The government has published the findings of a research study into the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework. The report evaluates how well the UK whistleblowing framework meets the original objectives of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA):
- Providing a clear route for making whistleblowing disclosures
- Protecting individuals from detrimental treatment or dismissal, with avenues for redress
- Supporting cultural change, in which whistleblowing is recognized, understood, and acted upon
The research presents observations, emerging themes, and suggested areas for improvement, based on literature, interviews, focus groups, and secondary data analysis.
Key Findings
- Unclear Legal Definitions and Exclusions
Definitions for terms like “worker,” “reasonable belief,” and “public interest” are viewed as vague, subjective, and inconsistently applied. There is no statutory definition of “whistleblower” or “protection,” meaning tribunals and organisations must interpret eligibility and safeguarding on a case-by-case basis.
- Unreliable Disclosure Channels
Though some organisations have internal mechanisms, many lack accessible, trusted, or confidential processes for whistleblowing. Management buy-in and independence are inconsistent.
- Deficient Protections and Redress Mechanisms
Tribunal proceedings frequently fall short. Many participants felt the process is unbalanced or unrealistic, and tribunals may not deliver fair or adequate compensation.
- Lack of Awareness & Guidance
Many whistleblowers were unaware of their rights or the existence of official guidance when
- Cultural Barriers to Speaking Up
A robust “speak up” culture remains rare. Whistleblowers often face marginalisation, retaliation, and isolation—and internal resistance discourages reporting
The report outlines several areas for potential improvement:
- Broaden definitions of “worker” and introduce statutory definitions for “whistleblower” and “public interest.”
- Improve internal procedures and ensure every sector has a clear prescribed person.
- Make redress mechanisms more practical, equitable, and accessible.
- Distribute accessible, well-promoted material on whistleblower rights and protections for both individuals and organisations.
- Encourage “speak-up” cultures that value transparency and address concerns without retaliation.
The report’s findings clearly show that the current whistleblowing framework is fragmented, uncertain, and frequently ineffective. Ambiguities in the law, limited access to fair redress, and cultural resistance undermine the very purpose of allowing individuals to speak up in the public interest.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
