Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001    Full Text (PDF)

Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective

Meltem Karatepe KayaEkrem Solak

Individuals who report illegal activities, abuses, corruption, or unethical practices within an organization to the relevant authorized unit within the organization, applicable administrative body, or the general public are considered whistleblowers. In several cases, whistleblowers prevent illegal activity in corporations by informing the public and appropriate administrative entities; however, the significance of whistleblowers in company law has not been recognized. In particular, the whistleblowers’ actions in corporations are severely limited due to the absence of a legal protection system for whistleblowers. Today, to prevent this problem, many countries have implemented legal regulations on whistleblower activities within the company. In the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals in the United States, for instance, the significance of whistleblower protection was recognized. Moreover, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the Dodd–Frank Act, which were enacted subsequent to the 2007–2008 financial crisis, respectively, incorporated provisions for safeguarding the whistleblowers. Similarly, the Public Interest Disclosure Act was adopted in the United Kingdom in 1998. In addition, the European Union adopted the European Union Notification Directive No. 2019/1937 in 2019 to regulate and protect whistleblowers in the commercial and public sectors. However, no law in Turkey guides the recognition of unlawful violations and the protection of whistleblowers by implementing a whistleblowing system in companies. Therefore, first, this article will establish the theoretical basis underpinning whistleblowing in the context of corporate governance and compliance. Second, the role and significance of whistleblowing in comparative law and the lessons that can be applied in Turkish law will be addressed. Finally, evaluations of the Turkish corporate law provisions about whistleblowing will conclude the paper, suggesting that incorporating whistleblowing mechanisms into Turkish corporate governance frameworks could potentially aid in minimizing corporate abuses and wrongdoing.

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001    Full Text (PDF)

İhbarcılık Kavramının Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Işığında Türk Şirketler Hukuku Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi

Meltem Karatepe KayaEkrem Solak

İhbarcılar, genel olarak bir organizasyon çatısı altındaki hukuka aykırı eylemleri, suiistimalleri, yolsuzlukları veya etik dışı işlemleri, organizasyon içindeki yetkili birime, ilgili idari kuruluşa veya kamuya bildiren kişi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. İhbarcıların kamunun ve ilgili idari kuruluşların haberdar olmasını sağlayarak şirketlerdeki hukuka aykırılıkları önledikleri birçok örnek bulunsa da ihbarcılar şirketler hukukunda hak ettiği değeri görmüş değildir. Özellikle ihbarcılar için kanuni bir koruma mekanizmasının bulunmaması nedeniyle şirketlerde ihbarcı faaliyetleri oldukça kısıtlanmıştır. Günümüzde bu sorunun önüne geçebilmek adına birçok ülkede ihbarcıların şirket içerisindeki faaliyetlerine yönelik hukuki düzenlemeler mevcuttur. Örneğin, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde Enron ve WorldCom skandallarında ihbarcıların önemi anlaşılmış ve akabinde kabul edilen Sarbanes-Oxley Yasasında ve 2007-2008 finansal krizinden sonra kabul edilen Dodd-Frank Yasasında ihbarcıların korunmasına ilişkin düzenlemelere yer verilmiştir. Benzer şekilde Birleşik Krallık’ta 1998 yılında Kamu Yararına Aydınlatma Kanunu (Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA)) yasalaşmıştır. Avrupa Birliği de 2019 yılında özel ve kamu sektörlerinde ihbarcılığın düzenlenmesi ve ihbarcıların korunması amacıyla 2019/1937 sayılı Avrupa Birliği İhbarcılık Direktifini kabul etmiştir. Belirtmeliyiz ki, ülkemizde ihbarcılık mekanizmasının şirketlerde işletilerek hukuka aykırılıkların tespitine ve devamında ihbarcıların korunmasına yönelik bir düzenleme bulunmamaktadır. Çalışmamızda, ilk olarak, ihbarcılık kavramının teorik altyapısı kurumsal yönetim ve uyum (compliance) bağlamında açıklanacak, sonrasında kavramın karşılaştırmalı hukuktaki yeri ve önemi incelenerek Türk hukuku bakımından alınması gereken örnekler tespit edilecek ve son olarak da ihbarcılığa Türk kurumsal yönetim yapılarında yer verilmesinin şirketlerde gerçekleşen suiistimalleri ve hukuka aykırılıkları azaltabileceğinden bahisle Türk şirketler hukukunda ihbarcılık düzenlemesine ilişkin değerlendirmeler sunulacaktır.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The failure of major corporations such as Enron, Tyco, and Lehman Brothers in the past 25 years due to corporate misconduct has caused an examination of the company’s corporate management. It is widely acknowledged that corporate misconduct contributes to global crises. The estimated economic repercussions of the 2007–2008 financial crisis is $17 trillion. Corporate misconduct substantially influences the global economy, highlighting the need for strong corporate governance. The current financial crisis has demonstrated that the interconnection of global corporations can affect multiple nations’ economies concurrently, and physical borders alone cannot be relied upon to safeguard national economies.

