Your latest book, Regulators of Last Resort, will be published on 27 February 2025 with Cambridge University Press. How did the book come about?

Kate Kenny (KK) I have been working on whistleblowing in organisations for over 10 years now. During that time, I realised something important was missing from how we think about – and how we research – whistleblowing and dissent in organisations. While all the focus is on better whistleblowing laws and internal organisation policies these days, and these are important, one thing gets overlooked. Sometimes the law fails whistleblowers – and organisations do not protect them – and then they have to go public. I wanted to focus on what happens next: especially how a whole network of skilled and supportive partners: lawyers, journalists, activists, advocates, even colleagues, come together to help whistleblowers. So, the full title is Regulators of Last Resort: Whistleblowing, the Limits of the Law and the Power of Partnerships. (1) This area hasn’t yet been researched well at all – up to now. In the book, I focus on well known cases: Amazon, Theranos, Facebook and even Ireland’s ESB.

You recently launched the EU Commission-funded BRIGHT project along with international colleagues – a two-year research project focused on whistleblowing capacity-building and policy. (2) Can you describe your role as an academic in collaborating with whistleblowers?

In my research, I take a Social Sciences approach, and I study whistleblowing in organisations from the perspective of managers tasked with implementing speak-up and whistleblowing systems. But I also look at workers themselves who are trying to disclose wrongdoing in separate projects – along with colleagues, I have done a lot of interviews with whistleblowers in different countries and sectors. So, my research examines whistleblowing from all angles – both inside and outside the organisation. In the BRIGHT project for example, we look at legal and institutional changes, while in a former project, I researched the impact of being in the public eye for whistleblowers and their families.

This work started with a project funded by the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust several years ago that enabled me and a co-author at University of Warwick to start looking at the impacts of whistleblowing on individuals and their families. We then received major funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in 2016. For the first time ever, research was carried out to quantify the costs of whistleblowing for people who speak up. If an individual blew the whistle on their organisation and had to leave their job as a result, what did it cost them in terms of salary foregone, legal costs to fight their case and healthcare costs? We wanted to find out. People often require mental and sometimes physical health supports because of the stress and trauma that can result from whistleblowing retaliation, including PTSD symptoms in the most extreme cases. All that costs the family money and causes stress. So, that ESRC funding enabled us to produce a report and peer-reviewed articles foregrounding the cost of whistleblowing reprisal. The research is used globally by whistleblower advocacy and advice groups.

The next project I was involved in was a book published by Harvard University Press in 2019. A deep dive into whistleblowing in the financial sector, looking at the obstacles and challenges, specifically in the distinct cultures of finance and banking. I looked at the norms of that industry and drew on interviews with people at Halifax, Julius Baer, Citibank, former Irish Nationwide and other banks.

The past ten years have been a journey of examining the organisational and legal implications in a business ethics framework – while working with various partners. For the ESRC project, we worked with some of the leading whistleblowing advocacy groups in the world – including Government Accountability Project (GAP) – based in Washington, D.C. We’ve also partnered with whistleblowing charities in the UK and in Ireland. In that way, we’re able to bring in civil society groups and legal experts who advocate for whistleblower rights. These experts feed into the questions that we ask as part of our research while helping to disseminate our findings. We also work a lot with whistleblowers themselves.

I’m programme director of the MBA here, and prominent whistleblowers who have gone on to be leaders in their fields have come in to give talks to MBA students. Examples include Professor Richard Bowen from University of Texas who was the Citigroup whistleblower, and Senator Tom Clonan from the Irish Defence Forces who is – today – a leading advocate for disability rights. The social impact of the research extends well beyond the University and academic publishing. We are proud of that and it’s important for us to continue.

Another research project involved Professor Wim Vandekerckhove (EDHEC Business School, France) and Professor Marianna Fotaki (University of Warwick). We researched the experience of managers in organisations with whistleblowing systems, publishing a book in 2019 with Wiley Business, The Whistleblowing Guide: Speak-up Arrangements, Challenges and Best Practices. That research has been very impactful in terms of international organisations taking up our findings, including United Nations UNPRI, ActionAid, Transparency International Ireland and global accounting body ACCA. The research was cited by the World Bank in their annual report, the UK House of Commons debates and House of Lords.

