Would You Risk Your Job to Tell the Truth?

Why so few people report what they see, and what happens to those who do

Written by Lea Nierlich and Tatum Kennedy

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Picture a group of people who each privately suspect something is wrong, a shipment that shouldn't have cleared customs, a permit that was never actually granted, a quota that was never really earned. Psychologists call the silence that follows pluralistic ignorance: everyone stays quiet because no one else has spoken first, and everyone reads everyone else's calm as proof there is nothing to worry about. It is one of the most ordinary reasons environmental harm survives. Not because no one notices. Because noticing alone was never enough, and nobody wanted to be the first to say it out loud.

Jóhannes Stefánsson was one of the ones who spoke first.

As director of operations in Namibia for the Icelandic fishing company Samherji, Stefánsson spent years helping the company secure lucrative fishing quotas, until he realized they were not being earned but bought, through millions of dollars funneled to Namibian officials via shell companies. In 2019, he brought tens of thousands of internal documents to WikiLeaks and journalists. The exposé, known as the Fishrot Files, led to the resignation and arrest of Namibia's fisheries and justice ministers, and trials still ongoing years later. It also nearly cost him his safety: he was fired, harassed, threatened with prosecution, and has said he believes someone tried to poison him in 2021.

The pattern repeats in a very different setting. In March 2025, a tailings storage facility at a nickel plant on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi collapsed, flooding a nearby village and exposing roughly 1,100 people to heavy-metal waste. The clearest evidence of what actually happened came from inside the plant: a worker filmed the tailings wall failing in real time, footage that let outside investigators and labor groups reconstruct the disaster days before a second collapse killed three more workers, and that is still being used to demand safety reforms at the site.

Neither case started with a lawsuit or a headline. Both started with one person who had information that no one outside the operation could have gotten any other way, and who had to decide whether saying so was worth what it might cost them.

Why the silence usually wins

That decision is harder than it should be, for reasons that go beyond the obvious fear of losing a job. Most people do not actually know what legal protection, if any, applies to what they have seen. Researchers who study whistleblowing describe an average person facing dozens of overlapping, unfamiliar laws, unsure whether their evidence even counts, and unsure what happens to their income while it is being sorted out.

Even people who do know their rights often talk themselves out of using them, on the basis of assumptions that turn out to be wrong. Many believe they need firsthand documents to be credible, when secondhand information is often just as useful. Many believe they have to be named publicly to be taken seriously, when confidentiality can usually be maintained throughout an investigation. And many assume that being proven right will protect them. Research on corporate whistleblowers has found that retaliation happens regardless of the outcome, which is exactly what Stefánsson's case shows: the wrongdoing was confirmed, officials were arrested, and he was still fired, threatened, and, by his own account, poisoned for it.

For someone working inside an operation built on political connections, deciding whether to report wrongdoing is rarely just a question of employment law. The most valuable resources at stake (a fishing quota, a mining concession, a customs clearance) may be controlled by the same politically connected people who have the least to fear from the institutions meant to hold them accountable. Before speaking up, a potential whistleblower therefore has to weigh up much more personal risks: Could reporting put me or my family in danger? Can I afford to lose my job? Will anyone act on the evidence, or will it simply disappear? And how powerful are the people I would be exposing? These are essentially the same questions a whistleblower support organisation must ask when assessing whether and how it can safely support a case.

What tends to tip that balance is not money. Studies on why people actually choose to come forward consistently find the same answer: not a reward, but the belief that someone, an outside authority, a journalist, an organization, will actually be able to do something with what they know. Where that belief is missing, silence is usually the rational choice, however wrong it feels. Pluralistic ignorance thrives on exactly that gap. Every person who decides the risk isn't worth it makes it a little more reasonable for the next person to decide the same thing, until an operation can carry on for years with everyone nearby privately certain something is wrong and no one willing to be the first to say so out loud.

Seeing what the satellites miss

Not everyone who knows something has to choose between Stefánsson's path and silence. Safe, anonymous ways to report exist now, built for exactly this kind of evidence. aktie.earth is a secure platform that turns insider intelligence into enforceable environmental action, built for reporting harm that is too dangerous or too difficult to report through ordinary channels. It focuses on three fronts: soy, combating the illegal deforestation still hidden behind supply chains that claim to be clean; transition minerals, exposing the hidden cost, exactly the kind of cost the Sulawesi footage made visible, of the metals powering the green transition; and land take and soil sealing, defending the ground Europe's own ecosystems depend on from being quietly paved, drained, or built over. 

New EU rules like the deforestation regulation and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive now legally require companies to prove their supply chains are clean. But a due diligence requirement is only as good as the paperwork a company is willing to show a regulator. Without someone inside willing to say what the paperwork does not, these laws risk becoming exactly what protected-area designations so often become: real on paper, unenforced in practice.

aktie.earth provides a secure route for people who need to report wrongdoing. Reports can be submitted anonymously through Tor, without requiring the reporter to provide their name, and followed up using a private access code. The platform is designed to reduce the risks involved in making a disclosure and can connect reports with legal, investigative or advocacy partners equipped to assess and act on them. It does not eliminate the risks of whistleblowing, but it gives people a safer way to get information to organisations that can do something with it.

The gap this closes

Pluralistic ignorance only works because everyone assumes someone else will speak first. Every person who stays silent makes the next silence a little easier, and every operation that gets away with it for another year is, in part, a record of how many people looked around, saw no one else reacting, and decided it must be fine. If no one breaks that pattern, nothing about it changes on its own.

Breaking it does not have to look like what it cost Stefánsson, or what it risked for the worker in Sulawesi. It can start with one report, sent safely, to people already positioned to act on it. That is the gap AllRise and aktie.earth are built to close.

Get involved. If you have seen something that shouldn't be happening, evidence matters more than certainty. Report what you know safely and anonymously, or learn how the process works before you decide.

Disclaimer: This article was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, which were used to support research, fact-checking, and editorial review. All content has been reviewed and approved by the author(s), who remain responsible for the accuracy, interpretation, and conclusions presented.