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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• Whistleblowing
• Comparative Company Law
• Corporate Governance
• Compliance
• Delegation of Power

İhbarcılık Kavramının Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Işığında Türk Şirketler Hukuku Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• İhbarcılık
• Karşılaştırmalı Şirketler Hukuku
• Kurumsal Yönetim
• Uyum
• Yetki Devri

References

1. Abazi V, ‘The European Union Whistleblower Directive: A ‘Game Changer’ for Whistleblowing Protection?’ (2020) 49(4) Industrial Law Journal 640. google scholar
2. ACFE 2020 Reports to the Nations - Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (Acfepublic. s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com, 2023) erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. Alman Kurumsal Yönetim Yasası (Der Deutsche Corporate Governance Kodex) ‘Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex’ (Dcgk.de, 2017) erişim tarihi 12 Mart 2023. google scholar
7. Anayasa Mahkemesi, ‘Anayasa | Anayasa Mahkemesi’ (Anayasa.gov.tr, 2023) erişim tarihi 8 Mart 2023. google scholar
8. 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

9. 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
10. Aydan S, ‘İhbarcılık: Bir Kavram Analizi’ (2018) 15 Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 41, 78-100. google scholar
11. Baer M H, ‘Governing Corporate Compliance’ (2009) 50 Boston College Law Review 4, 950 vd. google scholar
12. Beck v. Citicorp., Inc., Case No. 2006-SOX-00003 (August 1, 2006). google scholar
13. 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
14. Belson K, ‘Worldcom’s Audacious Failure And Its Toll On An Industry (Published 2005)’ (Nytimes. com, 2005) erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
15. Berry B, ‘Organizational Culture: A Framework and Strategies for Facilitating Employee Whistle-Blowing’ (2004) 16 Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 1. google scholar
16. Biegelman M T ve Biegelman D R, Building A Worldclass Compliance Program: Best Practices And Strategies For Success (Wiley 2008). google scholar
17. Brickey K F, ‘From Enron to WorldCom and Beyond: Life and Crime After Sarbanes-Oxley’ (2003) 81 WASH. U. L.Q. 357. google scholar
18. Brener A, Strategies for Compliance Tools, Techniques and Challenges in Financial Services, (1st end. Routledge 2020). google scholar
19. Boles J R, Eisenstadt L ve Pacella J M, ‘Whistleblowing in the Compliance Era’ (2020) 55 Ga L Rev 147. google scholar
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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) erişim tarihi 13 Mart 2023. google scholar
23. Carnero v. Boston Sci. Corp., 433 F.3d 1, 17-18. google scholar
24. 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
25. Coffee Jr C, ‘Gatekeeper Failure and Reform: The Challenge of Fashioning Relevant Reforms’ (2004) 84 BUL Rev 301. google scholar
26. Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1376 (N.D. Ga. 2004). google scholar
27. 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
28. Coşkun S Y, ‘Türk Rekabet Kurulu Kararları Işığında Pişmanlık Programının Uygulanması: Belirsizlikler ve Tutarsızlıklar’ (2014) 18 EÜHFD 3-4, 78. google scholar
29. 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
30. Dereköy F, ‘Muhasebe Manipülasyonlari: Toshiba Vakasi’ (2020) 85 Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 91-110. google scholar
31. Dig. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767, 772-73 (2018) google scholar
32. 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
33. Disclosure Act 1998’ (2000) 63(1) Modern Law Review 25. google scholar
34. Dixon O, ‘Honesty without Fear? Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Protections in Corporate Codes of Conduct’ (2016) 40/168 Melbourne University Law Review 182. google scholar
35. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). google scholar
36. Dyck A, Morse A ve Zingales L, ‘Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?’ (2010) 65 Journal of Finance 2213. google scholar
37. Ebersole D, ‘Blowing The Whistle On The Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions’ (2011) 6(1) Ohio State Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal 123. google scholar
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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
41. 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) erişim tarihi 10 Mart 2023. google scholar
42. European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Guidelines on processing personal information within a whistleblowing procedure, Par 6.2. Aralık 2019. google scholar
43. False Claim Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730; the Insider Trading and Securities Enforcement Act of 1988, 26 U.S.C. § 7623. google scholar
44. 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) erişim tarihi 13 Eylül 2023. google scholar
45. Glazer M P ve Glazer P M, The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry (Basic Books 1989) 4. google scholar
46. Griffith S J, ’Corporate Governance in an Era of Compliance’ (2016) 57 William & Mary Law Review 6, 2075. google scholar
47. 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
48. Gürkaynak G, Rekabet Hukuku, (1. Bası, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
49. Hanna v. W.L.I. Communities, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 34 (S.D. Fla. 2004). google scholar
50. Harker et al., ‘Whistleblower Incentives and Protections in the Financial Reform Act’ (2010) 127 Banking Law Journal 779. google scholar
51. 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
52. Homer J ve Katz D, ‘How Worldcom Whistle-Blower Changed Corporate America’ (CFO, 2023) erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
53. 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
54. 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
55. Kafteranis D, ‘The future of the Whistle-blowing Directive: criticising its legal bases’ (2021) 1 Queen Mary Law Journal 65. google scholar
56. 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
57. Kekevi G, ‘Pişmanlik Yönetmeliği: Garp Cephesinde Yeni Bir Şey Var’, 10(4) Rekabet Dergisi 73. google scholar
58. 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
59. Kirca İ, Şehirali Çelik F H ve Manavgat Ç, Anonim Şirketler Hukuku Cilt I (1. Basi Ankara 2013). google scholar
60. Konyali G, ‘Uluslararasi Hukukta İhbarcilik Kavrami ve İhbarcilarin Korunmasi’ (2021) 12 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1, 412-428. google scholar
61. Kort M, “Compliance Und Risikomanagement Im Deutschen Gesellschaftsrecht” (2010) Anonim Şirketler Ve Sermaye Piyasasi Hukukunda Güncel Gelişmeler Türk-Alman Uluslararasi Sempozyumu. google scholar
62. Labriola L, ‘Paying Too Dearly for a Whistle: Properly Protecting Internal Whistleblowers’ (2017) 85 Fordham L. Rev. 2839, 2846. google scholar
63. 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
64. Latimer P ve Brown A J, ‘Whistleblower Laws: International Best Practice’ (2008) 31(3) UNSW Law Journal 766. google scholar
65. Lee J, ‘Corporate Corruption & the New Gold Mine: How the Dodd-Frank Act Overincentivizes Whistleblowing’ (2011) 77(1) Brooklyn Law Review 303. google scholar
66. Leslie C. Griffin, Whistleblowing in the Business World, in Enron: Corporate Fiascos And Legal Implications 209-36 (Foundation Press, 2004). google scholar
67. 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
68. Lobel O, ‘Lawyering Loyalties: Speech Rights and Duties Within Twenty-First-Century New Governance’, (2009) 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 1245. google scholar
69. Mahony v. Keyspan Corp 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22042 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). google scholar
70. Marano v. Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1993). google scholar
71. 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
72. 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
73. 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
74. 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
75. Miceli M P, Near J P ve Dworkin T M, Whistle-Blowing in Organizations (Routledge, 2008). google scholar
76. Miller G P, ‘Compliance: Past, Present and Future’ (2017) 48 U. TOL. L. REV. 437. google scholar
77. Miller G P, The Law Of Governance, Risk Management, And Compliance (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2017). google scholar
78. Mitchell G, ‘Case Studies, Counterfactuals, and Causal Explanations’ (2004) 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1517. google scholar
79. Moberly R, ‘Confidentiality and Whistleblowing’ (2018). 96 N.C. L. Rev. 751. google scholar
80. 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
81. 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
82. 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
83. Near J P ve Miceli M P, ‘Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing’ (1985) 4 J. of Bus. Ethics 1. google scholar
84. Near J P ve Miceli M P, ‘Whistleblowing: Myth and Reality’ (1996) 22 Journal of Management 507. google scholar
85. 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
86. 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
87. OECD, “Ratification Status” < https://www.oecd.org/daf/antibribery/WGBRatificationStatus.pdf > erişim tarihi 20 Eylül 2023. google scholar
88. 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
89. 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
90. Pacella J M, ‘The Regulation of Lawyers in Compliance’ (2020) 95 WASH. L. REV. 947. google scholar
91. Paslı A, Anonim Ortaklık Kurumsal Yönetimi (Corporate Governance), (Beta Basım, 2004). google scholar
92. Paslı A, “Compliance” Kavramının Anonim Ortaklıklar Hukukundaki Anlamı ve Sorumluluk Sistemine Etkisi’ (2013) 71 İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 2, 317-334. google scholar
93. Pekcan A, ‘İş Hukukunda Yeni Bir Kavram - Bilgi Uçurmak (Whistleblowing) - Pekcan Hukuk Bürosu’ (Pekcanhukuk.com, 2023) erişim tarihi 8 Mart 2023. google scholar
94. Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 69 Fed. Reg. 52,104-08. google scholar
95. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (UK), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/23/contents. google scholar
96. Pulaşlı H, ‘Compliance Kavramı ve Yönetim Organının Compliance Sorumluluğu’ (2019) 35 Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi 2, 27-59 google scholar
97. Rachagan S ve Kuppusamy K, ‘Encouraging Whistle Blowing to Improve Corporate Governance? A Malaysian Initiative’ (2013) 115 J Bus Ethics, 367-382. google scholar
98. Reicher J, “Reaktionspflichten und Reaktionsmöglichkeiten der Organe auf (möglicherweise) strafrechtsrelevantes Verhalten innerhalb des Unternehmens” (2011) Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik. google scholar
99. Richards v Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 2004 DOLSOX LEXIS 106, *34, 39 (Oct. 1, 2004). google scholar
100. 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) erişim tarihi 13 Mart 2023. google scholar
101. 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
102. 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
103. Rubenfeld G, ‘Compliance Officer: Dream Career?’ (WSJ, 2021) Erişim tarihi 22 Eylül 2023. google scholar
104. Rubinstein K, ‘Corporate Governance Five Years After Sarbanes-Oxley: Is There Real Change?’ (2007) 52 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 637. google scholar
105. Sarbanes Oxley Act-SOX google scholar
106. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-204, § 806, 116 Stat. 745, 802-04. google scholar
107. 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
108. Shaw T, ‘When Text And Policy Conflict: Internal Whistleblowing Under The Shadow Of Dodd-Frank’ (2018) 70(3) Administrative Law Review 674. google scholar
109. 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
110. Stappers J T, ‘EU Whistleblower Protection Directive: Europe on Whistleblowing’ (2021) ERA Forum 22, 87-100. google scholar
111. Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre [2004] 4 All ER 839 (CA). google scholar
112. Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp. v. Herman, 115 F.3d 1568. google scholar
113. Sunstein C R, Why Societies Need Dissent (Harvard University Press, 2003). google scholar
114. Şen M L, ‘Yolsuzluğun Önlenmesinde Etkili Bir Araç: İhbarcılık’ (2020) Sakarya İktisat Dergisi 100. Yil Milli Egemenlik Özel Sayisi, 90-109. google scholar
115. 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
116. 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
117. Teichmann F M ve Sergi B S, ‘Whistle-Blowing in Corporations’, Compliance in Multinational Corporations, (Emerald Publishing Limited 2018). google scholar
118. Terracol M, ‘Are EU Countries Failing To Protect Whistleblowers? - Blog’ (Transparency.org, 2021) erişim tarihi 13 Mart 2023. google scholar
119. Tuğ M A, ‘Kurumsal Yönetim Kavraminin Genel Çerçevesi ve Türk Hukukundaki Yansimalari’ (2019) 5 Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1, 203-227. google scholar
120. 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
121. 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
122. U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations (July 2019). google scholar
123. 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
124. Uyar S ve Yelgen E, ‘Bilgi İfşası (Whistleblowing) ve Denetim’ (2015) 13 Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi 1, 85-106. google scholar
125. Vandekerckhove W ve Commers R, ‘Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty’ (2004) 53 Journal of Business Ethics 225. google scholar
126. Vanderkerchove W, Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment (Aldershot: Ashgate 2006). google scholar
127. 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
128. 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
129. 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
130. Westman D P, ‘The Significance of the Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provisions’ (2005) 21 LAB. LAW. 141. google scholar
131. Wolfe S et al, ‘Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries: Priorities for Action’ (Final Report, Blueprint for Free Speech, September 2014). google scholar
132. Yaşar T N, Anonim Şirketler Hukukunda Uyum (Compliance), (1. Bası, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2020). google scholar
133. ‘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
134. (Cerebra.com.tr, 2020) erişim tarihi 3 Eylül 2023. google scholar
135. ‘Congress Expands Incentives for Whistleblowers to Report Suspected Violations to the SEC’, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1829 google scholar
136. ‘Whistleblowers Still The Best At Detecting Fraud - National Whistleblower Center’ (National Whistleblower Center, 2018) erişim tarihi 4 Eylül 2023. google scholar
137. ‘Whistleblower Laws Around The World - National Whistleblower Center’ (National Whistleblower Center, 2019) erişim tarihi 1 Eylül 2023. google scholar