Sustainable working life has become an increasingly prominent concern in both policy and organizational practice. It is often framed through the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 3 (good health and well-being) and Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth). Together, these goals highlight that employee well-being and ethical working conditions are not peripheral ideals, but fundamental prerequisites for resilient organizations and sustainable societies.
At the organizational level, sustainable working life can be understood as a renewed commitment to securing good working conditions and a healthy work environment through fact-based, preventive measures. From this perspective, sustainability is not only a societal ambition but also a practical responsibility embedded in everyday management and Human Resources (HR) practices. Whistleblowing represents a core component of such preventive work. When employees speak up about wrongdoing, organizations gain the opportunity to address harmful practices early, before they escalate into crises that undermine individuals, workplaces, and public trust. Research consistently shows that whistleblowing is one of the most effective mechanisms for detecting wrongdoing in organizations; more effective than audits, inspections, and control systems combined, and it is also cost-efficient (ACFE, 2018; Kenny & Fotaki, 2021; Spagnalo & Foyn, 2017; Van Portfliet, Irfan & Kenny, 2022). Yet despite its documented value, most employees who observe wrongdoing remain silent. Among those who do speak up, many experience serious negative consequences.
These outcomes make clear that whistleblowing cannot be understood solely as a legal or compliance matter. It is fundamentally a work environment and human resource issue. How organizations respond to whistleblowing directly affects employee well-being, organizational culture, and the long-term sustainability of work itself.
The Human Cost of Courage
This tension captures what is often described as the paradox of whistleblowing: actions that can safeguard organizations and society often come at a significant personal cost to those who raise the concern. Speaking up is an act of courage, yet employees who blow the whistle may face retaliation, exclusion, stigmatization, and prolonged conflict. Research consistently documents elevated risks of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, financial strain, and relational difficulties among whistleblowers (Bjørkelo, 2013, Rothshield & Miethe, 1999; Peters et al., 2011; Van der Velden et al., 2018; Park & Lewis, 2018).
Importantly, harm does not stem only from overt retaliation. One of the most damaging experiences for whistleblowers is inaction; when reports are met with silence and nothing changes. When wrongdoing persists and leadership maintains silence, the whistleblower’s distress deepens, and the work environment deteriorates further.
Workplace bullying and harassment are among the most frequently reported forms of wrongdoing. These issues are strongly associated with long-term sick leave, mental health problems, and an early exit from working life. In such cases, whistleblowing is not an act of disloyalty, but a necessary attempt to restore dignity, safety, and fairness at work.
Speaking-Up Cultures and the Role of HR
Traditionally, whistleblowing has been managed by the legal or compliance functions. However, this approach is insufficient. Whistleblowing is deeply embedded in organizational culture, leadership practices, and the psychosocial work environment. For this reason, human resource management (HRM) plays a pivotal role. A key insight from the research field is the distinction between speaking-up systems and speaking-up cultures. While formal reporting channels are necessary, they are not enough. Employees decide to speak up based on whether they believe they will be listened to, taken seriously, and protected – not merely on if a channel exists (Ferrère et al., 2022; Previtali & Cerchiello, 2021).
Organizations with healthy speaking-up cultures tend to have:
Higher psychological safety
Greater trust in management
More internal reporting and fewer external escalations
Better long-term organizational performance
In such environments, whistleblowing is normalized as part of occupational health and safety work, rather than framed as a disruption or threat. This approach also benefits employees, as worker representatives are typically embedded in health and safety forums, giving employees collective voice, protection, and legitimacy when concerns are raised. HR departments are uniquely positioned to shape these conditions. By integrating whistleblowing into health, safety, and work environment routines, HR can help ensure that reporting wrongdoing becomes a shared responsibility rather than an individual risk. However, for this to be effective, HR must balance its dual role carefully. HR must be viewed as a guardian of the individual as well as a guardian of the organization. All too often it is the latter at the cost of the former. When this imbalance occurs, trust erodes and employees may hesitate to raise concerns. By actively upholding employee protection alongside organizational integrity, HR can foster a culture in which speaking up is both safe and expected, reinforcing whistleblowing as a constructive and legitimate part of workplace practice.
Whistleblower Well-Being as Preventive Work Environment Practice
From a preventive perspective, whistleblower well-being should be understood as an indicator of workplace quality. When employees feel safe to speak up, it signals that the organization is capable of learning, self-correction, and ethical reflection. Psychological safety is particularly important. Employees who believe they can raise concerns without fear of humiliation or punishment are more likely to report early signs of wrongdoing. This reduces harm and prevents toxic situations from becoming entrenched. Conversely, workplaces characterized by fear, silence, or willful blindness create blind spots where unethical practices can flourish. Over time, these environments erode trust, health, and sustainability. Supporting whistleblowers, therefore, is not only about protecting individuals, but also about safeguarding the work environment as a whole. The presence of whistleblowing is not a sign of poor management or a dysfunctional workplace, but of an organization that enables openness, accountability, and continuous improvement. Therefore, whistleblowing should be understood not as evidence of failure, but as a marker of organizational maturity and ethical capacity and indicative of systems that allow concerns to surface before harm escalates.