Given that the adverse impacts of corporate abuses affect beyond the firm itself to encompass a wide range of stakeholders, such abuses must be exposed before they produce a crisis. Therefore, stakeholders must promote the transmission of information by activating the “whistleblowing” mechanism within the organization. This is one of the strategies established to avoid abuses, corruption, and mismanagement in companies.

Whistleblowers effectively fight against corruption, international crime, and environmental degradation worldwide. Because of their connections or positions, whistleblowers can easily obtain clear information on internal business fraud. According to the breadth of our research, over the last decade, whistleblowing has developed into a crucial instrument for corporate management, decreasing agency costs and in-house audits. Consequently, the result of whistleblowers as instruments for detecting and preventing corruption, abuse, and other forms of misconduct is widely recognized. Reported abuses often include breaches of the law, corruption, bribery, or activities that endanger public health or safety.

Whistleblowing has been controlled in several legal systems and international conventions because of its relevance. For instance, 44 nations, including Turkey, ratified the “Convention on the Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions,” established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In addition, following Article 7 of the 2016 “Recommendation on Development Cooperation Actors in Managing the Risk of Corruption” by the OECD, the necessary measures must be taken to establish whistleblowing and protect certain whistleblowers. Another example is the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The Anti-Corruption Convention was drafted between January 21, 2002, and October 1, 2003, and it became effective on December 14, 2005. This treaty had 188 signatories, including the Republic of Turkey, as of August 11, 2021. Individuals who make a report are protected by Article 33 of this treaty.

In several cases, whistleblowers prevent illegal activity in corporations by informing the public and appropriate administrative entities around the world, but the importance of whistleblowers in company law has not been recognized in Turkey. Moreover, no regulation exists regarding the protection of whistleblowers and the identification of unlawful violations through the use of a whistleblowing mechanism. However, as elucidated in our article, legislation safeguarding whistleblowers was incorporated into the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the Dodd–Frank Act in the United States after the Enron and WorldCom scandals (2007–2008). The Public Interest Disclosure Act in the United Kingdom was similarly enacted in 1998. In addition, the European Union adopted the European Union Notification Directive No. 2019/1937 in 2019 to regulate and protect public and private sector whistleblowers.

This article explores the role of whistleblowers in promoting corporate governance and preventing internal misbehavior. According to our research, the successful application of whistleblowing in corporate governance will contribute to the long-term viability of Turkish companies and, eventually, the country’s economy. Furthermore, although there is no law regarding direct whistleblower activities in companies in Turkey, this article also examines the situation and responsibilities of the members of the board of directors and/or compliance officers in the face of possible whistleblowers within the framework of current TCC provisions.


