Anti-Corruption Initiatives and the Digital Challenge: The Role of Civil Society Organizations and Whistleblowing Infrastructures in the Italian Context
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2026
Anti-Corruption Initiatives and the Digital Challenge: The Role of Civil Society Organizations and Whistleblowing Infrastructures in the Italian Context
Civil society organizations increasingly rely on digital technologies to intervene in the whistleblowing process and advance their anti-corruption goals. However, scholars have yet to investigate how civil society organizations’ use of digital technologies impacts their role as whistleblowing actors and what consequences this might entail. Moving from this gap, the article explores how civil society organizations exploit digital technologies to intervene in the whistleblowing process and how their use of digital technologies affects patterns of interactions with institutional actors in the whistleblowing process. The article combines situational and thematic analysis to investigate three whistleblowing initiatives deployed by Italian civil society organizations: Linea Libera, the Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre for Whistleblowers, and Whistleblowing PA. The results show that grassroots whistleblowing initiatives are more than just services or tools but represent whistleblowing infrastructures, running on more or less sophisticated technologies, which grant their developers a role as low- or high-tech intermediaries in the whistleblowing process, in turn affecting the relational dynamics between grassroots and institutional actors and civil society organizations’ influence over the whistleblowing process.
AdamI.FazekasM. (2021). Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption? A review of the state of evidence, Information Economics and Policy, 57(C), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2021.100950
2.
AlménO.BurellM. (2018). Social accountability as social movement outcome: Protests in a Chinese city. Social Movement Studies, 17(6), 716–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1521716
3.
ApazaC. R.ChangY. (2020). Effective whistleblowing conceptual framework. In ApazaC.R.ChangY. (Eds.), What makes effective whistleblowing (pp. 1–10). Springer.
4.
BernsteinM.JasperJ. M. (1996). Interests and credibility: Whistleblowers in technological conflicts. Social Science Information, 35(3), 565–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901896035003008
5.
BogoniD. (2015). GlobaLeaks. Piattaforme di whistleblowing e prime applicazioni in Italia. Ciberspazio e Diritto: Rivista Internazionale di Informatica Giuridica, 16(2), 231–254.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4): 589–597.
9.
BreviniB. (2017). WikiLeaks: Between disclosure and whistle-blowing in digital times. Sociology Compass, 11(3), e12457. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12457
10.
BushnellA. M. (2020). Reframing the whistleblower in research: Truth-tellers as whistleblowers in changing cultural contexts. Sociology Compass, 14(8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12816
11.
ChiassonM.JohnsonG. H.ByingtonJ. R. (1995). Blowing the whistle: Accountants in industry. The CPA Journal, 65(2), 24.
12.
ClarkeA.FrieseC.WashburnR. S. (2015). Situational analysis in practice. Mapping research with grounded theory. Routledge.
13.
ClarkeA.FrieseC.WashburnR. S. (2018). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. SAGE.
14.
ClarkeV.BraunV. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
De MariaW. (2008). Whistleblowers and organizational protesters: Crossing imaginary borders. Current Sociology, 56(6), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392108095343
17.
della PortaD. (2018). Anti-corruption from below. Social movements against corruption in late neoliberalism. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 10(3), 661–692. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v10i3p661
18.
della PortaD.MattoniA. (2021). Civil society against corruption. In BågenholmA.BauhrM.GrimesM.RothsteinB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the quality of government (pp. 290–308). Oxford University Press.
19.
della PortaD.MattoniA.PirroA. L.CarusoL. (2017). Anti-corruption activism in Hungary, Italy, and Spain (pp. 240–276). ANTICORRP Final Report, Work Package: WP11 Building Accountability: Transparency, civil Society and Administrative Response.
20.
Di SalvoP. (2020). Whistleblowing: The concept behind a process digital whistleblowing platforms in journalism: Encrypting leaks. Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
Di SalvoP. (2021). Securing whistleblowing in the digital age: SecureDrop and the changing journalistic practices for source protection. Digital Journalism, 9(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1889384
22.
DianiM. (1997). Social movements and social capital: A network perspective on movement outcomes. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 2(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.2.2.w6087622383h4341
23.
DworkinT. M.BaucusM. S. (1998). Internal versus external whistleblowers: A comparison of whistleblowing processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1281–1298. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916210589
24.
EarlJ. (2016). Protest online: Theorizing the consequences of online engagement. In BosiL.GiugniM.UbaK. (Eds.), The consequences of social movements (pp. 363–400). Cambridge University Press.
25.
FubiniA. (2023, September4–8). The “institutionalization” of non-human intermediaries in the whistleblowing process: Comparing the emblematic cases of Italy and Spain [Paper presentation]. ECPR General Conference, Prague, Czech Republic.
