ACC618 Week 3 Discussion 2 Dodd-Frank Reform Act

According to our text, whistleblowing occurs when “organization members (current or former) disclose illegal, immoral, or illegitimate actions under the control of their employers to persons or organizations who may be able to effect action” (p. 131). It goes on to explain that the whistleblowing process consists of four parts: the whistleblower; the whistleblowing act or complaint; the party to whom the complaint is made; and the organization against which the complaint is lodged (p.131). Considering the foregoing and the chapter’s discussion of whistleblowers' motivations, we may deduce that the individuals who reported wrongdoing within their companies did not feel they could find redress within the company itself. The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act offers a financial incentive for whistleblowers, but a person who has already tried to resolve the issue internally should not be considered a “whistleblower” for this reason alone. Dodd-compensation Frank’s provisions can be viewed as either ethical or unethical, depending on one’s point of view. In that it incentivizes people to come forward with information that could prevent a major financial scandal at a company, it is morally commendable. However, it could also lead to unethical behavior if some people chose to bypass proper channels for resolving the problem in exchange for a financial reward. As we mentioned in the previous weeks, it is crucial for accountants to collaborate with internal groups in an effort to find a solution to a problem. If that doesn’t work, it’s fine to try something else. Whether the Act is ethical or not depends on the integrity of the reporter, their sense of right and wrong, and whether or not they tried to resolve the issue inside before going outside for help.

References

Mintz, S. M., & Miller, W. F. (2023). Ethical obligations and decision making in accounting: Text and cases (6th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.