We are particularly interested in hearing from whistleblowers and their representatives, those involved in Employment Tribunal claims brought by whistleblowers, and HR and Audit professionals who investigate disclosures.
Even if a whistleblower uncovers a scandal they may still be perceived as disloyal and unemployable, which is why anonymity is key. Requiring employees or others to blow the whistle can be dangerous because it can put individuals between a rock and a hard place, at risk of losing their job if they do or don't make a disclosure. At the same time organisations struggle to understand whether a high or low number of disclosures is preferable. The situation is complicated by the possibility of financial rewards for whistleblowers, and reputational risks for organsiations who discriminate against whistleblowers. These are just a few of the dilemmas, and the questions which arise seem endless.
Is whistleblowing a safety value which companies should encourage, or are whistleblowers usually self-interested opportunists? How can we get the balance right? Is the Public Interest Disclosure Act fit for purpose? What is the best way for whistleblowing to evolve in the UK? Please share your views and experiences.
Unfortunately true and only admitted he was wrong when profits impacted and possibility of not being re-elected. Shareholders driving the change rather than by the organization.
Barclays chief admits he 'made a mistake' over whistleblowing case
Jes Staley says he has not offered to resign over scandal, as bank reports profits doubled to £1.6bn in first quarter