Nobody likes to get bad news. In fact, studies show that we are about four times more affected by bad news than good news, and when we do get some bad news, we attribute some blame to the messenger, even if we don’t want to.

In light of the above, we can understand why whistleblowers have never enjoyed a good reputation, even when their reports or disclosures have led to the prevention of substantial harm. That is why the Whistleblowing Act is not so much a law about whistleblowing, as a law about the protection of whistleblowers, as its name suggests.

For those who want to ensure that they maintain the optimum level of objectivity and impartiality in the face of integrity warnings, we have prepared below five practical tips to help you avoid killing the messenger.

• Choosing the right person to handle integrity warnings

This is probably the most important step in avoiding intentional or unintentional retaliation against a whistleblower. No person is happy to receive bad news, but bad news does not affect us all equally.

In order to ensure that he or she can maintain an optimal degree of impartiality in the handling of an integrity warning, the person in charge must be a relative stranger to both the whistleblower and the person or persons targeted by the warning. When any of these persons are hierarchically subordinate or superordinate to you, or when your primary duties relate to protecting the organisation targeted by the whistleblowing report, this becomes almost impossible.

The person responsible for handling integrity warnings is ideally a third party to the organisation – this is the only scenario where objectivity is almost guaranteed. Insofar as it is not a designated third party, but a person from within the company, this person should not be accountable to a person part of the management in terms of organisational structure, but should have an independent function. In addition, the internal appointee should have certain guarantees in terms of the ability to remain impartial regardless of the context, in a climate based on respect for all persons, regardless of their beliefs or characteristics.

• Awareness of the motivations of the whistleblower

The decision to make a report or a disclosure is primarily a subjective decision of the whistleblower, and the reasons for doing so can be multiple. Of course, there is a substantial difference between reports made in good faith, and those made in bad faith, for the purpose of blackmail or for personal gain, but below we will refer only to reports made in good faith.

Reports made in good faith can often indicate personal discomfort on the part of the whistleblower, who is disturbed by specific issues concerning the work he or she is doing. By understanding this potential discomfort, the person responsible can make fair and equitable decisions about how to deal with the warning.

• Subsequent communication with the whistleblower

The risk of retaliation against whistleblowers is a broad risk, as it relates not only to retaliation by the employer, but also to retaliation by colleagues, which the employer often cannot prevent.

In this respect, the most effective way to counter potential retaliation or forms of exclusion is to closely monitor the whistleblower’s activity over time. It is recommended that, at regular intervals, the person in charge initiates open discussions with the whistleblower to ensure that the whistleblower’s work in the company has not been affected in any way by the warning.

• Employee and management accountability

Integrity warnings are a reality we can no longer ignore. This reality will mark both the relationship between colleagues and between employees and the company, as well as the relationship between a company and its employees or suppliers.

Given the multiple implications of integrity warnings, it is recommended that a company organizes regular trainings for employees and management. These trainings should cover both the situations and ways in which an integrity warning can be made, but also the appropriate reactions that everyone should have when dealing with an integrity warning. Drawing attention to the effects of retaliation can be particularly useful and can contribute to the formation of an appropriate mindset regarding integrity warnings.

• Assessing the risk of retaliation

Last but not least, given the sanctions to which companies that initiate retaliation against whistleblowers are subject to, and the multiple ways in which this can be done with or without management’s knowledge, it is recommended that this be treated as a separate integrity risk. In other words, internal risk assessment processes should also analyse the risk of retaliation for integrity warnings, by finding specific vulnerabilities and recommend improvement measures.