Perceived Credibility by Users of Confidential Channels in Organizations

Ariovaldo da Silva Rocha Netto; Murilo Cesar Merloto

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602677

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The credibility of confidential channels is fundamental to the effectiveness of compliance and corporate governance practices in identifying and addressing irregularities. The credibility of these channels was assessed based on the perception of their users, focusing on confidentiality, protection against retaliation, and effectiveness in handling allegations. A descriptive exploratory study was conducted, with a mixed approach and a predominantly quantitative methodology, using a survey applied to professionals from various organizations. Ninety responses were obtained, of which 67 were considered valid for the credibility analysis, as they referred to participants from organizations with confidential and anonymous channels. Quantitative data were analyzed by frequencies, means, and standard deviations, and complemented by qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. The results revealed high awareness of channel access and a favorable intention to use it. However, the confidence dimensions presented lower evaluations, notably the confidence in non-retaliation. The qualitative analysis corroborated concerns about confidence in the investigation, confidentiality/anonymity, transparency, independence, and the fear of retaliation. It was concluded that the mere existence and knowledge of the channels do not guarantee their effectiveness, with the confidence perceived by users being a central element for their credibility and utilization.

Keywords: Whistleblowing Channel; Compliance; Confidence; Confidentiality; Effectiveness.

1. Introduction

Federal Law nº 12.846/2013 (BRASIL, 2013), known as the Anti-Corruption Law, represents a milestone in the fight against corruption in Brazil since its enactment in 2014. This legislation established the objective liability of companies for acts harmful to public administration, providing for significant economic, administrative, and civil sanctions. The adoption of mechanisms for preventing illicit acts is encouraged, with the legislation offering differentiated treatment for organizations that implement them (Andrade and Rodrigues, 2018). Compliance programs, in this context, can act as mitigating factors in penalties and add reputational value to companies (Cunha and Souza, 2017).

The effectiveness of these corporate integrity programs is crucial. Article 7, item VIII, of Law No. 12.846/2013 (BRAZIL, 2013), indicates that the imposition of sanctions must consider the existence and effectiveness of such programs, including audit mechanisms, whistleblowing channels, and the implementation of internal ethics and conduct rules. The Comptroller General of the Union (CGU, 2023) defines integrity programs as a structured set of principles and mechanisms to prevent, detect, and remedy illicit practices, such as corruption, fraud, and ethical misconduct that compromise institutional trust and reputation. For adequate implementation, it is essential to conduct risk analyses, apply policies, disseminate a culture of integrity, and develop processes for handling and investigating complaints (CGU, 2024).

In this scenario, confidential channels emerge as essential tools for the success of compliance programs. According to Mathies (2018), the existence of accessible reporting channels for reporting violations of workers’ rights and guarantees constitutes a vital component for the effectiveness of these programs, allowing organizations to identify and correct irregularities. In addition to integrating compliance programs, these channels aim to investigate irregularities, misconduct, and inappropriate, illegal, or unethical practices, as well as violations of internal policies (Cardim et al., 2023).

For a whistleblowing channel to be successful, the adoption of three basic principles is essential, according to ISO 37002 (INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, 2021): trust, impartiality, and protection of the good-faith whistleblower. Confidentiality, in particular, is a pillar for the channel’s reliability, being the main mechanism to ensure the safety of those involved in the investigation process and the non-retaliation of the good-faith whistleblower (INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, 2021). Ensuring anonymity and confidentiality is an essential factor for whistleblowers to feel comfortable reporting irregularities (Goldschmidt et al., 2024; Kastiel, 2014).

The confidentiality of the process is intrinsically linked to user trust and, consequently, to the use of the tool. However, a relevant point of attention arises: to what extent do potential users of confidential channels truly believe in their credibility and the guarantee of confidentiality? The mere existence of confidential mechanisms does not, in itself, ensure their credibility, as the decision to report remains conditioned by the individual’s perception of security and protection against possible negative consequences.

