Findings

Legal Frameworks

Of the 48 countries surveyed, 21 (43.75%) have dedicated, comprehensive w histleblower protection legislation. These comprehensive frameworks typically cover both public and private sectors, clearly define protected persons, describe the scope of reportable wrongdoing, and provide explicit anti-retaliation protections. An additional 17 countries rely on provisions within other thematic laws.

Approximately 10 countries demonstrate limited or fragmented frameworks. Dedicated laws correlate strongly with clearer standards, improved implementation, and stronger public awareness. Since 2023, thirteen surveyed c ountries enacted new laws or reforms, reflecting growing recognition that whistleblower protection is essential to anti-corruption efforts. Regional initiatives, particularly the EU Whistleblowing Directive (2019/1937), drove harmonization and established minimum protection standards.

However, significant challenges persist. Twenty-seven countries cover both publicand private sectors, but six limit protection to only public sector employees. Five countries exclude important categories of protected persons, including former employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and job applicants. Four countries limit material scope primarily to criminal offenses and corruption, leaving other serious wrongdoing outside protection. 

Reporting and Protection Mechanisms

Effective whistleblower protection requires accessible, secure, and diverse r eporting channels. Fifteen countries studied legally require organizations to establish internal reporting systems, while 21 allow whistleblowers to bypass internal channels and report directly to external authorities. Thirty-seven countries studied have dedicated agencies or competent authorities to receive, investigate, and act upon reports. 

However, significant gaps remain. Only a minority require multiple reporting interfaces (Anonymous reporting remains limited, potentially discouraging disclosures in high-risk environments. Many systems lack 24/7 access, multilingual support, encrypted digital platforms, and clear acknowledgment and feedback mechanisms. Confidentiality protections vary substantially, with some frameworks lacking safeguards against unauthorized disclosure of whistleblowers’ identities. 

Institutional capacity represents another critical challenge. Many competent authorities face resource constraints, insufficient independence, unclear mandates, and limited investigative and remedial powers. Investigation time limits, when established, often prove unrealistic given institutional capacity constraints. Permitting authorities to decline investigations without clear criteria undermines public trust.

Protective measures

The cornerstone of effective whistleblower protection frameworks is antiretaliation protections. To address power imbalances and improve access to remedies, approximately 18 countries apply burden-shifting frameworks in retaliation cases, requiring employers to prove that adverse actions were not motivated by disclosures.

SLAPP protections are critically scarce: only four countries provide explicit safeguards. Only three address abuse of non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses to prevent or penalize reporting.

Good faith requirements vary. When defined as “reasonable belief,” protection and accountability are balanced. Motives-based standards, prohibited by Resolution 1 0/8, deter legitimate reporting and risks penalizing honest-mistake disclosures.

Remedies also vary. Many countries provide reinstatement, wage recovery, andnullification of disciplinary actions, but few offer comprehensive remedies including reputational rehabilitation, psychological support, relocation assistance, or interim relief. Financial incentives remain controversial and uncommon, though some countries offer rewards tied to the recovery of public funds.

Gender-sensitive and inclusive approaches remain largely absent. Few countriesexplicitly consider the unique risk faced by marginalized groups, including women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. The lack of genderdisaggregated data collection further impedes understanding of differential impacts and hinders targeted interventions.

Technical Assistance Needs

Surveyed CSOs and legal experts highlighted significant implementation challenges requiring technical assistance. Common needs include: 

• Legislative drafting aligned with international standards
• Capacity building for institutions receiving and investigating reports 
• Training for law enforcement, judiciary, and workplaces 
• Secure digital reporting platforms 
• Public awareness campaigns 
• Monitoring and evaluation frameworks 

Resource constraints impede effectiveness. Few countries offer systematic training for personnel handling reports, and rights-awareness campaigns are limited d espite their importance. Monitoring and evaluation remain weak: most countries lack periodic assessments of framework performance, hindering improvements and adaptation.

International cooperation and peer learning offer significant opportunities.Countries could benefit from regional coordination, comparative legal analysis, and South-South exchanges. Technical assistance providers should prioritize context-specific guidance and multi-stakeholder dialogues among governments, civil society, legal experts, and international organizations. 

Recommendations

To meaningfully advance Resolution 10/8 implementation, the following actions are recommended for different stakeholder groups.

Governments

• Governments should take meaningful steps to strengthen legal protections for all reporting persons regardless of their personal reasons or motives.
• States should establish or enhance confidential, accessible, and inclusive reporting channels that allow anonymity and safeguard the identity and personal data of reporting persons.
• Governments should seek technical assistance from international organizations, civil society, and legal experts, including on best practice legislative reforms.
• Legislation should include safeguards against unjustified treatment and extending protections to relevant third parties, as encouraged by resolution 10/8.
• Legal definitions of reporting persons should encompass all forms of employment relationships and professional affiliations.
• Legislation should also include comprehensive anti-SLAPP and retaliatory criminal prosecution protection, burden-shifting frameworks, and enforceable identity protections. Banning the use of non-disclosure policies or agreements to cancel rights and protection is another vital best practice.
• Legislation should require transparency for the results of whistleblower laws, both in terms of effectiveness against retaliation, and for making a difference against illegal spending or other significant misconduct.
• Governments should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their whistleblower protection systems and allocate sufficient and sustained resources to responsible oversight bodies.

Legal experts and civil society

• Continue to monitor the implementation of Article 33 and Resolution 10/8.
• Continue to offer legal aid, psychological support, and guidance to reporting persons, particularly in navigating legal and procedural frameworks.
• Work closely with public authorities to strengthen public understanding of whistleblower protections, including in underserved communities, and support the design and delivery of training and educational initiatives.

International organizations

• Prioritize supporting the provision of technical assistance for legislative reform and utilizing experts from the legal and civil society community.
• Ensure Resolution 10/8 benchmarks are systematically incorporated into peer review processes and compliance assessments.
• Incentivize reform through conditional funding mechanisms and technical assistance to drive implementation across jurisdictions.
• Promote the exchange of good practices, encourage regional collaboration, and support intergovernmental dialogues on the protection of reporting persons.
• Provide flexible and sustained funding to ensure that the implementation of Resolution 10/8 reflects national contexts and priorities.