PDF View

References

  • Abazi V, ‘The European Union Whistleblower Directive: A ‘Game Changer’ for Whistleblowing Protection?’ (2020) 49(4) Industrial Law Journal 640. google scholar
  • ACFE 2020 Reports to the Nations - Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (Acfepublic. s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com, 2023) <https://acfepublic.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2020-Report-to-the-Nations.pdf> erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Akıllı H S, Çam S, Kılınç S, Kızılboğa R, ‘Kamu Personelinin Etik İhlallerine Verdikleri Önem Derecesi ve Etik İhlallerin Bildirimi Konusundaki Görüşleri’ (2013) 89 Journal of Turkish Court of Accounts, 5-33. google scholar
  • Alam H, ‘Whistleblowing And Corporate Governance: Accidental Allies Or Lifetime Partners?’ (2009) International Conference on Corporate Law (ICCL) 1st - 3rd June 2009, Surabaya, Indonesia. google scholar
  • Alleyne P ve Pierce A, ‘Whistleblowing as a Corporate Governance Mechanism in the Caribbean’ in A Bissessar and S Ryan (eds) Snapshots in Governance: The Caribbean Experience (University of the West Indies Pub 2017). google scholar
  • Alman Kurumsal Yönetim Yasası (Der Deutsche Corporate Governance Kodex) ‘Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex’ (Dcgk.de, 2017) <https://www.dcgk.de/files/dcgk/usercontent/ de/download/kodex/170424_Kodex.pdf> erişim tarihi 12 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • Anayasa Mahkemesi, ‘Anayasa | Anayasa Mahkemesi’ (Anayasa.gov.tr, 2023) <https://www. anayasa.gov.tr/tr/mevzuat/anayasa/> erişim tarihi 8 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • Arslan T E ve Kayalar M, ‘Kamu ve Özel Sektör Çalışanlarının İfşa (Whistleblowing) Niyeti: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz’ (2017) 19 KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15-26. google scholar
  • Ashton J, ‘15 Years of Whistleblowing Protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998: Are We Still Shooting the Messenger?’ (2015) 44 Industrial Law Journal 29. google scholar
  • Aydan S, ‘İhbarcılık: Bir Kavram Analizi’ (2018) 15 Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 41, 78-100. google scholar
  • Baer M H, ‘Governing Corporate Compliance’ (2009) 50 Boston College Law Review 4, 950 vd. google scholar
  • Beck v. Citicorp., Inc., Case No. 2006-SOX-00003 (August 1, 2006). google scholar
  • Beim D, Hirsch A V ve Kastellec J.P., ‘Whistleblowing and Compliance in the Judicial Hierarchy’ (2014) 58 American Journal of Political Science 4, 904-918. google scholar
  • Belson K, ‘Worldcom’s Audacious Failure And Its Toll On An Industry (Published 2005)’ (Nytimes. com, 2005) <https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/business/worldcoms-audacious-failure-and-its-toll-on-an-industry.html> erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Berry B, ‘Organizational Culture: A Framework and Strategies for Facilitating Employee Whistle-Blowing’ (2004) 16 Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 1. google scholar
  • Biegelman M T ve Biegelman D R, Building A Worldclass Compliance Program: Best Practices And Strategies For Success (Wiley 2008). google scholar
  • Brickey K F, ‘From Enron to WorldCom and Beyond: Life and Crime After Sarbanes-Oxley’ (2003) 81 WASH. U. L.Q. 357. google scholar
  • Brener A, Strategies for Compliance Tools, Techniques and Challenges in Financial Services, (1st end. Routledge 2020). google scholar
  • Boles J R, Eisenstadt L ve Pacella J M, ‘Whistleblowing in the Compliance Era’ (2020) 55 Ga L Rev 147. google scholar
  • Calland R ve Dehn G, ‘Introduction - Whistleblowing Around the World: the State of the Art’, in Richard Calland and Guy Dehn (eds) Whistleblowing Around the World: Law, Culture & Practice (2004) 9. google scholar
  • Cambridge İngilizce-Türkçe sözlük. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/tr/s%C3%B6zl%C3%BCk/ ingilizce-t%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e/comply> erişim tarihi 20 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Carino A ve Menor P, ‘EU Whistleblower Directive: Implementation Tracker - Whistleblowing Laws In Europe: An International Guide | | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm’ (DLA Piper, 2023) <https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2021/06/whistleblowing-guide/1implementation-tracker/> erişim tarihi 13 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • Carnero v. Boston Sci. Corp., 433 F.3d 1, 17-18. google scholar
  • Celep C ve Konaklı T, ‘Bilgi Uçurma: Eğitim Örgütlerinde Etik ve Kural Dışı Uygulamalara Yönelik Bir Tepki’ (2012) 3 E-International Journal of Educational Research 4, 65-88. google scholar
  • Coffee Jr C, ‘Gatekeeper Failure and Reform: The Challenge of Fashioning Relevant Reforms’ (2004) 84 BUL Rev 301. google scholar
  • Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1376 (N.D. Ga. 2004). google scholar
  • Connon E, ‘Are Intelligence-Community Leakers Internationally Protected Whistleblowers or Simply “Whistling in the Dark”? Assessing the Protections Afforded to Intelligence-Community Whistleblowers Under International Law’ (2017) 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 897. google scholar
  • Coşkun S Y, ‘Türk Rekabet Kurulu Kararları Işığında Pişmanlık Programının Uygulanması: Belirsizlikler ve Tutarsızlıklar’ (2014) 18 EÜHFD 3-4, 78. google scholar
  • Çiftçi B, ‘Türkiye’de Toplumsal Kültürün Örgütlerde İhbarcılık Üzerine Etkisi: Hofstede’in Kültürel Boyutlar Teorisi Bağlamında Bir Değerlendirme’ (2017) 3 International Journal of Academic Value Studies 10, 147-166. google scholar
  • Dereköy F, ‘Muhasebe Manipülasyonlari: Toshiba Vakasi’ (2020) 85 Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 91-110. google scholar
  • Dig. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767, 772-73 (2018) google scholar
  • Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law [2019] OJ L305/17. google scholar
  • Disclosure Act 1998’ (2000) 63(1) Modern Law Review 25. google scholar
  • Dixon O, ‘Honesty without Fear? Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Protections in Corporate Codes of Conduct’ (2016) 40/168 Melbourne University Law Review 182. google scholar
  • Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). google scholar
  • Dyck A, Morse A ve Zingales L, ‘Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?’ (2010) 65 Journal of Finance 2213. google scholar
  • Ebersole D, ‘Blowing The Whistle On The Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions’ (2011) 6(1) Ohio State Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal 123. google scholar
  • Egboro E M, ‘The 2008/2009 Banking Crisis in Nigeria: The Hidden Trigger of the Financial Crash’ (2016) 12/2 British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade 1. google scholar
  • Espinasse A, ‘The Conflicts Between The Whistleblower Protection Directive And The GDPR; COVID-19, A Legal Basis To Infringe On The Rights Of The Data Subject In Order To Secure The Protection Of Whistleblowers?’ (Master, Lund University 2020). google scholar
  • Eroğlu M, ‘Payları Borsada İşlem Gören Halka Açık Şirketlerde Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerine İlişkin Yeni Sistem’ (2014) 12 Legal Hukuk Dergisi 136, 31-71. google scholar
  • European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment accompanying the document of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law COM(2018) 218 final, 2 (Commission’s Impact Assessment) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:5201 8SC0116&qid=1646987173822&from=EN> erişim tarihi 10 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Guidelines on processing personal information within a whistleblowing procedure, Par 6.2. Aralık 2019. google scholar
  • False Claim Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730; the Insider Trading and Securities Enforcement Act of 1988, 26 U.S.C. § 7623. google scholar
  • General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) 14.2(f). Türkçe çeviri için bkz Avrupa Birliği Resmi Gazetesi, ‘Avrupa Birliği Genel Veri Koruma Tüzüğü’ (kisiselverilerinkorunmasi.org, 2023) <https://www.kisiselverilerinkorunmasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/GDPR-Türkçe-Çeviri-AB-Bakanlığı.pdf > erişim tarihi 13 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Glazer M P ve Glazer P M, The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry (Basic Books 1989) 4. google scholar
  • Griffith S J, ’Corporate Governance in an Era of Compliance’ (2016) 57 William & Mary Law Review 6, 2075. google scholar
  • Gobert J ve Punch M, ‘‘Whistleblowers, the Public Interest, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998’ (2000) 63(1) Modern Law Review 25. google scholar
  • Gürkaynak G, Rekabet Hukuku, (1. Bası, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Hanna v. W.L.I. Communities, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 34 (S.D. Fla. 2004). google scholar
  • Harker et al., ‘Whistleblower Incentives and Protections in the Financial Reform Act’ (2010) 127 Banking Law Journal 779. google scholar
  • Hogg C, Jones K ve Swift N, ‘Failure to Prevent Market Abuse: A Potential New Corporate Criminal Offence?’ (2020) 41 Business Law Review 4, 121-12. google scholar
  • Homer J ve Katz D, ‘How Worldcom Whistle-Blower Changed Corporate America’ (CFO, 2023) <https://www.cfo.com/human-capital-careers/2008/02/worldcom-whistle-blower-cynthia-cooper/> erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Hyde R ve Savage A, The Halfway House is Only Halfway Built: Reforming the system of prescribed persons and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998’ (2019) 25 European Journal of Current Legal Issues 2. google scholar
