Whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct in an organization is one of the most difficult decisions that some people will ever have to make. The decision is wrenching personally because the stakes are so high. Yet many whistle-blowers say that they could not have lived with themselves if they had stayed silent. The decision is also difficult ethically because whistle-blowing involves a conflict between two competing duties: to protect the public and to be loyal to an organization. Although loyalty is not always overriding, as the loyal agent argument holds, neither is it inconsequential. Deciding between these duties often requires that an employee exercise very careful judgment. The one certain conclusion of this chapter is that whistle-blowing is ethically permissible under certain carefully specified conditions. (Whether it can ever be ethically required is a different question that seldom arises. Everyone has an obligation not to be a part of the illegal and immoral activity, but exposing it at great risk to oneself is usually regarded as beyond what duty requires.) 

Blowing the whistle is only one response that an employee can make to report misconduct; however, the act of whistle-blowing itself can take on many different forms. So in addition to deciding whether to become a whistle-blower, employees are faced with the further question of how to blow the whistle in a justified manner. Finally, it is evident that employees who are justified in blowing the whistle ought not to suffer retaliation. What ought to be done to protect whistle-blowers from this fate is less clear. A plausible case can be made for legislation in this area, but the difficulty is drafting laws that achieve the desired result without interfering unduly in the legitimate conduct of business.

In approx. 20 sentences, discuss two reasons as to why a company would develop an employee whistle-blowing policy.