26.
GrimesM. (2008). The conditions of successful civil society involvement in combating corruption: A survey of case study evidence. QoG Working Paper Series, 22.
27.
HessD. J. (2005). Technology- and product-oriented movements: Approximating social movement studies and science and technology studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(4), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905276499
28.
HessD. J. (2015). Undone science and social movements: A review and typology. In GrossM.McGoeyL. (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of ignorance studies (pp. 141–154). Routledge.
29.
HollowayI.TodresL. (2003). The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794103033004
30.
KossowN. (2020). Digital anti-corruption: Hopes and challenges. In Mungiu-PippidiA.HeywoodP. (Eds.), A research agenda for studies of corruption (pp. 146–157). Edward Elgar.
31.
JamesR. (2014). Digital media and social movements: The role of new media in the outcome of proposition 8. Young Scholars in Writing, 11, 17–26.
32.
JasperJ. (1997). The art of moral protest: Culture biography, and creativity in social. The University of Chicago Press.
33.
JasperJ.Elliott-NegriL.Jabola-CarolusI.KaganM.MahlbacherJ.WeisskircherM.ZhelninaA. (2022). Gains and losses: How protestors win and lose. Oxford University Press.
34.
JohnstonM. (2012). Building a social movement against corruption. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 18(2), 57–74.
35.
JohnsonR. A. (2003). Whistleblowing: When it works and why. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
36.
LeiningerM. (1992). Current issues, problems, and trends to advance qualitative paradigmatic research methods for the future. Qualitative Health Research, 2, 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239200200403
37.
LoyensK.VandekerckhoveW. (2018). Whistleblowing from an international perspective: A comparative analysis of institutional arrangements. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030030
38.
MattoniA. (2017a). From data extraction to data leaking: Data-activism in Italian and Spanish anti-corruption campaigns. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 10, 723–746.
39.
MattoniA. (2017b). A situated understanding of digital technologies in social movements. Media ecology and media practice approaches. Social Movement Studies, 16(4), 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1311250
40.
MattoniA. (2020). The grounded theory method to study data-enabled activism against corruption: Between global communicative infrastructures and local activists’ experiences of big data. European Journal of Communication, 35(3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120922086
41.
MattoniA. (2021). Digital media in grassroots anti-corruption mobilizations. In RohlingerD. A.SobierajS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociology and digital media. Oxford University Press.
42.
MattoniA.OdillaF. (2021). Digital media, activism, and social movements’ outcomes in the policy arena. The case of two anti-corruption mobilizations in Brazil. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 14(3), 1127–1150. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v14i3p1127
43.
Mungiu-PippidiA. (2015). The quest for good governance: How societies develop control of corruption. Cambridge University Press.
NowellL. S.NorrisJ. M.WhiteD. E.MoulesN. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
OdillaF. (2023). Bots against corruption: Exploring the benefits and limitations of AI-based anti-corruption technology. Crime, Law and Social Change, 80, 353–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-023-10091-0
48.
PlantinJ. C.PunathambekarA. (2019). Digital media infrastructures: Pipes, platforms, and politics. Media, Culture & Society, 41(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718818376
RichezE.Raynauld.V.AgiA.KartoloA. (2020). Unpacking the political effects of social movements with a strong digital component: The case of #IdleNoMore in Canada, Social Media + Society, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915588
51.
RomanosE.SádabaI. (2016). From the street to institutions through the app: Digitally enabled political outcomes of the Spanish Indignados movement. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 74(4), e048. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2016.74.4.048
52.
Rose-AckermanS.PalifkaB. J. (2016). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge University Press.
53.
RotbergR. (2017). The corruption cure: How citizens and leaders can combat graft. Princeton University Press.
54.
TindallD. B.CormierJ.DianiM. (2012). Network social capital as an outcome of social movement mobilization: Using the position generator as an indicator of social network diversity. Social Networks, 34(4), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.12.007
SchultzDHarutyunyanK. (2015). Combating corruption: The development of whistleblowing laws in the United States, Europe, and Armenia. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icj.2015.12.005
57.
SiaperaE. (2016). Digital citizen X. Xnet and the radicalization of citizenship. In McCoskerA.VivienneS.JhonsA. (Eds.), Negotiating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture (pp. 97–114). Pickering & Chatto Publishers.
TreréE.MattoniA. (2016). Media ecologies and protest movements: Main perspectives and key lessons. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109699
WeisskircherM. (2019). New technologies as a neglected social movement outcome: The case of activism against animal experimentation. Sociological Perspectives, 62(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418788339