The current BRIGHT project with the European Whistleblowing Institute flows from that, funded by the European Commission. The European Whistleblowing Institute is a civil society organisation that aims to carry out research on the impact of legal changes around whistleblowing across Europe.

My job within the BRIGHT project is to develop a pioneering framework that will enable people, when implementing whistleblowing systems or offering advice, to ensure sensitivity towards different protected characteristics such as gender, race, class and ethnicity. We will be reviewing best practice and testing the framework over the next two years.

On this, I am pleased to work with Dr Taymi Milan, an anti-corruption expert from Ecuador. I am also beginning a further research project funded by Lero as part of their SyMeCo call, that looks at whistleblowing disclosures in healthcare, and more specifically, developing systems mainly in clinical settings to help nurses and other medics safely disclose wrongdoings.

Healthcare is one of the top sectors for reporting of ethics concerns. Whistleblowing helpline operators across the world will tell you that they receive the most calls from whistleblowers about issues with retaliation from the healthcare sector. So, it’s important research, and we look forward to welcoming postdoctoral researcher Dr Johanna Wiisak, who is joining us this month at University of Galway from University of Turku, Finland.

Each industry comes with its own vernacular; does the role of language come into this research?

Yes, it does. You need to make time to do that research or strategically work with colleagues to develop that knowledge. I usually work with other academics that have industry knowledge. For example, Johanna, our postdoctoral researcher on the SyMeCo project is a practicing nurse and she has been looking at ethics in nursing and health for many years. In the banking and finance study, I was fortunate to have a fellowship with Harvard University’s Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics where people including Professor Malcolm Salter were working. So, I was able to put time aside to dive deep into that industry and carry out interviews.

Our research group here also extends beyond sectors to non-Western contexts – this is so critical because the literature on business ethics and whistleblowing is generally very Anglo-Saxon, and hugely limiting as a result. My PhD student Bashir Alao, an experienced compliance professional from Nigeria, studies whistleblowing in this country, for example, and his project is just the beginning in terms of the wider focus we plan for the research group.

What stands out in your research as the key defining factors of a healthy workplace?

I think we can all look at our environment and diagnose the health of our workplaces. Workplaces differ a lot, but a useful rule of thumb is to ask: is this a transparent workplace? Are the processes open for everyone to understand? That’s an important measure.

A second factor is discussability: if I have a question or something that is confusing me, do I feel I can bring it up or do I get the sense that certain important issues are taboo around here? Another is sanctions.

For this you ask: if people have clearly breached our ethical guidelines, are they actively and openly sanctioned, or are they let off the hook? That creates a very strong signal in terms of ethics. The sanction piece also ties into accountability. Is it clear in my workplace who is accountable for ethical practice? If nobody seems to be accountable, that’s a problem. These are some examples that I draw on. I recommend Professor Muel Kaptein’s work here.

Which countries have you focused on recently; is there something we can learn by comparing work cultures in different countries?

The ‘modern’ discourse around whistleblowing emerged in the US in the 70s on the back of the Nixon era and the challenges mounted by investigative journalists and civil society actors around a lack of accountability in government. So, the idea of whistleblower insiders as part of the overall expectation of accountability to the public, by large, powerful institutions, emerged in its contemporary form in the 60s and 70s and spread in the Anglo-Saxon world for various reasons. Now, I believe almost 100 countries have whistleblower protection laws in place, with Ireland being an early pioneer in 2014. It has become more commonplace to believe that insiders are the best sources of information about an organisation’s transgressions, and that we all benefit when insiders are protected to disclose those wrongdoings. That said, protections are more welcome in certain countries and sectors than others. For example, following the Bernie Madoff Enron fraud case and successive scandals, the US brought in whistleblower protection legislation and reward schemes for insiders in finance; the US government had lost a lot of money by not listening to whistleblowers like Harry Markopolos, who had been speaking out for years.

