what happens if it turns out we don't have a reporting channel when we should have one

No reporting channel, although one was required

If an organisation does not have a reporting channel while it was obliged to do so, it does not comply with the Whistleblower Protection Act. This means there is no internal reporting procedure as prescribed by article 2 of that act, and therefore no channel where employees can safely report wrongdoing, anonymously if desired. For the organisation itself, this primarily means that it lacks visibility into signals that would otherwise have been raised internally, and an employee who wants to report something will be more likely to go outside the organisation.

The concrete consequences attached to this — supervision, enforcement or otherwise — is not something on which a statement is made here; that is up to the competent authorities. What is clear is that the absence of a reporting channel increases the risk that wrongdoing only becomes visible once it has already escalated, for example to a supervisor or to the outside. For employers who are uncertain whether the obligation applies to them, it is a logical first step to review from how many employees a reporting channel is mandatory, and to determine who exactly counts towards the threshold of fifty employees — because that count is not always as straightforward as it seems.

Where the obligation comes from

The obligation to establish an internal reporting channel follows from article 8 of directive (EU) 2019/1937, which is implemented in article 2 of the Whistleblower Protection Act. The House for Whistleblowers provides on its page with information for employers an explanation of what this obligation means in practice and what an organisation should pay attention to when establishing it. For those wondering what should substantively be included in such a procedure, there is an overview of what must be included in a whistleblower protection scheme.