Empirical research identifies whistleblowing as one of the most effective internal antifraud controls. Very recently, Directive 1937/2019 became effective in the EU, aiming to deal with the defragmentation of whistleblowing legislation among the member states and provide common minimum accepted standards. The present article aims to provide a verified, weighted comparative maturity model. The suggested model has been constructed based on the methodology for constructing comparative maturity models and validated based on the Delphi method. The weights on each validated component have been calculated based on the summing of votes method. The study resulted in eight main components «scope», «corporate governance», «reporting mechanisms», «protection», «tone at the top», «organizational and human resource practices», «investigations» and «monitor and review» divided further into 18 elements. The suggested maturity model may provide a pathway for organizations to develop and maintain a robust whistleblowing maturity framework that will benefit both the organizations and the public welfare.

Directive 1937/2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law became effective very recently. However, Directive 1937/2019 lacks sufficient guidance on the implementation or governance of whistleblowing frameworks. In addition, the existing literature lacks a definition of whistleblowing and whistleblowing frameworks that is appropriate for internal audit and fraud prevention. The purpose of this paper is to address the lack of a definition of whistleblowing and whistleblowing framework appropriate for internal auditing and to guide the roles and responsibilities within an organization to apply and maintain a robust whistleblowing framework. To this effect, the Three Lines Model is used, one of the most recognized theoretical models in effective risk governance and internal audit.

The increasing pressure for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) accountability in publicly funded institutions has raised concerns about the authenticity and efficiency of ESG implementation. This study investigates the relationship between public ESG funding, disclosure quality, and organizational efficiency across Greek public and financial entities. Using a mixed-methods approach—data envelopment analysis (DEA), qualitative ESG content scoring, and bibliometric mapping—we reveal that symbolic compliance remains prevalent, often decoupled from actual sustainability outcomes. Our DEA findings show that technical efficiency is strongly associated with reporting clarity, the use of verifiable metrics, and governance integration, rather than the mere volume of funding. The qualitative analysis further confirms that many disclosures reflect reputational signaling rather than impact-oriented transparency. Bibliometric results highlight a systemic underrepresentation of the public sector in ESG scholarship, particularly in Southern Europe, underscoring the need for regionally grounded empirical studies. This study provides practical implications for improving ESG accountability in publicly funded institutions and contributes a novel approach that integrates efficiency, content, and bibliometric analysis in the ESG context.