Your organisation has a whistleblowing policy. Your employees know it exists. So why aren’t they using it?
Across the globe, organisations invest heavily in speak-up systems, compliance training, and ethics programmes. Yet employee satisfaction with reporting outcomes remains low.
The problem isn’t awareness—it’s trust. And that trust breakdown often begins with the very first sentence of your whistleblowing policy.
The Trust Disconnect
When it comes to detecting occupational fraud, employee tips are remarkably effective. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), 42% of occupational fraud cases are detected through tips—nearly three times more effective than internal audits. Over half of those tips (52%) come from employees.
When people feel safe to speak up, they do. In New Zealand, stronger legal protections in 2022 led to a 159% surge in protected disclosures to the Chief Ombudsman in 2023/24. Yet here’s the paradox: whilst 77% of New Zealand employees know their organisation has ethical standards—higher than the 71% global average—only 49% are satisfied with outcomes after raising concerns. That’s the lowest satisfaction rate globally, well below the 71% global average.
The gap between policy existence and policy trust reveals something critical: it’s not enough to have a whistleblowing system. How that system communicates matters just as much.
What the Tone of Your Whistleblowing Policy Is Really Saying
Consider these common approaches to whistleblowing policy statements:
On anonymous reporting: Harsh version: “Anonymous reports will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances and must be substantiated with evidence.” Supportive version: “Anonymous reporting is available to ensure everyone feels safe to speak up.”
On protection promises: Harsh version: “Employees must not retaliate against whistleblowers. Violations will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.” Supportive version: “The organisation protects employees who raise concerns. Retaliation is taken seriously and addressed promptly.”
On report quality: Harsh version: “Frivolous, vexatious, or malicious reports will not be tolerated and may result in disciplinary action.” Supportive version: “All concerns are taken seriously. The organisation recognises that reporting requires courage and good faith.”
“Because it’s rooted in status, hierarchy and outdated attitudes, traditional policy wording is, well, bossy,” writes policy-writing expert Lewis Eisen. “Instead of addressing readers as adults and colleagues, it positions them as underlings who will inevitably run amok unless tightly controlled.”
“Good leaders don’t speak to their staff by yelling orders. But a lot of them still write that way. The wording of written policies has stayed static, so now it is completely out of step with the workplace changes of the past few decades.”
Both of the above examples communicate rules and expectations. But the harsh versions do something else entirely: they broadcast institutional anxiety about managing reports. They position whistleblowing as a burden to be controlled rather than a valued contribution. The subtext is unmistakable—”We’re worried about being overwhelmed, so we’re setting up barriers.”
This tone directly contradicts the stated goal of encouraging reporting. When employees read threats and warnings in a speak-up policy, they calculate risk differently. They wonder: “Will I be accused of making a frivolous complaint? Will I face retaliation despite what the policy says? Is this organisation genuinely interested in hearing concerns, or just covering itself legally?”
“We’ve reviewed countless whistleblowing policies over our 18 years in operation, and a pattern is quite clear,” says Craig McFarlane, Director of Report It Now™ Global. “Organisations that historically use threatening, defensive language in their policies consistently receive fewer reports.”
“The harsh tone often sends a message that’s louder than any commitment to protection. Employees are sensitive to this. They read between the lines and see ‘we don’t really want to know’ even when the policy claims otherwise.”
The Business Cost of Harsh Tone
The stakes aren’t just about employee relations—they’re financial. Organisations with formal reporting mechanisms reduce median fraud losses by half and detect fraud significantly faster. Given that occupational fraud costs organisations approximately 5% of annual revenue, the return on investment for an effective speak-up culture is substantial.
The regulatory environment in some jurisdictions reflects this seriousness. In Australia, the Corporations Act 2001 makes compliant whistleblower policies compulsory for all public companies and large proprietary companies. Failure to implement a compliant policy carries penalties up to AU$165,000, whilst penalties for detrimental conduct against a whistleblower can reach AU$525 million.
In the United States, the penalties are even stiffer: under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, individuals found guilty of retaliating against whistleblowers face criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years. Document tampering or falsification related to investigations can result in fines up to US$5 million and imprisonment for up to 20 years.
