Anniken Grønstad, Associate Professor, Oslo New University College
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.
1 Note: this text is based on Grønstad, A., Blenkinsopp, J. & Bjørkelo, B. (2025). Whistleblower Well-Being: What Are the Roles and Responsibilities of HR? In: Phillips, A. & Van Portfliet, M. (eds.) Whistleblowing Policy and Practice, Volume I. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
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
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 theorganization is capable of learning, self-correction, and ethical reflection. Psychologicalsafety is particularly important. Employees who believe they can raise concerns without fearof humiliation or punishment are more likely to report early signs of wrongdoing. Thisreduces harm and prevents toxic situations from becoming entrenched. Conversely,workplaces characterized by fear, silence, or willful blindness create blind spots whereunethical practices can flourish. Over time, these environments erode trust, health, andsustainability. Supporting whistleblowers, therefore, is not only about protecting individuals,but also about safeguarding the work environment as a whole. The presence ofwhistleblowing is not a sign of poor management or a dysfunctional workplace, but of anorganization that enables openness, accountability, and continuous improvement. Therefore,whistleblowing should be understood not as evidence of failure, but as a marker oforganizational maturity and ethical capacity and indicative of systems that allow concerns tosurface before harm escalates.
Whistleblowing is Between Institutional Norms and Personal Ethics
Professional bodies occupy a critical yet often underdeveloped role in supportingwhistleblowers. While they formally position themselves as guardians of professionalstandards and public interest, the literature suggests that, in practice, they provide limiteddirect support to those who act on these commitments. This gap highlights a tension betweenthe moral expectations embedded in professional codes and the lived realities of professionalsnavigating competing obligations to employers, clients, and personal ethics. One useful wayto understand this is through the interaction between role-based duties and individual moralreasoning (Huxley et al., 2026). For example, whistleblowing is rarely motivated by personalgain. Rather, decisions to speak up are often shaped by deeply held values and internal moralpressures – in which cognitive dissonance is a key factor: when individuals witnessmisconduct, they may experience a conflict between loyalty to their organization and theirethical beliefs. Speaking up can become a way to resolve this tension, alleviating thepsychological discomfort of knowing about wrongdoing and the guilt associated with failingto act. In addition, many whistleblowers are driven by a desire to protect others. Thisaltruistic impulse, which can take the form of concern for patients, clients, colleagues, or thepublic, can outweigh the instinct for self-preservation, reinforcing the idea thatwhistleblowing is grounded less in self-interest and more in moral commitment (Foxley, 2026).
Professional bodies codify norms that are meant to guide ethical conduct, yet these norms
may not always offer clear or actionable support when members face wrongdoing in practice.
As a result, whistleblowers often rely on personal moral convictions rather than institutional backing, suggesting that professional codes alone are insufficient without supportive
structures and guidance. This points to an important opportunity for professional bodies to
move beyond symbolic commitments and play a more active role. They could provide clearer
interpretive guidance on ethical dissent, establish safe advisory channels, and publicly affirm
the legitimacy of whistleblowing as part of professional responsibility. Crucially, there is also
a need for stronger collaboration between professional bodies and whistleblowing NGOs.
Such interaction could help bridge the gap between formal ethical standards and practical
support, ensuring that professionals who speak up are not left to navigate these challenges in
isolation, but are instead backed by both their professional institutions and external support
networks.
Another interesting way to look at this is to ask whether the reasoning behind whistleblowing
reflects the characteristic values associated with different professional roles. It may be that
nurses are guided more by compassion and concern for patient welfare, accountants by
adherence to rules and regulatory compliance, and lawyers by principles of justice and the
proper application of the rule of law. While this remains indicative, it suggests that
professionals may draw not only on general moral considerations but also on role-specific
values embedded in their field, shaping how they interpret and justify acts of ethical dissent.
This raises the question of whether acting on such values should always be expected or not,
particularly in cases involving misconduct or illegality. Explanations for whistleblowing
often point to a strong sense of duty grounded in values that individuals hold deeply, some
personal, others tied to professional norms. Yet indications suggest that neither role relativity
nor strict adherence to professional neutrality fully captures how individuals respond in these
situations. Whistleblowers may reject misconduct even where their formal role permits, or
even requires, silence (for example through norms such as confidentiality), instead of
drawing on their own moral identity to legitimize speaking up. This points toward the need
for clearer expectations of individual responsibility, such as a duty to prevent harm or a duty
of candour. However, such obligations must be matched by robust protections: if individuals
are expected to act on these values, they must also be supported and safeguarded when they
do so (Huxley et al., 2026).
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
Foxley, I. (2026). The revelation of wrongdoing. What drives whistleblowers to make their
disclosures – or not? Working paper accessed 2026.
Huxley, Z., Brivot, M. & Smaili, N. (n.d.). Normative Tensions Underlying Disclosure of
Wrongdoing: A theorization of professionals’ whistleblowing decisions. Working
paper accessed 2026.
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.
