When Should a Whistleblowing Investigation Be Outsourced to an External Party?

Whistleblowing cases vary greatly, and how they should be investigated can be influenced by many factors. External assistance with investigations can become relevant due to various reasons, such as the need for specialist expertise, clearer independence, or to be able to point to an external party when making decisions. In an interview with Joakim Karlén, we discuss how to approach investigative work and engaging external support.

Handling an incoming whistleblowing report involves balancing legal protection, good management culture, and personal integrity. The primary purpose of the investigation is to establish the facts: to either confirm or dismiss the allegations made, and to provide the organization with a well-founded basis for decision-making regarding further actions. To ensure high quality in the investigation, methodology, confidentiality, and above all, independence are required.

The Core of Investigative Work: Independence and Confidentiality

Independence is the single most important factor in a whistleblowing investigation. The person conducting the review must be completely neutral in relation to the operations and individuals involved. Furthermore, the process demands strict confidentiality. The investigation must not disclose the whistleblower’s identity, nor should it subject the person under investigation to an unfair or incompetent process. For this reason, most investigations begin with a thorough review of written documentation and factual circumstances before any interviews are conducted.

When Are Internal Resources Insufficient?

Many organizations have competent internal teams that manage cases effectively. However, there are three clear situations where an external party should be involved:

**Conflicts of interest and personal ties: **If the report concerns a person in a senior position, or someone close to the internal investigative team, a conflict of interest arises. It is unrealistic to expect complete independence from employees who will continue working together after the investigation is concluded.

**Need for specialist expertise: **Some cases are legally complex or require specific expertise in work environment issues and HR. Smaller municipalities or companies lacking in-house legal counsel often need external expertise to ensure the investigation report holds up legally.

Need for a confirmed impartial voice: Sometimes the required knowledge exists internally, but the organization needs an entirely independent statement to rely on. This provides management with a secure and objective foundation for difficult decisions.

Psychological Benefits and Signal Value

An external investigator enters the situation without history within the organization. This often reduces the defensiveness that can arise when employees are examined by their own colleagues. The interview setting becomes less tense, which facilitates the collection of facts.

Finally, one should be mindful of the signal value in working with external, independent investigators. By establishing clear principles for when external investigators are engaged, the organization demonstrates—to both employees and the outside world—that misconduct is taken with the utmost seriousness and that complex investigations are not avoided.