  • Jones J, ‘Given a Little Whistle: The Need for a More Board Interpretation of the Whistleblower Exception to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine’ (2003) 34 Tex. Tech Law Rev 1133, 1136 google scholar
  • Kafteranis D, ‘The future of the Whistle-blowing Directive: criticising its legal bases’ (2021) 1 Queen Mary Law Journal 65. google scholar
  • Karasu R, ‘6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu İle Anonim Şirketlerde Kurumsal Yönetim İle İlgili Getirilen Yenilikler’ (2013) 4 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2. google scholar
  • Kekevi G, ‘Pişmanlik Yönetmeliği: Garp Cephesinde Yeni Bir Şey Var’, 10(4) Rekabet Dergisi 73. google scholar
  • Khan M, ‘Whistling in the Wind: Why Federal Whistleblower Protections Fall Short of their Corporate Governance Goals’ (2018) 26 University of Miami Business Law Review 57. google scholar
  • Kirca İ, Şehirali Çelik F H ve Manavgat Ç, Anonim Şirketler Hukuku Cilt I (1. Basi Ankara 2013). google scholar
  • Konyali G, ‘Uluslararasi Hukukta İhbarcilik Kavrami ve İhbarcilarin Korunmasi’ (2021) 12 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1, 412-428. google scholar
  • Kort M, “Compliance Und Risikomanagement Im Deutschen Gesellschaftsrecht” (2010) Anonim Şirketler Ve Sermaye Piyasasi Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Türk-Alman Uluslararasi Sempozyumu. google scholar
  • Labriola L, ‘Paying Too Dearly for a Whistle: Properly Protecting Internal Whistleblowers’ (2017) 85 Fordham L. Rev. 2839, 2846. google scholar
  • Langevoort D C, ‘Monitoring: The Behavioral Economics of Inducing Agents’ Compliance with Legal Rules’ (2001) Georgetown University Law Center Law and Economics Research Paper No. 276121. google scholar
  • Latimer P ve Brown A J, ‘Whistleblower Laws: International Best Practice’ (2008) 31(3) UNSW Law Journal 766. google scholar
  • Lee J, ‘Corporate Corruption & the New Gold Mine: How the Dodd-Frank Act Overincentivizes Whistleblowing’ (2011) 77(1) Brooklyn Law Review 303. google scholar
  • Leslie C. Griffin, Whistleblowing in the Business World, in Enron: Corporate Fiascos And Legal Implications 209-36 (Foundation Press, 2004). google scholar
  • Lewis D, ‘Ten years of Public Disclosure Act 1998 claims: what can we learn from the statistics and recent research?’ (2010) 39(3) ILJ 325-8 google scholar
  • Lobel O, ‘Lawyering Loyalties: Speech Rights and Duties Within Twenty-First-Century New Governance’, (2009) 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 1245. google scholar
  • Mahony v. Keyspan Corp 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22042 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). google scholar
  • Marano v. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1993). google scholar
  • Marcum T M, ‘Blowing the Whistle in the Digital Age: Are You Really Anonymous? The Perils and Pitfalls of Anonymity in Whistleblowing Law’ (2019) 17 DePaul Bus. & Comm. L.J. google scholar
  • Matt R, ‘You Can’t Stop What You Can’t See: Complementary Risk Mitigation Through Compensation Disclosure’ 8 William & Mary Business Law Review 241. google scholar
  • McLean B ve Elkind P, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron, (1. Basi, Portfolio Trade 2003). google scholar
  • Miceli M P, Near J P ve Dworkin T M, ‘A Word to the Wise: How Managers and Policy-Makers Can Encourage Employees to Report Wrongdoing’ (2009) 86 Journal of Business Ethics 379, 379-80. google scholar
  • Miceli M P, Near J P ve Dworkin T M, Whistle-Blowing in Organizations (Routledge, 2008). google scholar
  • Miller G P, ‘Compliance: Past, Present and Future’ (2017) 48 U. TOL. L. REV. 437. google scholar
  • Miller G P, The Law Of Governance, Risk Management, And Compliance (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2017). google scholar
  • Mitchell G, ‘Case Studies, Counterfactuals, and Causal Explanations’ (2004) 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1517. google scholar
  • Moberly R, ‘Confidentiality and Whistleblowing’ (2018). 96 N.C. L. Rev. 751. google scholar
  • Moberly R E, ‘Sarbanes-Oxley’s Structural Model to Encourage Corporate Whistleblowers’ (2006) 5 Brigham Young University Law Review, Issue 5, 1107-1180. google scholar
  • Morrison E W ve Milliken F J, ‘Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World’ (2000) 25 Acad. of Mgmt. Rev. 4. google scholar
  • Nartgün Ş S ve Kaya A, ‘Öğretmenlerin Bilgi Uçurma Davranışları ve Bilgi Uçurma Nedenleri ile Bireysel Değerleri Arasındaki İlişki’ (2017) 54 International Journal of Social Science 1, 65-89. google scholar
  • Near J P ve Miceli M P, ‘Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing’ (1985) 4 J. of Bus. Ethics 1. google scholar
  • Near J P ve Miceli M P, ‘Whistleblowing: Myth and Reality’ (1996) 22 Journal of Management 507. google scholar
  • Nwoke U, “Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria in perspective” (2019) 19(2) Journal of Corporate Law Studies 421. google scholar
  • OECD, ‘G20 Anti-corruption Action Plan, Protection of Whistleblowers: Study on Whistleblower Protection Frameworks, Compendium of Best Practices and Guiding Principles for Legislation’ (2011), http://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/anti-corruption/ 48972967.pdf erişim tarihi 20 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • OECD, “Ratification Status” < https://www.oecd.org/daf/antibribery/WGBRatificationStatus.pdf > erişim tarihi 20 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Onakoya OA ve Moses CL, Effect of System Factors on Whistleblowing Attitude of Nigerian Banks Employees: A Conceptual Perspective (African Development Issues, 2016). google scholar
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Codes of Corporate Conduct: An Inventory’ (Report No TD/TC/WP(98)74/FINAL, Working Party of the Trade Committee, 3 May 1999) 5 google scholar
  • Pacella J M, ‘The Regulation of Lawyers in Compliance’ (2020) 95 WASH. L. REV. 947. google scholar
  • Paslı A, Anonim Ortaklık Kurumsal Yönetimi (Corporate Governance), (Beta Basım, 2004). google scholar
  • Paslı A, “Compliance” Kavramının Anonim Ortaklıklar Hukukundaki Anlamı ve Sorumluluk Sistemine Etkisi’ (2013) 71 İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 2, 317-334. google scholar
  • Pekcan A, ‘İş Hukukunda Yeni Bir Kavram - Bilgi Uçurmak (Whistleblowing) - Pekcan Hukuk Bürosu’ (Pekcanhukuk.com, 2023) <https://pekcanhukuk.com/is-hukukunda-yeni-bir-kavram-bilgi-ucurmak-whistleblowing/> erişim tarihi 8 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 69 Fed. Reg. 52,104-08. google scholar
  • Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/23/contents. google scholar
  • Pulaşlı H, ‘Compliance Kavramı ve Yönetim Organının Compliance Sorumluluğu’ (2019) 35 Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi 2, 27-59 google scholar
  • Rachagan S ve Kuppusamy K, ‘Encouraging Whistle Blowing to Improve Corporate Governance? A Malaysian Initiative’ (2013) 115 J Bus Ethics, 367-382. google scholar
  • Reicher J, “Reaktionspflichten und Reaktionsmöglichkeiten der Organe auf (möglicherweise) strafrechtsrelevantes Verhalten innerhalb des Unternehmens” (2011) Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik. google scholar
  • Richards v Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 2004 DOLSOX LEXIS 106, *34, 39 (Oct. 1, 2004). google scholar
  • Ritzer C, Marquardt C ve Filkina N, ‘German Court Ruled That Protection Of The Whistle-Blower Confidentiality Does Not Generally Override The Data Subject Access Right’ (Data Protection Report, 2019) <https://www.dataprotectionreport.com/2019/03/german-court-ruled-that-protection-of-the-whistle-blower-confidentiality-does-not-generally-override-the-data-subject-access-right/> erişim tarihi 13 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • Rongine N M, ‘Toward a Coherent Legal Response to the Public Policy Dilemma Posed by Whistleblowing’ (1985) 23(2) American Business Law Journal 281. google scholar
  • Rothschild J ve Miethe T D, ‘Whistle-Blower Disclosures and Management Retaliation: The Battle to Control Information about Organization Corruption’ (1999) 26 Work & Occupations 1. google scholar
  • Rubenfeld G, ‘Compliance Officer: Dream Career?’ (WSJ, 2021) <https://www.wsj.com/articles/ SB10001424052702303330204579250722114538750> Erişim tarihi 22 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Rubinstein K, ‘Corporate Governance Five Years After Sarbanes-Oxley: Is There Real Change?’ (2007) 52 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 637. google scholar
  • Sarbanes Oxley Act-SOX google scholar
  • Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-204, § 806, 116 Stat. 745, 802-04. google scholar
  • Schultz D ve Harutyunyan K, ‘Combating Corruption: The Development of Whistleblowing Laws in the United States, Europe, and Armenia (2015) 1/2 International Comparative Jurisprudence 87. google scholar
  • Shaw T, ‘When Text And Policy Conflict: Internal Whistleblowing Under The Shadow Of Dodd-Frank’ (2018) 70(3) Administrative Law Review 674. google scholar
  • Soltes E, ‘Evaluating The Effectiveness Of Corporate Compliance Programs: Establishing A Model For Prosecutors, Courts, And Firms’ (2018) 14(3) NYU Journal of Law & Business 3, 966. google scholar
  • Stappers J T, ‘EU Whistleblower Protection Directive: Europe on Whistleblowing’ (2021) ERA Forum 22, 87-100. google scholar
  • Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre [2004] 4 All ER 839 (CA). google scholar
  • Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp. v. Herman, 115 F.3d 1568. google scholar
