Author: Mr Adrian Ramdat (Director of Training & Consultancy)
September 2026
Over the past year or so, there has been a noticeable increase in whistleblowing reports in the UK. Employment tribunal cases appear more frequently in the news; regulators continue to emphasise the importance of effective speaking-up arrangements and organisations are investing more time in reviewing their policies and training.
At first glance, that sounds encouraging. Greater awareness should mean that people feel more confident about raising concerns, organisations are better equipped to respond and wrongdoing is more likely to be identified at an early stage.
The picture, however, is more nuanced than that.
Whilst more people appear willing to speak up, many still report difficult experiences after doing so. Recent tribunal decisions and research published by organisations working in this area suggest that confidence in the process has not necessarily kept pace with the willingness to report concerns. It raises an interesting question. Have we become better at encouraging people to speak up than we have at responding when they do?
Having spent much of my career investigating concerns and allegations in both the public and private sectors, I have always found whistleblowing to be one of the more complex areas of organisational life. No two disclosures are ever quite the same. Some prove to be well founded, others less so, and many sit somewhere in between whilst the facts are established. What they all have in common is that they require careful handling from the very first conversation.
Policies are important, of course, but policies don’t make decisions. People do and it’s the judgement exercised by managers, HR professionals, investigators and senior leaders that often determines whether an individual leaves the process believing they were listened to or believing they should never have spoken up at all.
More People Are Speaking Up
Recent figures published by the Ministry of Justice show an increase in whistleblowing-related claims reaching Employment Tribunals. At the same time, Protect, the UK's specialist whistleblowing charity, has reported growing demand for its independent advice services. There are probably several reasons for this.
Employees are generally more aware of what whistleblowing is than they were a decade ago. Organisations have invested in policies, awareness campaigns and mandatory training. Regulators increasingly expect organisations to demonstrate that they have appropriate arrangements in place, particularly within regulated sectors such as financial services, healthcare and public bodies.
Expectations have also changed. People are often less prepared to accept behaviour that they believe is dishonest, unsafe or unethical simply because "that's the way things have always been." There is a greater willingness to challenge poor practice and a growing expectation that organisations will deal with concerns openly and fairly.
From an organisational perspective, this is not necessarily a negative development.
A message I have tried to get through since becoming involved in whistleblowing is that a workplace where nobody ever raises concerns is not automatically a healthy workplace. Sometimes it may simply mean that people have concluded there is little point in saying anything. Equally, an increase in reporting may indicate that employees have sufficient confidence to use the mechanisms available to them. The numbers alone cannot tell us which explanation is correct.
What deserves closer attention is what happens after concerns are raised.
Research by Protect suggests that many whistleblowers continue to report negative experiences after speaking up. Significant numbers describe feeling victimised, sidelined or eventually leaving their employment altogether. Others believe that their concerns were never properly addressed.
Those findings should not be interpreted as meaning that every organisation responds poorly. Far from it. Many organisations handle disclosures professionally, fairly and with genuine commitment and I see this first hand when I work with organisations.
They do, however, suggest there remains considerable room for improvement across many sectors.
What Recent Cases Tell Us
The headlines surrounding whistleblowing cases often focus on compensation awards or high-profile organisations, but the more interesting lessons usually lie elsewhere.
Recent tribunal decisions illustrate that these issues arise in very different environments.
NHS Leadership Dispute
A senior NHS executive raised concerns about leadership conduct and organisational culture. The tribunal found serious failings in how those concerns were handled, including efforts to remove the individual from post. The outcome was a substantial financial award.
Key takeaway: Seniority does not insulate someone from experiencing detriment after raising concerns. The case also serves as a reminder that the way an organisation responds to a disclosure can become just as significant as the disclosure itself.
Regulatory Oversight Concerns – Environment Agency
A whistleblower alleged that serious environmental incidents were routinely downgraded without proper investigation. The case raised uncomfortable questions about internal pressures and the tension between transparency and protecting an organisation's reputation.
Key takeaway: When an organisation believes its reputation is at risk, there can be a natural tendency to focus on managing the consequences. The challenge is ensuring that this does not distract from properly examining the concern that has been raised.
Charity Governance Case
A trustee raised concerns about wrongdoing but was found not to qualify for whistleblowing protection under UK law because they did not meet the statutory definition of a "worker".