The motivation for this work lies on two levels. Firstly, practical observations in the exercise of the compliance professional role reveal user reluctance regarding the tool’s credibility, raising questions about the effectiveness of investigation processes and the guarantee of confidentiality. Secondly, the study represents an opportunity to develop and enrich the academic literature on the subject, contributing to a deeper understanding of user perception. It is pertinent to mention that, although some authors differentiate between “compliance program” (focused on legal conformity) and “integrity program” (focused on combating corruption) (Lima and Pinheiro, 2020), others consider the term compliance in its broader sense, encompassing the idea of conformity and integrity (Goldschmidt et al., 2024). For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the evaluation of reporting channels, no distinction will be made between the terms. Given this scenario and the identified gap, this work aims to evaluate the credibility of confidential channels in the organizational context, based on user perception, through a survey-type research, with the application of a structured questionnaire, emphasizing the confidentiality of information — considering aspects of trust and whistleblower protection — and the perceived effectiveness in handling allegations.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was characterized as a descriptive exploratory research, adopting a mixed approach with a quantitative predominance. Initially, a comprehensive bibliographic survey was carried out to theoretically ground the theme, focusing on the relevance and role of confidential channels in the organizational environment. The empirical stage was conducted through a survey, aiming to collect data on user perception. The central objective was to evaluate the credibility of confidential channels in the organizational context, as outlined in the introduction.

The target audience of the research comprised professionals from various organizations and sectors, located in different regions, who utilize confidential channels. The sampling was non-probabilistic, by voluntary adherence, due to the absence of a precise delimitation of the eligible universe or a complete registry of the target population (Gil, 2010). For the data collection planning, Cochran’s formula for infinite populations (Cochran, 1977) was used as a reference for sample sizing.

The confidence level parameters of 90% (Z = 1.645), margin of error of 7% (e = 0.07), and estimated proportion (p) of 0.5 were adopted. The application of these values indicated an expected sample of approximately 139 participants, rounded up to 139. Although the survey obtained 90 responses, 67 were considered valid for credibility analysis, as they corresponded to participants from organizations with confidential channels and anonymity. The number of responses obtained exceeded the minimum of 50 established as a criterion for the exploratory validity of the study.

Data collection was carried out using a structured questionnaire, developed and made available on the Google Forms platform. The instrument combined closed-ended questions, using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, “Strongly disagree”, to 5, “Strongly agree”), and multiple-choice questions. Additionally, two open-ended questions were included, aiming to deepen the qualitative understanding of the investigated phenomenon. The questionnaire was developed by the author specifically for this study, considering its objectives and the dimensions of credibility of confidential channels.

The questionnaire was organized into blocks, with the first dedicated to non-nominal characterization variables, such as employment relationship type, employment relationship duration, and area of activity. The second block addressed perception items, measured by the Likert scale, to identify the credibility of confidential channels, focusing on confidentiality and effectiveness. The instrument was not submitted to a formal expert validation process or a specific methodological validation procedure before its application.

The electronic form was disseminated to participants through social media, specifically in Whatsapp groups focused on the Compliance segment and related sectors. The invitation included a brief description of the study and the link to access the questionnaire, aiming to reach professionals from companies in both public and private sectors. Data collection occurred between December 11, 2025, and March 22, 2026.

Regarding ethical and confidentiality aspects, the platform used for the electronic form was configured not to collect personal data that could identify participants by name, such as email, name, or IP address. Thus, the anonymous nature of the research was guaranteed, preserving the respondents’ identity. Participation was strictly voluntary and conditioned on the acceptance of the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE), presented as the first question of the form.

After collection, the data were submitted to a preliminary treatment for organization and preparation of the analyses. The original responses were transferred to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, where the coding of the Likert scale questions, identified as L1 to L6, was carried out, assigning numerical values from 1 to 5. The analytical stage aimed to characterize the sample profile and examine the respondents’ perception of the confidential channels.

Closed multiple-choice questions were analyzed through calculations of absolute and relative frequencies, allowing the description of categorical variables and the identification of patterns in the sample (Hair Jr. et al., 2005; Malhotra, 2019). For perception questions, measured by the Likert scale, the analysis was conducted through measures of central tendency and dispersion, such as mean and standard deviation (Hair Jr. et al., 2005; Malhotra, 2019). Additionally, the internal consistency of items L2, L3, and L4, related to perceived channel trust, was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951).

The answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed through thematic categorization and content analysis. This qualitative approach aimed to complement the interpretation of quantitative results, allowing for the identification of respondents’ perceptions, concerns, and suggestions regarding confidential channels. The analytical procedures were chosen considering the exploratory nature of the study, aiming to evaluate the credibility of confidential channels based on user perception.

3. Results and Discussion

This section details the research findings, presenting an in-depth analysis of user perception regarding the credibility of confidential channels within organizations. The findings are discussed in relation to the study’s objective, which sought to evaluate the credibility of these channels with a focus on confidentiality, protection against retaliation, and perceived effectiveness in handling allegations. The analysis integrates quantitative data, obtained through a structured questionnaire, and qualitative data, derived from open-ended responses, providing a comprehensive understanding of the investigated phenomenon. The results are presented in subtopics for greater clarity and organization.

Sample profile

During the data collection phase, 90 responses to the questionnaire were received. For the analysis of the perceived credibility of confidential channels, 67 responses were considered valid, corresponding to participants who confirmed affiliation with organizations that have confidential channels with the possibility of anonymity for reporting irregularities. Although the number of valid responses was below the initial estimate of 139 participants, calculated by Cochran’s formula for infinite populations, it exceeded the minimum of 50 responses established as a methodological criterion to ensure the exploratory validity of the study. This volume of data was considered sufficient to identify patterns and trends, as recommended for exploratory research with non-probabilistic sampling (Gil, 2010; Hair Jr. et al., 2005; Malhotra, 2019).

The characterization of the profile of the 90 respondents revealed that the majority, 84% (n = 76), work in the private sector. The public sector represented 8% (n = 7) of the sample, while 4% (n = 4) of the participants preferred not to disclose their sector of activity and 3% (n = 3) belonged to the third sector, including NGOs and OSCIPs. This sectoral distribution indicates a predominance of private sector professionals in the sample, which may influence the general perception of whistleblowing channels, although the study does not aim to establish inferential comparisons between sectors.

Regarding the type of employment relationship, 74% (n = 67) of respondents declared themselves to be permanent employees under the CLT regime, reflecting a solid base of direct collaborators. Outsourced employees or service providers represented 18% (n = 16) of the sample. The categories “associate”, “retired”, and “volunteer” were grouped into “other institutional ties”, totaling 3% (n = 3), and the category “Partner/Owner” also represented 3% (n = 3). The lowest representation was observed in the “Supplier/client” category, with only 1% (n = 1) of participants, indicating that the survey predominantly captured the perception of internal collaborators.

The tenure of the participants with their respective companies showed a relatively homogeneous distribution, with the “more than 9 years” category being the most representative, with 28% (n = 25) of respondents. The categories “less than 1 year”, “3 to 6 years”, and “6 to 9 years” each registered 18% (n = 16), while “1 to 3 years” corresponded to 19% (n = 17) of the sample. This diversity in tenure suggests that the sample includes professionals with different levels of experience and familiarity with organizational practices, which can enrich the variety of perceptions about confidential channels.

The existence of confidential channels in the respondents’ organizations was a fundamental criterion for selecting the valid sample. It was found that 60% (n = 54) of participants reported that their organizations have an anonymous reporting channel, and 14% (n = 13) reported the existence of an anonymous ombudsman channel. Together, these data indicate that 74% (n = 67) of the valid sample has some type of confidential channel. On the other hand, 23% (n = 21) of respondents reported that their organizations do not have confidential channels or formal mechanisms for reporting ethical and conduct deviations, and 2% (n = 2) reported the existence of a “Contact Us” type channel that requires identification, with the latter being excluded from the perception analysis.

