{"title":"举报:指令(EU) 2019/1937实施中的程序和教条问题","authors":"F. Teichmann, Chiara Wittmann","doi":"10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nWith an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented.\n\n\nFindings\nThe Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.\n","PeriodicalId":44814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whistleblowing: procedural and dogmatic problems in the implementation of directive (EU) 2019/1937\",\"authors\":\"F. Teichmann, Chiara Wittmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nWith an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Whistleblowing: procedural and dogmatic problems in the implementation of directive (EU) 2019/1937
Purpose
This paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive.
Design/methodology/approach
With an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented.
Findings
The Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation.
Originality/value
This is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.
期刊介绍:
Since its inception in 1992, the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance has provided an authoritative and scholarly platform for international research in financial regulation and compliance. The journal is at the intersection between academic research and the practice of financial regulation, with distinguished past authors including senior regulators, central bankers and even a Prime Minister. Financial crises, predatory practices, internationalization and integration, the increased use of technology and financial innovation are just some of the changes and issues that contemporary financial regulators are grappling with. These challenges and changes hold profound implications for regulation and compliance, ranging from macro-prudential to consumer protection policies. The journal seeks to illuminate these issues, is pluralistic in approach and invites scholarly papers using any appropriate methodology. Accordingly, the journal welcomes submissions from finance, law, economics and interdisciplinary perspectives. A broad spectrum of research styles, sources of information and topics (e.g. banking laws and regulations, stock market and cross border regulation, risk assessment and management, training and competence, competition law, case law, compliance and regulatory updates and guidelines) are appropriate. All submissions are double-blind refereed and judged on academic rigour, originality, quality of exposition and relevance to policy and practice. Once accepted, individual articles are typeset, proofed and published online as the Version of Record within an average of 32 days, so that articles can be downloaded and cited earlier.