The whistleblowing framework was created through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) with three objectives: to enable disclosures; to protect workers from detriment or dismissal; and to support a culture where identifying concerns leads to action. It's referred to as the Great Britain framework because it only applies in England, Scotland, and Wales. Employment law in Northern Ireland is a transferred matter.
The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) wanted to know if it's still achieving these objectives.
Through our research we spoke to a wide range of people: including whistleblowers, whistleblower advocates, regulators, employers, and judges. We ran six focus groups, read the relevant literature sources, and analysed data from tribunals and regulators to better understand whether the current framework meets its intended objectives. The evidence base points to unevenness across all three objectives, with strong practice in some places, existing alongside gaps elsewhere.
Practitioner perspective
In our advisory work, we frequently encounter the same pattern: organisations with strong whistleblowing frameworks ensure terms are clear, routes to speak up are accessible, matters are handled consistently, and result in meaningful redress where appropriate. Where these elements are missing, even well-intentioned frameworks can fail to deliver. If you operate, oversee or use a speak-up system, this is the moment to stress‑test what 'good' looks like in your context.
Why this matters for your organisation
Our review doesn't offer policy recommendations, but it does collate observations and identify themes, including the perspectives of many people who have had difficult experiences. Understanding where vulnerabilities commonly emerge gives you the opportunity to strengthen your approach and prioritise the improvements within your control. Treat these findings as early warning signals rather than final verdicts on your own whistleblowing systems.
How is a whistleblower defined?
In practice, people’s understanding of 'whistleblowing' often diverges from the legal tests. That divergence creates an expectation gap, resulting in risk for both individuals and organisations.
The whistleblowing framework ties protection to being a 'worker,' making a qualifying 'protected disclosure', and the disclosure being in the public interest.
Participants reported issues with the definition of these terms, including ambiguity, inconsistent application, and narrowness. These issues result in uncertainty, confusion, and disappointment. The evidence suggests the definitions can potentially act as a barrier to raising concerns and receiving appropriate protections.
How do people make a disclosure?
Evidence shows an increase in the number of employers who have implemented internal whistleblowing frameworks despite there being no legal obligation for them to do so. This has been driven by a recognition that whistleblowing frameworks are effective mechanisms to identify issues and promote a culture of integrity.
While more organisations have internal frameworks in place and more reports are being made, some participants pointed to capabilities and capacity as key barriers to disclosure.
Analysis established that prescribed persons have seen an upward trend in concerns raised since 2018, with three sectors accounting for 96% of qualifying disclosure volumes: public administration, health, and financial services.
Gaps in sector coverage of the prescribed person regime were identified. There are no specific prescribed persons for the retail, construction, technology and manufacturing sectors, with individuals having difficulty identifying the correct prescribed person to contact.
How do organisations respond to concerns?
Qualifying disclosures under the framework legislation cover six types of wrongdoing, however organisations often have wider definitions of whistleblowing than the qualifying disclosure set out in the legislation. This can cause an expectation gap around whether the concern will meet the criteria to qualify for protection.
Participants also reported a high degree of variability in how well organisations respond to concerns. Organisations can do it effectively when they have appropriate resources and appetite. However, issues arise where they don't have sufficient independence, capacity, and capability to conduct investigations. This can result in a lack of engagement with individuals, poor management of conflicts of interest, and inconsistencies in the investigation process.
What protections does the framework provide?
The protection provided under the whistleblowing legislation enables workers who have suffered detriment or dismissal as a result of making a qualifying disclosure to seek redress through employment tribunals.
Evidence shows that people often misunderstand what protection means in this context or how to qualify, which can expose them to greater risk of not qualifying for them.
Some organisations provide additional protections such as confidentiality and anonymity; however, many research participants believe the framework doesn't provide effective protection in practice. The majority of whistleblower participants reported feeling victimised by their employer.
How can whistleblowers access redress?
Employment tribunals are the sole route to redress under the framework legislation. While some workers were successful, the tribunal journey can be long, costly and uncertain for both parties.
Many participants criticised the redress process as not going far enough, and/or not being balanced and fair. Concerns were raised about access to justice, including lack of necessary resources, mental capacity challenges, evidential burden on workers, and unfair treatment throughout the process.
The research team tested methods of analysing judgment trends at scale and found constraints in the quality of data available, mirroring the wider challenge of making framework level inferences from case‑level data.
What guidance is available to organisations?
The majority of whistleblowers we spoke to indicated that at the time they blew the whistle they were not aware of the rights and protections afforded to them. Those workers that were aware generally found Government guidance confusing, unclear, and largely unhelpful.
While many employers were aware of the guidance and the framework, the majority of employers who participated in our research explained that they didn't regularly refer to it, and relied instead on other sources, such as regulators and sector best practice.
What is the cultural change around whistleblowing?
There have been increasing volumes of whistleblowing reports in recent years, and more organisations are putting frameworks in place, however whistleblowing can still be subject to stigma.
Positive and negative stereotypes associated with blowing the whistle persist, with some participants indicating they wouldn't do it again as a result of their negative experiences.
The challenge is more than making people aware that speak-up processes exist. It's creating an environment where using them feels natural, safe, and worthwhile.
Suggestions for change
Our research provides a comprehensive evidence base for assessing the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework in Great Britain, highlighting both areas of progress and significant challenges.
Suggestions for change were raised in literature, interviews, and focus groups. While these aren't formal recommendations, they are a resource for informing future policy considerations. The suggestions cover five themes.
- Definitions and scope: Clearer guidance on 'worker', 'public interest,' and what counts as whistleblowing.
- Employer duties: Minimum standards for channels, triage, confidentiality, and feedback to reporters.
- Oversight and recognition: Board accountability, and independent oversight in complex cases and recognition for effective programmes.
- Redress and consistency: Specialist tribunal capability, improved data and transparency, and aligned reporting by prescribed persons.
- Awareness and capability: Targeted training for leaders, managers and case‑handlers, and better national guidance.
How we can help
Drawing on the insights from this research and our extensive experience supporting organisations, our team can help you assess and strengthen your whistleblowing framework, provide training, and support investigations.
Learn more about how our Whistleblowing and investigation support services can help you
