Purpose of Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing is the act of exposing wrongdoing or unethical behavior within an organization, often to uphold ethical practices, promote accountability, and maintain transparency. By revealing hidden abuses, whistleblowers serve the public interest by checking power and curbing corruption. However, speaking up carries significant risk. For example, a global survey found employees fear their reports will be ignored or damage their careers, with about one-third even fearing for their personal safety. Disclosures can also disrupt institutions – forcing investigations, leadership changes, or public scrutiny.

Key Question

To what extent does whistleblowing fulfill its purpose of promoting accountability and justice, while considering the potential consequences for individuals and institutions involved?

Perspective 1 – Whistleblower’s Personal Account (NPR, 2018)

Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician in Flint, Michigan, began reviewing health records after concerns about water quality. NPR reports she worked late nights collecting data and eventually found elevated lead levels in children’s blood. After publishing her findings, officials initially challenged her credibility, prompting public concern. She recalls wondering what would happen “if I told the truth and no one listened?” Soon after, the city switched back to treated water, and federal agencies began investigating. The process gained national media attention. Residents, many of whom had raised complaints earlier, began sharing their experiences more openly. Hanna-Attisha’s actions preceded major changes in public health oversight and infrastructure funding. While her role was met with both praise and criticism, the events surrounding her disclosures highlighted tensions between professional obligations and institutional response. Her experience offers insight into how internal concerns can escalate into broader public policy shifts and institutional accountability measures.

Perspective 2 – Ethics Scholar Analysis (Steven Mintz, 2015)

Steven Mintz, a professor of ethics, analyzes the challenges individuals face when reporting wrongdoing. He references surveys indicating that many employees who observe unethical conduct choose not to report it, citing fears of retaliation, alienation, or career setbacks. Mintz discusses the philosophical underpinnings of moral responsibility in organizations, highlighting how ethical theory often emphasizes harm prevention and personal integrity. He notes that legal protections, such as those in Sarbanes-Oxley, exist to support internal disclosure, although enforcement varies. His commentary also explores how workplace cultures affect whether individuals feel safe to report misconduct. Organizations that promote transparency and openness may encourage reporting more effectively than those that prioritize hierarchy or discretion. Through these lenses, Mintz outlines the structural, psychological, and ethical complexities surrounding the decision to report institutional wrongdoing. He presents whistleblowing not as a binary choice but as a multifaceted action shaped by norms, laws, risks, and organizational context.

Perspective 3 – Boeing’s Public Statements (Boeing, 2024)

Boeing’s leadership responded to recent whistleblower-related scrutiny by releasing statements emphasizing its safety protocols and employee reporting systems. The company highlighted expansions to its internal quality assurance teams and announced that aircraft inspections had increased significantly over the past year. Boeing also reiterated that employees are “encouraged to speak up” through designated channels and noted that anonymous reporting is available. These updates came amid federal investigations into product safety, and some public testimonies by former employees. Boeing’s public messaging positioned these changes within a broader commitment to continuous improvement and regulatory compliance. At the same time, the company’s internal efforts were described as designed to address concerns before they escalated externally. These responses suggest a reliance on internal mechanisms and communication frameworks to identify and resolve problems. The case illustrates how corporations present internal whistleblower systems as part of broader institutional accountability measures while navigating reputational and operational scrutiny.

Perspective 4 – NGO Advocacy Report (Project On Government Oversight, 2024)

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a nonpartisan watchdog group, has documented a range of experiences from public employees, especially within federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs. Their reports show repeated incidents where employees expressed concern about misconduct but feared professional consequences. Some interviewees described informal pressure to remain silent, while others cited investigations being dropped or delayed. POGO’s research includes references to whistleblower protection offices that were themselves subject to internal complaints. The group has proposed reforms, including the establishment of independent oversight bodies and mandatory whistleblower training for supervisors. Their published materials stress that reporting systems alone are insufficient without a broader institutional culture that prioritizes transparency and responsiveness. The VA case is used as a focal point to explore broader themes about institutional resistance, protection mechanisms, and the lived experiences of those who report misconduct. The organization frames these narratives as part of an ongoing effort to evaluate systemic accountability.