Search for a command to run...
Corporate fraud detection frequently relies on whistleblowing as a primary deterrent mechanism. The financial services sector is widely recognized as carrying significant fraud risk; however, persistent barriers to anonymous whistleblowing remain, including cultural obstacles, insufficient protections, and varying enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions. Although the importance of whistleblowing is increasingly acknowledged and practiced, evidence remains limited and uneven regarding the influence of organizational and cultural contexts on whistleblowing behavior, particularly in emerging economies with developing regulatory environments. This critical review provides an integrative summary of the literature to develop a multi-theoretical model describing whistleblowing processes, outcomes, and cross-national policy effectiveness within financial services. The review employs a theory-informed narrative synthesis within an integrative review design, analyzing publications from 2000 to 2025 using relevance-based selection and a five-theory analytic framework (moral judgement, power dependence, expectancy, institutional, and network governance). Evidence was synthesized within each theoretical lens and then integrated to construct a multi-level conceptual framework. The synthesis indicates that whistleblower outcomes are shaped by social processes involving negotiations among individual moral characteristics, organizational power dynamics, institutional barriers, and regulatory networks. Despite legal reforms, whistleblowers remain vulnerable in organizations with weak cultures. Elevated retaliation risk highlights tensions between protective policies and market pressures. Comparative analysis identifies robust regimes under Sarbanes–Oxley, Dodd–Frank, and the EU directive, while emerging economies often lack effective enforcement and cultural support for disclosure. Strengthening protection-oriented policies in these jurisdictions and embedding whistleblowing within Basel operational risk frameworks is recommended.