Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Ten Years of Public Interest Disclosure Legislation in the UK: Are Whistleblowers Adequately Protected?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this article is to assess the operation of the UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) during its first 10 years and to consider its implications for the whistleblowing process. Method The article sets the legislation into context by discussing the common law background. It then gives detailed consideration to the statutory provisions and how they have been interpreted by the courts and tribunals. Results In assessing the impact of the legislation’s approach to whistleblowing both in the UK and elsewhere, the author draws upon empirical research. Conclusion The author concludes that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers and makes 12 recommendations for change. Despite the European Commission’s acknowledgement that whistleblowers can play a part in the fight against corruption, the author notes that common standards for their protection still seem a long way off.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

EAP:

Employee Assistance Programme

EAT:

Employment Appeal Tribunal

ERA 1996:

Employment Rights Act 1996

PIDA 1998:

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

References

  • Callahan, E, Dworkin, T (2000) The State of State Whistleblower Protection. American Business Law Journal, 33, 99–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Communication: 2003, ‹On a Comprehensive EU Policy Against Corruption’ [Com (2003) Final]

  • Lewis, D. (ed.): 2001, Whistleblowing at Work (Continuum, London)

  • Lewis, D: 2007. A survey of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures used by persons prescribed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. (Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D: 2008. A survey of whistleblowing/confidential reporting procedures used by the FTSE top 250 firms. (Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, London)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D, Ellis, C, & Kyprianou, A: 2001 “Whistleblowing at work: the results of a survey of procedures in further and higher education, Education & the Law, Vol.13 No.3 pages 215–225;

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D, Ellis,C, & Kyprianou, A: 2002. A survey of confidential reporting procedures in English and Welsh local authorities. (Employers Organisation for Local Government, London)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D, Ellis, C & Kyprianou, A: 2003b. A survey of confidential reporting/whistleblowing procedures in National Health Service Trusts. (Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D, Ruff, A, Ellis, C & Kyprianou, A: 2003a. A survey of confidential reporting procedures in maintained schools, dioceses and local education authorities. (Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerckhove, W: 2006. Whistleblowing and organisational social responsibility: a global assessment. Ashgate, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewis, D. Ten Years of Public Interest Disclosure Legislation in the UK: Are Whistleblowers Adequately Protected?. J Bus Ethics 82, 497–507 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9899-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9899-5

Keywords

Navigation