When employees don’t trust the tone of speak-up systems, they simply don’t use them. And when they don’t use them, organisations lose their early warning system for fraud, misconduct, and serious wrongdoing.
Why We Write This Way (And Why We Need to Stop)
If harsh policy language is so counterproductive, why does it persist?
Authoritarian policy language is a holdover from command-and-control management styles. But there’s a deeper issue: organisational anxiety. When organisations aren’t confident in their ability to handle reports effectively, they write policies that subtly discourage reporting.
This anxiety is often justified by infrastructure gaps. Research shows 30% of public sector agencies have no system for recording and tracking concerns, and 23% lack a support strategy for staff who raise issues. When organisations lack systems to manage disclosures effectively, harsh policy language becomes a defensive mechanism to limit reports rather than encourage them.
The Present Tense Solution for Whistleblowing Policy
As Lewis notes in Why Are Your Policies Yelling at Me? It’s Time to Rethink Tone in Rules, one effective way to shift policy tone from combative to collaborative is surprisingly simple: use the present tense to describe organisational commitments rather than command employee behaviour.
- Instead of “Employees must report through designated channels,” write “Multiple reporting channels are available, including phone, web, and email options.”
- Instead of “Reports shall be investigated within 30 days,” write “The organisation commits to initial response within 24 hours and investigation completion within 30 days.”
- Instead of “Whistleblowers must cooperate with investigations,” write “The organisation works collaboratively with those who raise concerns.”
This shift removes the implied threat and positions the organisation as supporter rather than enforcer. It acknowledges that reporting is voluntary and valuable, and should be made as accessible as possible.
This approach aligns with how employees prefer to report. Global data shows web-based reporting (40%) and email (37%) are now more popular than telephone hotlines (30%). Employees gravitate toward less confrontational methods. Policy tone should match this preference—inviting rather than demanding, supporting rather than controlling.
Trust Is Written Into Every Word
The 49% satisfaction rate amongst New Zealand employees who raise concerns isn’t an isolated data point—it’s symptomatic of a broader trust breakdown between speak-up policies and lived experience. When policies sound threatening and position reporting as risky, employees stay silent.
Organisations serious about speak-up culture need to audit not just what their policies say, but how they say it. Every “must,” every “shall,” every defensive disclaimer communicates whether the organisation genuinely wants to hear about problems or merely wants to avoid liability.
Independent reporting systems like EthicsPro® can address both the tone problem and the underlying infrastructure anxiety. When external expertise manages the reporting process, policies can focus on support rather than control. The organisation can confidently promise protection because an independent third party ensures confidentiality and provides the tracking systems that 30% of organisations currently lack.
“Once organisations have a robust infrastructure in place, they stop writing these ‘defensive’ sorts of policies,” says Greg Dunn, Director of Report It Now™ Global. “They feel comfortable taking an more welcoming tone because they know the system will handle whatever comes through. It’s remarkable how quickly harsh ‘musts’ and ‘shalls’ disappear when organisations actually feel equipped to manage disclosures properly.”
Ready to build a speak-up culture that employees trust? Contact Report It Now™ to learn how EthicsPro® can provide the independent, secure reporting infrastructure your organisation needs. Get in touch today.
References
[1] Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Report to the Nations: 2024 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (2024)
[2] Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Occupational Fraud 2022: A Report to the Nations (2022)
[3] Office of the Ombudsman New Zealand, “Whistleblowing on the rise: Growing number of complaints to Ombudsman” (2024) https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/news/whistleblowing-rise-growing-number-complaints-ombudsman
[4] Institute of Business Ethics, Ethics at Work: 2024 Survey of Employees – New Zealand (2024) https://www.ibe.org.uk/ethicsatwork2024/new-zealand.html
[5] Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Report to the Nations: 2024 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (2024)
[6] Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Whistleblower Policies (Regulatory Guide 270, 2019)
[7] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1317E
[8] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1317G
[9] JB Morrison, “Whistleblowing in New Zealand Workplaces” (2024) https://www.jbmorrison.com/employment/whistleblowing-in-new-zealand-workplaces/
[10] Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Occupational Fraud 2022: A Report to the Nations (2022)