This paper investigates how organisational, cultural, and moral dynamics condition the implementation of EU Directive 2019/1937 on whistle-blowing in Italy, Spain, and Bulgaria. Based on 26 semi-structured interviews with compliance professionals, managers, and employee representatives, it examines how formal compliance frameworks, internal channels, and safeguards against retaliation are interpreted and enacted. Results show that effectiveness depends less on legal design than on moral endorsement and collective support within workplaces. When reporting is framed as betrayal, silence persists even under robust procedures; when it is framed as care for the organisation and the public, voice becomes thinkable. Using the notion of social circles of recognition, the paper distinguishes four ideal-typical whistle-blowers—hostile, conflicted, apathetic, and motivated—whose choices reflect divergent experiences of trust and belonging. Across diverse sectors and settings, integrity, the study argues, becomes sustainable only when whistle-blowing is socially recognised, turning voice from heroic dissent into ordinary accountability and civic membership.
Encouraging the whispering voice of the whistleblower: reporting, anticorruption and speak up culture in three EU countries
Rispoli, Francesca
;Vannucci, Alberto
2026-01-01
Abstract
This paper investigates how organisational, cultural, and moral dynamics condition the implementation of EU Directive 2019/1937 on whistle-blowing in Italy, Spain, and Bulgaria. Based on 26 semi-structured interviews with compliance professionals, managers, and employee representatives, it examines how formal compliance frameworks, internal channels, and safeguards against retaliation are interpreted and enacted. Results show that effectiveness depends less on legal design than on moral endorsement and collective support within workplaces. When reporting is framed as betrayal, silence persists even under robust procedures; when it is framed as care for the organisation and the public, voice becomes thinkable. Using the notion of social circles of recognition, the paper distinguishes four ideal-typical whistle-blowers—hostile, conflicted, apathetic, and motivated—whose choices reflect divergent experiences of trust and belonging. Across diverse sectors and settings, integrity, the study argues, becomes sustainable only when whistle-blowing is socially recognised, turning voice from heroic dissent into ordinary accountability and civic membership.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
