An Office for Whistleblowers is essential for the future of anti-corruption

The personal burden on whistleblowers is too high to sustain without a dedicated Office for Whistleblowing.

Employee protections are not keeping pace with the risks whistleblowers face. Without a dedicated office that seeks to actively support and protect people who speak up, the pendulum risks swinging the other way – towards further deteriorating protections and more silence.

What the Cambridge tribunal reveals

The recent Cambridge University employment tribunal demonstrates just how urgent reform is to the UK's systems.

Astrophysics professor Neil Wyn Evans made a protected disclosure about mistreatment of female colleagues. Senior managers repeatedly tried to shut down his complaints and protect the university's reputation, with HR ghost-writing statements, significant delays in investigations, and inadequate scrutiny of decisions.

This isn't an isolated incident. A Yerty analysis found that in Q2 2025/26, more than half of whistleblowing claims were dismissed or withdrawn across the UK. Without a dedicated office, whistleblowers like Evans are left to fend for themselves without the support or resources to take the fight further.

In Evans' case, the tribunal concluded that he had been victimized and mistreated as a result of his whistleblowing. And while 11 of his 14 complaints were upheld, such outcomes are far from guaranteed.

The Cambridge University case is just the latest to highlight the risks posed by a systemic absence of sufficient whistleblower protections, and the wider shortcomings of a system that places too much responsibility and risk on the individual.

A system that loads risk onto individuals

Under the current UK framework, whistleblowers face too high a burden, while organizational enforcement is too low. Whistleblowers are expected to single-handedly compile and present evidence against an entire organization, while meaningful protection often arrives only after those organizations have already taken retaliatory action.

By the time the system intervenes, a whistleblower may already have faced detrimental treatment, as Evans did, or even dismissal. Either way, they risk potentially devastating consequences to both their livelihoods and careers.

That is why being a whistleblower takes immense bravery, but courage shouldn't be a prerequisite for exposing wrongdoing.

What a formal office could do

A formal office could provide independent guidance, coordinate investigations with the appropriate authorities and help ensure complaints are handled efficiently, consistently and thoroughly. Embedding a body of that sort into the anti-corruption landscape would proactively encourage and support whistleblowers from the moment they raise a concern.

With the confidence to act without risking professional harm, fewer whistleblowers would fall through the cracks.

Perhaps most importantly, it could shift much of the administrative burden away from individuals who are already taking a significant professional risk.

Protection before retaliation, not after

Whistleblowers are the spine of any anti-corruption framework. If people cannot speak up without risking their careers, livelihoods or wellbeing, that framework cannot operate as it should. The approach to whistleblowing needs to change, both in the UK and further afield, with the introduction of more robust protections and support before retaliation occurs, rather than as a remedy after damage is done.

Without more fortified whistleblower protections, the entire anti-corruption framework risks falling into a cycle of inefficiencies.

A dedicated Office for Whistleblowing would be an important first step toward addressing those issues, fixing imbalances and ensuring the whistleblowers at the heart of anti-corruption are protected, not punished.