Influence of the

Ethical Culture of Organizations on Employee Response to Observed Wrongdoing”, ERIM

Report Series Research in Management: Available at : http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16699

accessed on 04 July 2012

Keenan, J.P., 2002, “Whistleblowing: A Study of Managerial Differences”, Employees

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol.146, No.1 17 – 32.

Korczynski, M., Hodson, R. and Edwards, P. (Eds), 2006, “Social Theory of Work”, Oxford

University Press

Mansbach, A., 2007, “The Political Surplus of Whistleblowing: A Case Study in Ethics”, A

European Review, Vol. 16, No.2 124 – 130.

Mansbach, A., 2009, “Keeping Democracy Vibrant: Whistleblowing as the truth-telling in

the workplace constellations”, An International Journal of Critical and Democracy Theory,

Vol. 16, No.3 363 – 376.

Martin, P., 2010, “The Status of Whistleblowing in South Africa: Taking Stock”, Open

Democracy Centre.

Mavuso, B. and Balia, D., 1999, “Fighting Corruption – Invitation to Ethics Management”,

UNISA Press, Pretoria. .

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D., 1995, “An Integrative Model of

Organizational Trust”, Academic Management Review, Vol. 20, 709 - 734.

McEvily, B., Perrone, V. and Zaheer, A. 2003, “Trust as an Organizing Principle”, Institute

for Operations Research and Management Services, Vol. 14, No.1 91 – 103.

McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S., 1993, “Research in Education: A Conceptual

Introduction”, New York: Harler Collins.

Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and Viswervaran, C., 2005, “Whistleblowing in Organizations: An

Examination of Correlations of Whistleblowing intentions, actions and retaliations”, Journal

of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, 227 – 297.

Miceli, M. and Near, J., 1992, “Blowing the Whistle”, New York Lexington Books.

Miceli, M.P. and Near, J. P., 2002, “What Makes Whistleblowers Effective? The Field

Studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 4, 455 - 479.

Miceli, M. P. and Near, J. P. 2008, “Wrongdoing, Whistleblowing and Retaliation in the US

Government: What have Researchers Learned from Merit System Protection Board (MSPB)

Survey Results”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 28, No. 3, 263 – 281.

http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16699


Miceli, M. P. and Near, J. P., 1992, “Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal

Implications for Companies and Employees”, New York Lexington Books.

Miceli, M. O., Dozier, J. B. and Near, J. P., 1987, “Personal ad Situational Determinants of

Whistleblowing”, Paper Presented ab the Meeting of the Academy of Management, New

Orleans, LA

Miceli, M. P. and Rehg, M.T, Near, J.P and Schwenk, C.P., 1999, “Can Laws Protect

Whistleblowers? Results of naturally occurring field Experiment”, Work and Occupations,

26, 129 - 151

Miceli, M. P. and Near, J.P., 1994, “Relationship among value congruence, perceived

victimization and retaliation against Whistleblowers”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20, 773

- 794

Miceli, M. P., Near, J.P and Dworkin, T. M., 2009 “A world to be wise. How managers and

policy makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoings”, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 86, 379 -396.

Miceli, M. P., Near, J.P and Dworkin, T. M., 2008, “Whistleblowing in Organizations”, New

York Routledge

Moore, N.A., 1978, “The Public Administrator as a Policy Advocate”, Public Administrator

Review, Vol. 38, No. 5, 463 - 468

Miceli, M. P. and Rehg, M.T, Near, J.P and Schwenk, C.P., 1999, “Can Laws Protect

Whistleblowers? Results of naturally occurring field Experiment”, Work and Occupations,

26, 129 - 151

Mouton, J. 1998, “Understanding Social Research”, Pretoria: Van Schaik

Nader, N,. Petkas, P. J. and Blackwell, K., 1972, “Whistleblowing: The Report on

Conference on Professional Responsibility”, New York: Lexington Books.

Near, J. P. and Miceli, M. P., 1985, “Organizational Dissidence: The Case of

Whistleblowing”, Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1 – 16

Near, J. P. and Miceli, M. P., 1996, “Whistleblowing: Myth and Reality”, Journal of

Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, 507 – 526.

Near, J. P. and Miceli, M. P., 1985, “Organizational Dissidence: The case of

Whistleblowing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 4, 1 – 16.

Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., Van Scotter, J. R. and Miceli, M. P.1993, “Does Type of

Wrongdoing affect the Whistleblowing Process”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 ,

219 -242

Neary, V., 1992 “The Trials of a Whistleblower. Interim Report on Victimization and

Harassment for blowing the whistle”


Nitsch, D., Baetz, M. and Hughes, J., 2005 “Why code of Conduct violations go unreported:

A conceptual framework to guide intervention and future Research”, Journal of Business

Ethics, 57, 327 - 341

Osigweh, C. A. B., 1989, “Concept Fallibility in Organizational Science”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 14, 579 - 594.

Park, H., 2003, “Determinants of National Corruption. A Cross National Analysis”,

Multinational Business Review, Vol. 1, 229 – 247.

Paul, R. J. and Townsend, J. B., 1996, “Don’t Kill the Messenger! Whistleblowing in

America – A Review with Recommendations”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,

Vol. 9, No. 3, 149 - 161

Perruci, R., Anderson, R. M., Schendel, D. E. and Trackman, L. E., 1980, “Whistleblowing:

Professional Resistance to Organizational Authority”, Social Problems, Vol. 28, No. 2, 149 –

164

Perry, J. L. and Wise, L. R., 1990, “The Motivational Bases of Public Service”, Public

Administration Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, 367 - 373

Peshing, J. L., 2003, “To Snitch or not Snitch?” The Concept of Neutralization Techniques to

the enforcement of Occupational Misconduct”, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 46, 149 - 178

Petersen, J. C. and Farrell, D., 1986, “Whistleblowing: Ethical and Legal Issues in

Expressing Dissent”, Iowa: Kendal-Hunt

Pillay, S. and Dorasamy, N., 2011, “Systematic Factors Moderating Effective

Whistleblowing: an Exploratory into Public Service Organization”, Africa Journal Of

Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 22, 9429 – 9439.

Robson, C., 1993, “Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner

Researchers”, Oxford, Blackwell

Rongine, N., 1985, “Toward a Coherent Legal Response to Public Policy Dilemma Posed by

Whistleblowing”, American Business Journal Summer, No. 283

Rothischild, J. and Miethe, D. T., 1994, “Whistleblowing as a Resistance in Modern work

organizations”, In Jermier, J. M., Knights, D. and Nord, W. R. Eds. Resistance and Power in

Organizations, Routledge 252 – 273

Rothwell, G. R. and Baldwin, J. N., 2006 “Ethical Climates and Contextual Predictors of

Whistleblowing”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 26, 216 – 244.

Sangweni, S., 2003, “Public Service Commission: Problems, Limitations and Research

Challenges”, Pretoria, UNISA Press

Schein, E., 2004, “Organizational Culture and Leadership”, San Francisco, CA. Jossey Bass


Shafritz, J. M. and Russell, E. W., 2000 “Introduction to Public Administration”, 2nd

Edition,

New York: Addison Wesley

Skinner, B.F. 1953, “Science and human Behaviour”, New York: MacMillan.

Terpstra, D. E. and Barker, D. D., 1992, “Outcomes of Federal Court Decisions on Sexual

Harassment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 181 – 190.

Trompenaars, F., 1993, “Riding the wave of culture, understanding diversity in Global

Business”, London Economist Books

Uzzi, B., 1997, “Social Structure and Competition in interfirm networks: The Paradox of

Embeddedness”, Administration Quarterly No. 42, 35 - 67

Van Der Berg, D., 1997, “Phenomenology and Education Disclosure”, Heinemann:

Johannesburg

Vanderkerckhove, W. and Commers, M. S. R., 2004, “Whistleblowing and Rational

Loyalty”, Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 225 - 233

Varelius, J., 2009, “Is Whistleblowing Compatible with Employee Royalty”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 85, 263 - 275

Velasquez, M. G., 1982, “Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases”, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey, Prentice Hall

Vinten, G., 2000, “Whistleblowing towards Disaster Prevention and Management”, New

York: Wiley

Vroom, V. H., 1964, “Work and Motivation”, New York: Wiley Weekend Post, 25 May

Vroom, V.H. 1964, “Work and Motivation”, New York: Wiley.

Weick, K., 1995, “Sense Making in Organizations”, Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications

http://www.poptel.org.uk/mozambique-news/newsletter/aim397.pdf assed on 14 July 2012

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Carlos_Cardoso accessed 17 August 2012

http://mg.co.za/article/2o1o-07-01-donors-pulbrakes-on-mozambique-aid: assessed on 03

july 2012

http://www.poptel.org.uk/mozambique-news/newsletter/aim397.pdf

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Carlos_Cardoso

http://mg.co.za/article/2o1o-07-01-donors-pulbrakes-on-mozambique-aid

whilstleblowing in mozambique

Documents