Perception of the channel

Perception analyses were conducted exclusively with the 67 respondents whose organizations have confidential channels with the possibility of anonymity. The results, measured using a five-point Likert scale, revealed positive trends in all evaluated dimensions, with averages above 3.5 points. The “channel access” dimension obtained the highest average, 4.69, with a standard deviation of 0.86, and 85.07% of respondents fully agreed. This high degree of consensus and low dispersion indicate that channel access is widely known and does not represent an operational barrier for users.

In contrast, the dimension “trust in confidentiality” presented a mean of 4.02 and a standard deviation of 1.36, indicating greater dispersion in the responses. Although 55.22% of participants fully agreed, the variability suggests that, despite confidentiality being recognized as an attribute of the channel, its credibility is not perceived uniformly. The literature, as pointed out by Miceli et al. (2008), emphasizes that the guarantee of confidentiality is crucial for the decision to report, as it reduces the fear of exposure and increases trust in the system. The perception of fragility in secrecy can, therefore, compromise trust, even with the established formal structure.

“Trust in impartiality” registered an average of 3.87 and a standard deviation of 1.20. This result points to the existence of reservations on the part of respondents regarding the conduct of the investigations, with 38.81% fully agreeing. This pattern suggests possible doubts about the fairness of the processes, which can be interpreted in light of the literature on organizational justice. Colquitt (2001) highlights that the perception of equity and impartiality in procedures directly influences individuals’ behavior, and when processes are perceived as biased, trust in the system tends to be reduced.

The dimension “trust in non-retaliation” obtained the lowest average among the confidence criteria, with 3.75 and a standard deviation of 1.17. Only 32.84% of respondents fully agreed, and there was a greater concentration of disagreement, reaching 19.4%. This finding is significant as it shows that the fear of negative consequences still acts as a relevant factor for potential whistleblowers. The perception of risk, as discussed by Detert and Edmondson (2011), can lead to self-censorship, inhibiting the expression of concerns even in the presence of formal channels.

The “disclosure and encouragement of channel use” showed an average of 4.13 and a standard deviation of 1.15, with 53.73% of respondents fully agreeing. This result, along with the high average for “channel access,” suggests that institutional communication actions are effective in increasing awareness and reducing operational barriers. However, the effectiveness of disclosure does not automatically translate into full confidence, as observed in the confidence dimensions, which presented more moderate evaluations.

The “channel usage intention” in hypothetical situations registered a high average of 4.18 and a standard deviation of 1.15, with 55.22% of participants fully agreeing. This data indicates a declared predisposition to report. However, Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991) suggests that intention, although relevant, is not sufficient to guarantee action, being influenced by factors such as perceived control and risk assessment. Thus, the high declared intention does not guarantee the channel’s effectiveness, as the decision to report remains conditioned by perceived trust in the dimensions that mitigate personal risk.

As a complementary analysis, the internal consistency of the confidence items – confidentiality, impartiality, and non-retaliation – was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, which resulted in 0.902 (n = 67). This high value indicates strong coherence among the questions, reinforcing that the set of items is adequate for measuring perceived channel confidence (Cronbach, 1951). The joint analysis of the quantitative results reveals an important contrast: while channel access is widely known, the dimensions related to institutional confidence, especially protection against retaliation and impartiality, show more moderate levels. This finding aligns with the model by Near and Miceli (1995), which postulates that the existence of formal channels is necessary but not sufficient for their effectiveness, depending on trust in the organization and the perception of whistleblower protection.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses

To complement the interpretation of the quantitative results, the responses to the two open-ended questions of the questionnaire were analyzed, allowing for the identification of respondents’ perceptions, concerns, and suggestions. The responses were inductively organized into five analytical categories, based on the recurrence and nature of the identified themes. The most frequent category was “confidence in the tallying process”, with 20 occurrences, followed by “confidentiality/anonymity”, with 17 occurrences, and “transparency/feedback”, with 12 occurrences. The categories “independence in the tallying process”, with 8 occurrences, and “fear of retaliation”, with 6 occurrences, were also identified, although with lower absolute frequency.