Key takeaway: Not everyone who raises concerns benefits from the legal protections many people assume exist. That makes it all the more important for organisations to think beyond the minimum legal requirements and consider how concerns should be handled as a matter of good governance, regardless of employment status.
What these cases demonstrate is that concerns can arise in almost any organisation and that the way those concerns are handled often becomes just as significant as the concern itself.
In many tribunal decisions, the underlying allegation is only one part of the story. The organisation's response, its decision-making, record keeping and treatment of the individual frequently receive equal scrutiny.
That is perhaps one of the more important lessons for employers. When someone raises a concern, the organisation is not simply dealing with the issue that has been reported. It is also creating a record of how it responds, how decisions are made and whether those decisions can later be explained and justified.
Understanding the Limits of Legal Protection
One of the most common misunderstandings I encounter during training is the assumption that anyone who raises concerns automatically receives legal protection under whistleblowing legislation. The reality is rather more complicated.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides important legal protection, but it does so within clearly defined limits. Whether someone qualifies for protection depends upon several factors, including whether they fall within the statutory definition of a worker and whether the disclosure itself satisfies the legal requirements. Many people are surprised by how narrow those definitions can sometimes be.
Recent cases have reinforced that point. Individuals who raise entirely genuine concerns may nevertheless find themselves outside the scope of statutory protection because of the role they hold or the legal relationship they have with the organisation.
That should not be interpreted as a criticism of the legislation. Every piece of legislation has limits but, it does, however, create practical challenges for organisations.
From an ethical perspective, the importance of a concern does not necessarily depend upon whether the individual raising it qualifies for legal protection. A volunteer, trustee, consultant or contractor may identify serious wrongdoing just as readily as an employee. Good organisations often recognise that distinction.
Rather than asking only whether someone qualifies for legal protection, they also consider whether the information being provided deserves careful examination regardless of the individual's employment status. That approach is not simply about fairness. It is often good organisational governance.
Culture Matters More Than Policy
Most organisations today have a whistleblowing policy. Many have dedicated reporting channels, confidential email addresses or external reporting services. Training has become more common and, in some sectors, it is now expected.
All of these are positive developments. However, having a policy and creating a culture where people genuinely feel able to use it are two very different things.
Over the years, I've worked with organisations that have well-written whistleblowing procedures but where employees remain reluctant to raise concerns. I've also encountered organisations with relatively simple procedures where people have confidence that concerns will be taken seriously. The difference is rarely the policy itself as more often, it comes down to trust.
Employees watch what happens when somebody raises a concern. They notice whether that person is treated fairly, whether the concern is properly examined and whether leaders appear genuinely interested in understanding the issue rather than simply bringing the matter to a close.
That experience shapes organisational culture far more than anything written in a policy document.
When Organisations Move into Defence Mode
One of the recurring themes I've observed over the years is that some organisations instinctively move into defence mode when a concern is raised. That response can come from senior leaders, HR, legal advisers or a combination of all three. Again, that doesn't necessarily stem from bad intentions. Most are trying to protect the organisation from what they perceive to be significant risk. The difficulty is that this can sometimes overshadow the original concern and leave the person who raised it feeling that they have become the issue, rather than the information they provided. That is an understandable human response.
When allegations have the potential to affect an organisation's reputation, expose legal risk or attract regulatory attention, there is naturally pressure to establish the facts quickly whilst also managing wider organisational interests.
The challenge is ensuring that those legitimate concerns don’t unintentionally influence the way the disclosure itself is handled.
Individuals who raise concerns are often anxious before they ever make the disclosure. They may worry about how colleagues will react, whether confidentiality will be maintained or whether speaking up will affect their career. Those concerns are not always justified, but they are very real to the individual. The first conversation therefore matters enormously.
Listening carefully, asking appropriate questions and explaining what will happen next are all relatively straightforward steps, yet they often determine whether someone leaves that conversation with confidence or uncertainty. That does not mean accepting every allegation at face value, nor does it mean assuming wrongdoing has occurred.
It simply means recognising that the purpose of the initial response is to understand the concern sufficiently for appropriate decisions to be made. Fairness applies to everyone involved, including the individual who is the subject of the allegation.
Why Experience Matters
During my career, I've investigated concerns ranging from relatively straightforward workplace issues to complex criminal investigations involving multiple agencies and significant public interest. The principles have remained remarkably consistent and people generally want to know they have been listened to. They want to understand what will happen next.
They expect those dealing with the matter to approach it objectively and professionally.
Interestingly, many problems arise not because people deliberately set out to mishandle a disclosure, but because they have never been shown how to manage one effectively.
One example has stayed with me.
I met a group of individuals who had received whistleblowing training from another provider and had been instructed not to ask the person raising the concern any questions about the alleged wrongdoing. The concern appeared to be avoiding any suggestion of influencing a later investigation or putting words in the mouth of the reporter. Unfortunately, that approach can create entirely different problems.
If someone takes the difficult decision to report suspected wrongdoing and is then effectively told to say no more, they can easily leave believing they have not been taken seriously. At the same time, the organisation may fail to obtain information that is necessary to assess immediate risks or decide what action should happen next.
There is a phrase I often use and I make no apology for it. People receiving a report should be ‘professionally curious’ and make sure they gather all of the relevant information through a structured conversation, whether that is on the phone, in person or using an anonymous reporting platform.
Looking Beyond Legal Compliance
There is a natural tendency to think about whistleblowing in legal terms.
• Is the disclosure protected?
• Does the legislation apply?
• Have we followed our policy?
These are all important questions but they are not, however, the only questions organisations should be asking.
Good governance often requires looking beyond the minimum legal requirements.
An organisation may deal with a concern perfectly lawfully and still leave those involved believing the process was unfair or lacking transparency.
Equally, an organisation that approaches disclosures with openness, fairness and professionalism is likely to strengthen trust, even where investigations ultimately conclude that no wrongdoing occurred.
People generally accept decisions more readily when they believe they have been treated fairly throughout the process.
That is one reason why culture matters so much. It influences not only whether concerns are raised but also whether people continue to have confidence in the organisation once those concerns have been examined.
Looking Ahead
There is little reason to believe that the number of whistleblowing disclosures will reduce in the coming years. If anything, awareness will continue to grow. Regulators will continue to focus on organisational culture and governance. Employees will continue to expect transparency and accountability. Organisations will continue to face difficult decisions when concerns are raised. None of that should be viewed negatively.
Healthy organisations should expect concerns to arise from time to time. No organisation is immune from mistakes, poor decisions or misconduct. The important question is how those concerns are managed and having clear procedures remains essential.
So does ensuring that the people responsible for receiving, assessing and managing disclosures have the confidence and competence to do so fairly.
Final Thoughts
Whistleblowing is often described as giving people a voice.
In reality, the challenge begins after that voice has been heard.
Every organisation hopes it will respond well when someone raises a concern. Most genuinely intend to do the right thing.
The organisations that tend to navigate these situations most successfully are not necessarily those with the longest policies or the most detailed procedures. They are usually those that have invested time in preparing their people to make sound decisions, communicate well and respond fairly when it matters.
That preparation rarely attracts attention but tribunal judgments do.
Perhaps that is why recent cases provide such valuable opportunities for reflection. They remind us that whistleblowing is not simply a legal process or a compliance requirement. It is ultimately about how organisations respond when individuals place their trust in them by raising concerns they believe matter.
Ready to Do Something About It?
At The Signature Brand Training & Consultancy, we work with organisations across the public and private sectors to help them develop practical whistleblowing arrangements that go beyond compliance. Our support includes accredited Speak Up, Speak Out programmes, specialist training for those responsible for managing disclosures and reviews of existing policies and procedures to ensure they work in practice as well as on paper.
• Bitesize training modules covering different aspects of whistleblowing management, from understanding your legal obligations and recognising protected disclosures, to handling concerns well and supporting the people who raise them. Designed to be practical, accessible, and relevant to the people doing the actual work.
• Policy and process reviews, because many organisations have documentation that has not been stress-tested against how the organisation actually behaves. We help identify the gaps before they become a problem.
• Accredited Speak Up, Speak Out training, built around real scenarios and focused on culture, not just compliance.
If any of this piece has made you think *we should probably look at this*, that instinct is worth following.
Find out more about our whistleblowing training:
https://thesignaturebrand.co.uk/training/whistleblower-aka-speak-up-speak-out-training/ or contact us at info@thesignaturebrand.co.uk
About the Author
Adrian Ramdat is Director of The Signature Brand Training & Consultancy and has over 40 years' experience in investigations, intelligence and organisational governance. A former senior detective and Whistleblowing Champion for a large private sector organisation, he specialises in helping organisations develop effective whistleblowing arrangements, train those responsible for managing disclosures and build cultures where people feel confident to speak up.