In the US, finance, transport and tax are well-protected sectors while others have a way to go. Some countries show resistance to whistleblower laws, particularly those with a recent history of problems around informers to state authorities. There are so many cultural nuances. In Eastern Europe for example, given the history of oppressive Soviet regimes, whistleblowing is tied up with this idea of the ‘informer’ being disloyal to the group. A new EU Directive was brought in across the European Union in 2021 but we’re still seeing different challenges mounted in different countries.

In Germany, there is a powerful business lobby who are actively resisting whistleblower protections. Ireland has been leading the charge; our whistleblowing protection law in 2014 was seen as one of the strongest in the world at the time. Public awareness of whistleblowing in Ireland is influenced by high-profile whistleblowing scandals, like the Gardaí scandal. And so, the idea of protections for those individuals was very politically and culturally palatable. Ireland’s record is not perfect but we appear to be adopting and transposing the EU directive – although with some areas of concern here too.

Pop culture also has an influence on support for whistleblowers. I look at gender and whistleblowing as one aspect. For example – it is interesting to note that we often see the narrative of a troubled and flawed female whistleblower – think of films like The Whistleblower or Official Secrets. Whereas in many films, the male discloser is depicted as a classic hero figure that fits the mould. There has been some research carried out into these portrayals in popular culture.

Has the Employment Equality (Amendment) (Non-Disclosure Agreements) Bill 2021 made an impact on whistleblowers?

That’s an interesting question. I did a podcast in January 2024 for the Parrhesia Network in London with Zelda Perkins – the first person to speak up about Harvey Weinstein. Zelda had remained silent under the pressure of an illicit NDA for over 10 years, before finally deciding to break her contract and speak out, despite all the risks to herself. She gave an interview in the Financial Times, and that year, the New York Times, New Yorker and others published exposés on Weinstein. She is now a campaigner to stop NDAs being used in cases of sexual assault and harassment – their original purpose was for trade secrets and intellectual property protection! They have no business being used to cover up disclosures of abuse. But this is massively on the increase. We’re in the era of the NDA, as employers struggle to keep things under wraps and ensure they don’t get into the public domain. That is becoming tougher and tougher because of surveillance technology, leaks and social media – as well as a workforce that may be working from home, or less inclined to conform. So legal silencing contracts are brought out more and more, workers forced to sign – to contract away their rights.

Zelda has recently been in Ireland helping to shape the debate around NDAs. We are now one of the early adopters of legislation that makes it illegal to enforce an NDA in cases of sexual harassment and sexual violence. But of course, whenever a new bill is passed, you need to wait until test cases emerge to really see how it works in practice.

What keeps you motivated when facing barriers in your research?

People can get stuck in their disciplinary silos in academia and focus mainly on academic publishing. I don’t find that satisfying. I think it’s best if academics are working with civil society and people outside the university, and using their voice to communicate what they have researched and learned, especially when it comes to challenging misuses of power. Whistleblowing researchers are lucky in that respect. We have people from business ethics, organisational studies, law and gender studies all happily working together. We also collaborate with NGOs and whistleblower groups. It’s important to have those open borders.

I came through the financial crisis in 2008 and saw the impact of the banking crisis on friends and family in terms of funding public services. The legacy of that is still around today. It annoyed me that corporates, in this case the banks, were able to do that to a country – and the good individuals working in these banks weren’t able to speak up – or if they did, it was futile because of the systems in place.

There is a lot of ambivalence around whistleblowing, and with the impacts of gender, tech and surveillance – it’s an important topic that is ever changing. I don’t think we have exhausted the questions that need to be asked. I think I will be asking them for a while.

(1) Regulators of Last Resort, The Limits of the Law and the Power of Partnerships, Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming 2025.
(2) BRIGHT (Building Resilience through Integrity, Good Governance, and Honesty Training) is a project led by the European Whistleblowing Institute (EWI), alongside Professor Wim Vandekerckhove of EDHEC Business School and Professor Kate Kenny of the University of Galway, funded by the European Commission.