The predominance of the category “trust in the investigation process” indicates that the channel’s credibility is strongly associated with how denunciations are handled, not just their formal existence. Respondents attribute great importance to the impartiality, effectiveness, and consistency of investigations, which aligns with the literature on organizational justice, highlighting the role of perceived fairness in institutional processes for building trust (Colquitt, 2001). The relevance of the category “confidentiality/anonymity” reinforces that the protection of the whistleblower’s identity is a central element for trust in the channel, with manifestations evidencing concerns about effective anonymity and possible forms of indirect identification. This result dialogues with Miceli et al. (2008), who point to confidentiality as a determining factor for whistleblowing behavior.

The category “transparency and feedback” also showed relevant frequency, indicating that respondents value institutional feedback on the reports made. The absence of feedback was mentioned as a factor that can compromise trust in the channel, suggesting that organizational communication plays an important role in the perceived legitimacy of reporting mechanisms (Treviño et al., 1999). Although it is not always possible to provide detailed feedback to the reporter, especially due to the confidentiality of investigative processes, the correlation between knowledge of the process and the perceived credibility of the tool is clear.

Regarding “independence in conducting investigations”, this category, despite having one of the lowest absolute frequencies, highlights concerns about possible conflicts of interest in investigative processes. This finding converges with the literature on whistleblowing channels, which emphasizes the importance of organizational trust in the decision to report irregularities (Near and Miceli, 1995). The category “fear of retaliation”, although with the lowest absolute frequency, reinforces critical aspects related to perceived risk. The fear of retaliation shows that the perception of negative consequences still acts as a barrier to reporting behavior, a pattern interpreted in light of the studies by Detert and Edmondson (2011), who highlight how the expectation of negative consequences contributes to self-censorship in the organizational environment.

The integrated analysis of qualitative and quantitative data suggests that, although the category “fear of retaliation” presented lower frequency in the open-ended responses, its relevance is not diminished. On the contrary, when combined with quantitative data, where the dimension of non-retaliation obtained the lowest average, it is observed that this concern may be present in a latent form, significantly influencing individuals’ perception. In general, the distribution of qualitative categories shows that the main factors influencing the credibility of confidential channels are related to trust in institutional processes, perceived security, and how reports are handled throughout their investigation cycle. These findings are consistent with Mayer et al.’s (1995) organizational trust model, indicating that the willingness to use the channel depends on the perception of integrity, benevolence, and capacity of the system, and reinforce the interpretation that the effectiveness of the channels is conditioned by the reduction of perceived risk and the consolidation of a safe organizational environment, approaching the concept of psychological safety proposed by Edmondson (1999).

In summary, the research results demonstrate that, although confidential channels are widely known and there is a declared intention to use them, their effectiveness is not fully consolidated. The dimensions of confidence, particularly confidentiality, impartiality, and protection against retaliation, revealed fragilities in users’ perception, indicating that the mere existence and knowledge of the channels are not sufficient to guarantee their effective use. The decision to report irregularities is intrinsically linked to the perception of risk and trust in the channel, requiring organizations to advance in building institutional confidence through practices that reinforce security, independence in investigation, and transparency in handling complaints, as per the central objective of this study.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to evaluate the credibility of confidential channels in the organizational context, based on user perception, focusing on confidentiality, protection against retaliation, and effectiveness in handling allegations. It was found that, although access to these channels was widely known and there was a favorable intention to use them by respondents, the dimensions of confidence presented more moderate evaluations. Notably, confidence in non-retaliation registered the lowest average, indicating that the fear of negative consequences still acts as a significant barrier. The qualitative analysis corroborated these concerns, highlighting the importance of confidence in the investigation, confidentiality, and transparency of processes. These findings demonstrate that the mere existence and knowledge of the channels are not sufficient to guarantee their effectiveness, with perceived user confidence being a central element for their credibility and utilization. As a practical implication, the study emphasizes the need for organizations to advance in building institutional confidence, going beyond the formal implementation of channels, through practices that reinforce security, independence in investigation, and transparency in handling complaints.

