Paper Versus Practice: A Field Investigation of Integrity Hotlines
ABSTRACT In an effort to motivate firms to more rapidly detect potential misconduct, legislators, regulators, and enforcement agencies incentivize firms to have integrity or “whistleblowing” hotlines. These hotlines provide individuals an opportunity to report alleged misconduct and seek guidance ab...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of accounting research 2020-05, Vol.58 (2), p.429-472 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 472 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 429 |
| container_title | Journal of accounting research |
| container_volume | 58 |
| creator | SOLTES, EUGENE |
| description | ABSTRACT
In an effort to motivate firms to more rapidly detect potential misconduct, legislators, regulators, and enforcement agencies incentivize firms to have integrity or “whistleblowing” hotlines. These hotlines provide individuals an opportunity to report alleged misconduct and seek guidance about how to appropriately respond. Beyond some isolated examples, little is known about the responsiveness of hotlines to actual claims of alleged misconduct. I undertake a field study to investigate how hotlines function in practice by making four different inquiries involving alleged misconduct to nearly 250 firms. I find that one‐fifth of firms have impediments (e.g., phone line disconnected, email bounce back, direct to incorrect website) that hinder reporting and approximately 10% of firms do not respond in a timely manner. Overall, this investigation illuminates several differences between integrity hotlines “on paper” and how they actually perform in practice. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1475-679X.12302 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2392648132</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2392648132</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3492-13779e2e6758744829de0ad99458f81babe868872ccca1f7499e9e07efaedc5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1LAzEQxYMoWKtnrwHP2-ZrN4m3WqytFFpExVtIs7MlZd2tya7S_96tK16dy8DjvZnHD6FrSka0mzEVMk0yqd9GlHHCTtDgTzlFA0IYTZRIs3N0EeOOEKJTTgfobm33EPArhNhGvA7WNd7BLZ7gmYcyx4vqE2Ljt7bxdYXrohMa2AbfHPC8bkpfQbxEZ4UtI1z97iF6md0_T-fJcvWwmE6WieNCs4RyKTUwyGSqpBCK6RyIzbUWqSoU3dgNqEwpyZxzlhZSaA0aiITCQu5Sx4fopr-7D_VH27Uyu7oNVffSMK5ZJhTlrHONe5cLdYwBCrMP_t2Gg6HEHEGZIxZzxGJ-QHWJrE98-RIO_9nN42ry1Ae_ATJGae0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2392648132</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Paper Versus Practice: A Field Investigation of Integrity Hotlines</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>SOLTES, EUGENE</creator><creatorcontrib>SOLTES, EUGENE</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
In an effort to motivate firms to more rapidly detect potential misconduct, legislators, regulators, and enforcement agencies incentivize firms to have integrity or “whistleblowing” hotlines. These hotlines provide individuals an opportunity to report alleged misconduct and seek guidance about how to appropriately respond. Beyond some isolated examples, little is known about the responsiveness of hotlines to actual claims of alleged misconduct. I undertake a field study to investigate how hotlines function in practice by making four different inquiries involving alleged misconduct to nearly 250 firms. I find that one‐fifth of firms have impediments (e.g., phone line disconnected, email bounce back, direct to incorrect website) that hinder reporting and approximately 10% of firms do not respond in a timely manner. Overall, this investigation illuminates several differences between integrity hotlines “on paper” and how they actually perform in practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8456</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-679X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12302</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Companies ; compliance programs ; corporate misconduct ; Email ; Enforcement ; hotlines ; Legislators ; Misconduct ; Morality ; Responsiveness ; Whistleblowing</subject><ispartof>Journal of accounting research, 2020-05, Vol.58 (2), p.429-472</ispartof><rights>University of Chicago on behalf of the Accounting Research Center, 2020</rights><rights>2020 The Accounting Research Center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3492-13779e2e6758744829de0ad99458f81babe868872ccca1f7499e9e07efaedc5c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3492-13779e2e6758744829de0ad99458f81babe868872ccca1f7499e9e07efaedc5c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1475-679X.12302$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1475-679X.12302$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>SOLTES, EUGENE</creatorcontrib><title>Paper Versus Practice: A Field Investigation of Integrity Hotlines</title><title>Journal of accounting research</title><description>ABSTRACT
In an effort to motivate firms to more rapidly detect potential misconduct, legislators, regulators, and enforcement agencies incentivize firms to have integrity or “whistleblowing” hotlines. These hotlines provide individuals an opportunity to report alleged misconduct and seek guidance about how to appropriately respond. Beyond some isolated examples, little is known about the responsiveness of hotlines to actual claims of alleged misconduct. I undertake a field study to investigate how hotlines function in practice by making four different inquiries involving alleged misconduct to nearly 250 firms. I find that one‐fifth of firms have impediments (e.g., phone line disconnected, email bounce back, direct to incorrect website) that hinder reporting and approximately 10% of firms do not respond in a timely manner. Overall, this investigation illuminates several differences between integrity hotlines “on paper” and how they actually perform in practice.</description><subject>Companies</subject><subject>compliance programs</subject><subject>corporate misconduct</subject><subject>Email</subject><subject>Enforcement</subject><subject>hotlines</subject><subject>Legislators</subject><subject>Misconduct</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Responsiveness</subject><subject>Whistleblowing</subject><issn>0021-8456</issn><issn>1475-679X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkM1LAzEQxYMoWKtnrwHP2-ZrN4m3WqytFFpExVtIs7MlZd2tya7S_96tK16dy8DjvZnHD6FrSka0mzEVMk0yqd9GlHHCTtDgTzlFA0IYTZRIs3N0EeOOEKJTTgfobm33EPArhNhGvA7WNd7BLZ7gmYcyx4vqE2Ljt7bxdYXrohMa2AbfHPC8bkpfQbxEZ4UtI1z97iF6md0_T-fJcvWwmE6WieNCs4RyKTUwyGSqpBCK6RyIzbUWqSoU3dgNqEwpyZxzlhZSaA0aiITCQu5Sx4fopr-7D_VH27Uyu7oNVffSMK5ZJhTlrHONe5cLdYwBCrMP_t2Gg6HEHEGZIxZzxGJ-QHWJrE98-RIO_9nN42ry1Ae_ATJGae0</recordid><startdate>202005</startdate><enddate>202005</enddate><creator>SOLTES, EUGENE</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202005</creationdate><title>Paper Versus Practice: A Field Investigation of Integrity Hotlines</title><author>SOLTES, EUGENE</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3492-13779e2e6758744829de0ad99458f81babe868872ccca1f7499e9e07efaedc5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Companies</topic><topic>compliance programs</topic><topic>corporate misconduct</topic><topic>Email</topic><topic>Enforcement</topic><topic>hotlines</topic><topic>Legislators</topic><topic>Misconduct</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Responsiveness</topic><topic>Whistleblowing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SOLTES, EUGENE</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of accounting research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SOLTES, EUGENE</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Paper Versus Practice: A Field Investigation of Integrity Hotlines</atitle><jtitle>Journal of accounting research</jtitle><date>2020-05</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>429</spage><epage>472</epage><pages>429-472</pages><issn>0021-8456</issn><eissn>1475-679X</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
In an effort to motivate firms to more rapidly detect potential misconduct, legislators, regulators, and enforcement agencies incentivize firms to have integrity or “whistleblowing” hotlines. These hotlines provide individuals an opportunity to report alleged misconduct and seek guidance about how to appropriately respond. Beyond some isolated examples, little is known about the responsiveness of hotlines to actual claims of alleged misconduct. I undertake a field study to investigate how hotlines function in practice by making four different inquiries involving alleged misconduct to nearly 250 firms. I find that one‐fifth of firms have impediments (e.g., phone line disconnected, email bounce back, direct to incorrect website) that hinder reporting and approximately 10% of firms do not respond in a timely manner. Overall, this investigation illuminates several differences between integrity hotlines “on paper” and how they actually perform in practice.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1475-679X.12302</doi><tpages>44</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-8456 |
| ispartof | Journal of accounting research, 2020-05, Vol.58 (2), p.429-472 |
| issn | 0021-8456 1475-679X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2392648132 |
| source | Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Companies compliance programs corporate misconduct Enforcement hotlines Legislators Misconduct Morality Responsiveness Whistleblowing |
| title | Paper Versus Practice: A Field Investigation of Integrity Hotlines |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T09%3A41%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Paper%20Versus%20Practice:%20A%20Field%20Investigation%20of%20Integrity%20Hotlines&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20accounting%20research&rft.au=SOLTES,%20EUGENE&rft.date=2020-05&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=429&rft.epage=472&rft.pages=429-472&rft.issn=0021-8456&rft.eissn=1475-679X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1475-679X.12302&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2392648132%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2392648132&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |