L-LEGAL FACTORS

“L” in the PESTEL framework stands for the legal factors (i.e. laws and regulations) that control business activities within any jurisdiction[77]. The legal aspect of business (e.g. antitrust laws, patent infringement, employment regulations, employee safety and health regulations, product regulations, competitive regulations etc) are relevant to this paper because the knowledge is critical for avoiding unnecessary legal costs in every business environment[78]. The legal and political elements are linked and interchangeably used because both factors for instance influence corporate social responsibility (CSR)[79] and good corporate governance[80].

On this premise, Coronavirus related legal issues and considerations have proved quite extensive for business leaders, legal practitioners and scholars, too. As governments take actions (such as restricted movement, business closure, court prosecutions, fines) to control COVID-19 pandemic and restore order, organizations face the challenge of COVID-19 fraud, CSR and ethical practice[81]. Employees also need to deal with setbacks arising from cumbersome and expensive whistleblowing procedure (as in the UK) as well as ineffective whistleblower protection laws[82] and lax enforcement mechanisms found in many EU Member Countries. These examples underscore the need for a global legal framework that enhances crisis management and strategic response during disaster periods[83]. Some of the identified legal concerns fall under disclosure, corporate governance, employment, contracts, financing etc[84].

The United States of America

The executive branches of federal and state governments in the United States are legally authorized to enact rules and regulations designed for implementing laws passed by Congress[85]. But the executive arm of government basically relies on government agencies to perform its functions that involves a typically lengthy process, public comment and congressional oversight[86]. In some cases, however, there are exceptions to the rule because the executive can override certain governmental regulatory processes to take lawful and immediate actions when necessary[87].

Although executive orders or emergency rule making has been applied to previous emergency situations in the US, the COVID-19 pandemic called for enactment of laws that transcend every jurisdiction in the country[88]. Therefore, the functional effects of executive orders are far-reaching and mostly contentious because it creates difficulties for oversight at both federal and state tiers of government.[89] Yet, executive orders passed during the COVID-19 pandemic such as the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) will shape current and future US generations as the country continues its recovery process from the political and socio-economic impact of COVID-19[90].

The United Kingdom

COVID-19 lawsuits rooted in public health, employee safety, and fraud concerns are common in the United Kingdom because many employees are facing “forced adjustment” to new work environments, new measures, and changing government guidelines[91]. A fast-paced change in employers’ administrative/business decisions also trigger mental, physical and emotional breakdown among employees. These challenges led to an intensive search for more effective ways to strengthen whistleblower laws, establish responsive internal/external reporting channels, and encourage workers to report unethical behaviours in corporate organizations[92]. Thus, UK employment litigation rate has been the world’s highest since the emergence of COVID-19[93].

EU Member States

The disparity in whistleblower laws implemented in EU member states stifles whistleblowing activities and render legal framework for protecting whistleblowers largely ineffective in some countries. Using the Polish whistleblowing law as a reference point[94], a healthcare professional in the EU country was fired by the hospital director[95] for allegedly reporting missing masks and PPE on social media. In reaction to the news, Poland’s Ombudsman cited the constitutional rights and freedom of expression and instructed the Ministry of Health to rescind the decision on the dismissed employee. However, retaliations against doctors are not isolated; suppression of healthcare employees in EU Member States[96] has become a growing practice as nurses and medical staff are mandated to gain approval from management on matters pertaining to COVID-19 before speaking directly with journalists. In Hungary, health workers are subjected to harsh legal practices that discourage whistleblowing activities[97]. Evidence-based research shows that Hungarian employees and journalists (and their counterparts in other EU countries) are denied rights and freedom of expression including a prison term of five years for spreading “fake” news.

Conclusion

Whistleblowers in the coronavirus era have become essential watchdogs fighting against suppression and control of information. Historical trends in well-structured and free economies (e.g. the United States, Australia, Canada and United Kingdom) show there are ‘fearless’ whistleblowers risking their lives to disrupt activities of politicians, public administrators and corporate organizations who intentionally withhold information, fail to circulate news at the right time, or promote fake news. Potential whistleblowers are therefore gaining motivation from the exemplary lives of public interest defenders who are consistently and painstakingly pushing back against governmental censorship all over the world.