  • Sunstein C R, Why Societies Need Dissent (Harvard University Press, 2003). google scholar
  • Şen M L, ‘Yolsuzluğun Önlenmesinde Etkili Bir Araç: İhbarcılık’ (2020) Sakarya İktisat Dergisi 100. Yil Milli Egemenlik Özel Sayisi, 90-109. google scholar
  • T.C. Adalet Bakanliği Diş İlişkiler ve Avrupa Genel Müdürlğü, “Birleşmiş Milletler Yolsuzlukla Mücadele Sözleşmesi” < https://diabgm.adalet.gov.tr/Home/SayfaDetay/ sozlesme08012021120135 > erişim tarihi 20 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Temel E ve Sözüer A, Türk - Alman Hukuk Sempozyumu Teori ve Uygulama Açisindan İşletmelerde Hukuk Kurallarina Uygun Hareket Etme Compliance Tartişmalari ( Deutsch - Türkisches Rechtssymposium 2013). google scholar
  • Teichmann F M ve Sergi B S, ‘Whistle-Blowing in Corporations’, Compliance in Multinational Corporations, (Emerald Publishing Limited 2018). google scholar
  • Terracol M, ‘Are EU Countries Failing To Protect Whistleblowers? - Blog’ (Transparency.org, 2021) <https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/eu-countries-failing-protect-whistleblowers> erişim tarihi 13 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • Tuğ M A, ‘Kurumsal Yönetim Kavraminin Genel Çerçevesi ve Türk Hukukundaki Yansimalari’ (2019) 5 Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1, 203-227. google scholar
  • Turpan C C, ‘Whistleblower? More Like Cybercriminal: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as Applied to Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers’ (2016) 42 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 120. google scholar
  • Uchechukwu N, “Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria in perspective” (2019) 19(2) Journal of Corporate Law Studies 421. google scholar
  • U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations (July 2019). google scholar
  • U.S. Doj Crim. Div. & U.S. Secs. & Exch. Comm’n Enf. Div., A Resource Guide To The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 56. google scholar
  • Uyar S ve Yelgen E, ‘Bilgi İfşası (Whistleblowing) ve Denetim’ (2015) 13 Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi 1, 85-106. google scholar
  • Vandekerckhove W ve Commers R, ‘Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty’ (2004) 53 Journal of Business Ethics 225. google scholar
  • Vanderkerchove W, Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment (Aldershot: Ashgate 2006). google scholar
  • Yastı G, ‘OECD Rüşvetle Mücadele Sözleşmesi ve Türkiye’ (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı, 2005) 19 Uluslararası Ekonomik Sorunlar Dergisi s. 1 < https://www.mfa.gov.tr/ oecd-rusvetle-mucadele-sozlesmesi-ve-turkiye-.tr.mfa > erişim tarihi 20 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • Yürür S ve Nart S, ‘Örgütsel Adalet Algısı Kamu Çalışanlarının İhbar Etme Niyetinin Belirleyicisi midir?’ (2016) 49 Amme İdaresi Dergisi 3, 117-148. google scholar
  • Watnick V, ‘Whistleblower Protections Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: A Primer And A Critique’ (2007) 12 Fordham Journal Of Corporate & Financial Law, 830. google scholar
  • Westman D P, ‘The Significance of the Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provisions’ (2005) 21 LAB. LAW. 141. google scholar
  • Wolfe S et al, ‘Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries: Priorities for Action’ (Final Report, Blueprint for Free Speech, September 2014). google scholar
  • Yaşar T N, Anonim Şirketler Hukukunda Uyum (Compliance), (1. Bası, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2020). google scholar
  • ‘ASX Corporate Governance Principles And Recommendations’ (Asx.com.au, 2019) www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-fourth-edn. pdf> erişim tarihi 12 Mart 2023. google scholar
  • (Cerebra.com.tr, 2020) <http://www.cerebra.com.tr/files/images/content/newsletters/Cerebra-newsletter-14.pdf> erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • ‘Congress Expands Incentives for Whistleblowers to Report Suspected Violations to the SEC’, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1829 google scholar
  • ‘Whistleblowers Still The Best At Detecting Fraud - National Whistleblower Center’ (National Whistleblower Center, 2018) <https://www.whistleblowers.org/news/whistleblowers-still-the-best-at-detecting-fraud/> erişim tarihi 4 Eylül 2023. google scholar
  • ‘Whistleblower Laws Around The World - National Whistleblower Center’ (National Whistleblower Center, 2019) <https://www.whistleblowers.org/whistleblower-laws-around-the-world/> erişim tarihi 1 Eylül 2023. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Karatepe Kaya, M., & Solak, E. (2023). Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective. Istanbul Law Review, 81(3), 699-748. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


AMA

Karatepe Kaya M, Solak E. Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective. Istanbul Law Review. 2023;81(3):699-748. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


ABNT

Karatepe Kaya, M.; Solak, E. Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 81, n. 3, p. 699-748, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Karatepe Kaya, Meltem, and Ekrem Solak. 2023. “Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective.” Istanbul Law Review 81, no. 3: 699-748. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


Chicago: Humanities Style

Karatepe Kaya, Meltem, and Ekrem Solak. Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective.” Istanbul Law Review 81, no. 3 (May. 2024): 699-748. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


Harvard: Australian Style

Karatepe Kaya, M & Solak, E 2023, 'Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 699-748, viewed 10 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Karatepe Kaya, M. and Solak, E. (2023) ‘Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective’, Istanbul Law Review, 81(3), pp. 699-748. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001 (10 May. 2024).


MLA

Karatepe Kaya, Meltem, and Ekrem Solak. Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 81, no. 3, 2023, pp. 699-748. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


Vancouver

Karatepe Kaya M, Solak E. Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 10 May. 2024 [cited 10 May. 2024];81(3):699-748. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001


ISNAD

Karatepe Kaya, Meltem - Solak, Ekrem. Evaluation of the Concept of Whistleblowing in Turkish Company Law from A Comparative Corporate Law Perspective”. Istanbul Law Review 81/3 (May. 2024): 699-748. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2023.81.3.0001



TIMELINE


Submitted12.04.2022
Accepted15.10.2023
Published Online19.12.2023

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.