The main academic contribution of this work lies in deepening the understanding of users’ perception regarding the credibility of confidential channels, enriching the existing literature on compliance and corporate governance. However, the study presented some limitations, such as the use of non-probabilistic sampling and the absence of formal validation of the data collection instrument by experts. Additionally, the composition of the sample, which included organizations from different sectors, did not allow for robust comparisons between distinct organizational contexts, which could influence the perception of the channels. For future research, it is suggested to adopt larger and stratified samples, enabling comparison between different organizational contexts and verification of how factors associated with channel credibility manifest in diverse institutional realities.

Bibliographic References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179-211.

Andrade, P.; Rodrigues, M.R.J.B. 2018. A Relação Entre a Lei Anticorrupção nº 12.846/2013 e a Criação de Programas de Compliance por Empresas Brasileiras. Revista de Iniciação Científica e Extensão da Faculdade de Direito de Franca 3(1): 645-660.

Brasil. 2013. Lei nº 12.846, de 01 de agosto de 2013. Dispõe sobre a responsabilização administrativa e civil de pessoas jurídicas pela prática de atos contra a administração pública, nacional ou estrangeira. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 02 ago. 2013. Seção 1, p. 1-3.

Cardim, C.H.C.M; Costa, I.D; Simoni, V.K. 2023. Ouvidoria e canal de denúncias: Ferramentas para governança e sustentabilidade. Revista Científica da Associação Brasileira de Ouvidores/Ombudsman 7(6): 193-200.

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, United States. Disponível em: <https://pt.scribd.com/document/534046574/Cochran-1977-Sampling-Techniques-Third-Edition>. Acesso em: 04 nov. 2025.

Colquitt, J.A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386-400.

Controladoria-Geral da União [CGU]. 2024. Programa de integridade: diretrizes para empresas privadas. Brasília: CGU. Disponível em: <GuiaDiretrizes_v14out1.pdf>. Acesso em: 04 nov. 2025.

Controladoria-Geral da União. 2023. Decreto nº 11.529, de 16 de maio de 2023. Institui o Sistema de Integridade, Transparência e Acesso à Informação da Administração Pública Federal e a Política de Transparência e Acesso à Informação da Administração Pública Federal. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 16 de maio de 2023. Seção 1, p. 4.

Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297-334

Cunha, R.S.; Souza, R.O. 2017. Lei anticorrupção empresarial. 6ed. JusPODIVM, Salvador, BA, Brasil.

Detert, J.R.; Edmondson, A.C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal 54(3): 461–488.

Edmondson, A.C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 350-383.

Gil, A. C. 2010. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 5ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Goldschmidt, R.; Prado, R.M.; Rocha, M.S.S. 2024. Compliance trabalhista: os canais de denúncias como mecanismos de proteção aos direitos fundamentais do trabalhador. Revista Trabalho, Direito e Justiça 2(65): 01-15.

Hair Jr, J.F.; Babin, B.; Money, A.H.; Samouel, P. 2005. Fundamentos de Métodos de Pesquisa em Administração. 1ed. Artmed Editora S.A, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

International Organization for Standardization. 2021. ISO 37002:2021 – Whistleblowing management systems — Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland.

Kastiel, K. 2014. Elements of an effective whistleblower hotline. Disponível em: <https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/10/25/elements-of-an-effective-whistleblower-hotline/>. Acesso em: 04 nov. 2025.

Lima, F.; Pinheiro, I. 2020. Manual do compliance trabalhista: teoria e prática. 5ed. JusPodivm, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.

Malhotra, N. K. 2019. Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. 7ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Mathies, A. 2018. Assédio Moral e Compliance na Relação de Emprego: dos danos e dos custos e instrumentos de prevenção de acordo com a reforma trabalhista. Juruá, Curitiba, PR, Brasil.

Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709–734.

Miceli, M.P.; Near, J.P.; Dworkin, T.M. 2008. Whistle-Blowing in Organizations. 1ed. Psychology Press, New York, NY, EUA.

Near, J.P.; Miceli, M.P. 1995. Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 679–708

Treviño, L.K.; Weaver, G.R.; Gibson, D.G.; Toffler, B.L. 1999. Managing ethics and legal compliance: what works and what hurts. California Management Review. 41(2): 131-151.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Compliance and ESG of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform