Publicación:
Summary and Conclusions

dc.contributor.authorApaza, Carmen R.
dc.contributor.authorChang, Yongjin
dc.contributor.authorSchram, Frankie
dc.contributor.authorPanganiban, Gerald Glenn F.
dc.contributor.authorViinamäki, Olli Pekka
dc.contributor.authorMäntylä, Niina
dc.contributor.authorJokipii, Annukka
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-05T16:38:39Z
dc.description.abstractIn this study all whistleblowing cases but the Japan case were effective in regard to impact and reforms of wrongdoing. To sum up, the cases were effective in regard to five factors of effectiveness: (1) Type of whistleblowing, (2) Role of mass media, (3) Documentation of evidence, (4) Retaliation and (5) Legal protection. The results suggest that in the public as well as in the private sector external whistleblowing is effective despite the absence or the presence of an unsuitable legal protection against retaliation. In all those cases reforms of wrongdoing were possible not only because the whistleblowers had strong evidence but also because they had extensive mass media coverage. © 2025 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/978-3-030-40200-6_7
dc.identifier.isbn9783030402006
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85149589035
dc.identifier.urihttps://cris.uwiener.edu.pe/handle/001/1082
dc.identifier.uuid01506d33-b3ea-4727-a642-8ec181be0929
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer International Publishing
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_14cb
dc.titleSummary and Conclusions
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_3248
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage112
oaire.citation.startPage101

Archivos

Colecciones