Sustainable Workplaces Require Action, Not Silence
A central finding in whistleblowing research is that action matters more than procedures (Grønstad et al., 2025). Organizations may formally comply with legal requirements yet still fail whistleblowers when reported concerns are dismissed, minimized, or reframed as personal problems or issues. In some cases, whistleblowers’ stress reactions are even used to discredit the content and substance of their disclosures. Such responses not only harm the individual involved but also undermine the organization’s ability to learn from critical information and prevent future harm. Creating sustainable workplaces therefore requires that organizations treat whistleblowing as a resource for improvement rather than a disruption. Reported concerns must be handled transparently and followed by visible action, with human resources, employee representatives, and leaders working collaboratively throughout the process. Whistleblower well-being should be recognized as a shared organizational responsibility, not an individual burden. In the long term, sustainability depends on workplaces that are willing to listen, respond, and learn from those who speak up.
Toward a More Sustainable Future of Work
Whistleblowing holds significant potential as a driver of decent work and good health, but this potential can only be realized when organizations move beyond formal compliance and actively cultivate cultures grounded in dialogue, accountability, and care. Treating whistleblowing merely as a legal obligation, risks overlooking its deeper significance for how work is organized, experienced, and sustained over time. A sustainable future of work depends on workplaces that are able to receive difficult information, respond constructively, and protect those who raise concerns in the interest of the collective.
As emphasized by Grønstad et al. (2025), sustainable human resource management must be understood holistically, integrating psychological, legal, social, and organizational dimensions rather than addressing them in isolation. Whistleblower well-being lies precisely at the intersection of these domains, where individual health, ethical responsibility, organizational learning, and societal trust converge. When whistleblowers are harmed or marginalized, the consequences extend beyond the individual to affect participation in working life, organizational integrity, and long-term sustainability. In addition, the marginalization or mistreatment of whistleblowers carries economic consequences for organizations. When employees who have already been recruited, trained, and integrated into the workplace are pushed out or choose to leave due to poor handling of whistleblowing, organizations encounter significant replacement costs. These include expenses related to recruitment, onboarding, and training of new staff, as well as the loss of accumulated knowledge and experience. Such turnover not only increases direct costs but also reduces overall efficiency and productivity in the short- and medium- term. From a sustainability perspective, this represents a failure to utilize human resources effectively, undermining both organizational performance and long-term resilience.
Advancing whistleblowing as a force for sustainable working life therefore requires concrete action at both organizational and system levels. Employers, HR professionals, and regulators must treat whistleblowing as an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time reporting event, ensuring clear procedures, timely follow-up, and visible accountability when concerns are raised. Organizations should build structures that protect whistleblowers over time, including access to psychosocial support, worker representation, and transparent communication about how reports are handled. Leadership training, employee involvement, and integrating whistleblowing into everyday health, safety, and work environment practices are essential steps toward normalizing speaking up and preventing harm. Sustainable workplaces are not built on silence, but on the courage to speak up – and on the collective capacity to listen, learn, and act responsibly.
References
ACFE. (2018). ‘Report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse: 2014 global fraud study’, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Available at: https://www.acfe.com/report- to-the-nations/2018/
Bjørkelo, B. (2013). Workplace bullying after whistleblowing: Future research and implications. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 306-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321178
Ferrère, A, Rider, C, Renerte, B. & Edmondson, A. (2022). ‘Fostering Ethical Conduct
Through Psychological Safety’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(4), pp. 39-43. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-236930
Kenny, K. & Fotaki, M. (2021). ‘The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing: Bodily Vulnerability and Post-disclosure Survival’. J Bus Ethics. 182, pp. 341-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05012-x
Park, H. & Lewis, D. (2019). ‘The negative health effects of external whistleblowing: A study
of some key factors,’ The Social Science Journal, 55(4), pp. 387-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.04.002
Peters, K., Lauretta, L., Hutchinson, M., Wilkes, L., Andrew, S., & Jackson, D. (2011). ‘The emotional sequelae of whistleblowing: findings from a qualitative study’, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(19-20), pp. 2907-2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03718.x
Previtali, P. & Cerchiello, P. (2022). ‘Organizational Determinants of Whistleblowing. A
Study of Italian Municipalities’. Public Organiz Rev, 22, pp. 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115- 021-00554-0
Rothshield, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). ‘Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation. The battle to control information about organization corruption’. Work & Occupations, 26, pp. 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026001006
Spagnolo, G. & Foyn, S. (2017). ‘Verdien av varsling. Utredning for Varslingsutvalget og Arbeids- og sosialdepartementet’. OE-rapport 2017-45. Oslo Economics. Available at:
https://varslingsutvalget.no/files/2017/11/Verdien-av-varsling.-Oslo-Economics-2017- Utredning-for-Varslingsutvalget.pdf (4 November 2023).
Van Der Velden P.G., Pecoraro, M., Houwerzijl, M.S. & Van Der Meulen, E. (2018). ‘Mental Health Problems Among Whistleblowers: A Comparative Study’, Psychological Reports. 122(2), pp. 632-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118757681
Van Portfliet, M., Irfan, M. & Kenny, K. (2022). ‘When Employees Speak Up: Human
Resources Management Aspects of Whistleblowing’, in Holland, P. et al. (eds.). The Emerald Handbook of Work, Workplaces and Disruptive Issues in HRM. Emerald: Bingley, UK. pp. 533-547.
