Whistleblowing may appear to be a technical or legal matter. But in reality, it is a direct window into the strength or weakness of an organisation’s governance culture. When concerns are ignored, suppressed, or buried beneath bureaucracy, it says more about the board’s appetite for oversight than the individual raising the alarm.

The Financial Times recently published a compelling article by Anjli Raval on the need to overhaul the UK’s approach to whistleblowing. It makes a persuasive case that current systems are not just outdated, they are failing to protect those who speak out in the public interest.

In the UK, legal protections for whistleblowers are largely confined to narrow employment disputes. Individuals are left trying to prove personal harm in tribunals, rather than being protected for exposing systemic risks or ethical failures. This is not only inadequate, it’s dangerous. Because whistleblowing, when properly managed, is not a threat to business. It is a governance safety valve.

Whistleblowing as a strategic risk lens

Boards that see whistleblowing only through the lens of legal compliance are missing the point. Disclosures from within the business are often the earliest signals of operational, reputational, or cultural risk. From ESG controversies to financial misstatements and cybersecurity breaches, whistleblowers often flag what systems fail to detect.

A silence on disclosures does not necessarily mean all is well. More often, it means no one feels safe enough to speak. That should concern any board director, regardless of sector or structure.

Not a burden, but a benchmark

The idea of introducing an Office of the Whistleblower, currently progressing as a Private Member’s Bill, is an attempt to centralise and professionalise the reporting process. Whether it passes or not, the message is clear: trust in internal processes is low.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission continues to incentivise whistleblowing as part of its enforcement architecture, offering anonymity and legal protection. Since 2011, it has awarded over $2 billion in financial rewards to individuals whose disclosures led to meaningful action.

Critics often worry that such incentives would encourage a flood of trivial complaints. But the data tells a different story. The SEC actively prioritises high-quality tips from senior insiders, many of which would never have surfaced through conventional reporting channels. These are disclosures that help prevent fraud, improve transparency, and ultimately protect long-term shareholder value. It’s a system designed not just for enforcement, but for governance. There’s a lesson there for the UK.

What boards should ask themselves

Boards should not wait for regulatory compulsion to act. The following questions should be part of every governance agenda:

• Do we have truly independent channels for disclosures?
• Are whistleblowing patterns reviewed at board level, not just by management?
• Is our culture enabling people to raise concerns early or delaying action until it’s too late?
• Would we know if something serious was being ignored?

These are not soft questions. They go to the heart of board responsibility. An organisation that punishes internal transparency cannot claim to be resilient. And boards that overlook the signals are not managing risk, they’re absorbing it silently.

A governance conversation we must lead

I have had the opportunity to contribute to governance reform efforts in multiple sectors, including being appointed to support the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry as Governance Assessor. I won’t be commenting on the inquiry’s conclusions ahead of its formal report. But what I can say is this: the UK has now witnessed enough failures to know that our systems for hearing difficult truths need improvement.

Boardrooms must move from defensiveness to openness. From proceduralism to listening. From fearing disclosures to valuing them.

Because the real scandal is not that whistleblowers speak up. It is when no one in leadership is willing to listen.

Until next time, keep it bold, grounded, and governance-driven.