Why does a whistleblower need to be identified? Why can't it be an anonymous tip to the regulator, who then uses the tip during audits to dig deeper and get to the truth? If they can't get to the truth even after being provided a tip, then their audit process is too broken? This whole business of non-anonymous whistleblower has too much power-imbalance and always seems to end badly for the individual.
The universal answer as to why (there is no fair, working system implemented) is, as usual, 'cui bono?'
Any strategy to make whistleblowing power-balanced is by proxy heavily undermined by all forces that do not want it.
Those forces, big corporations and their third-party henchmen, have heavy financial interests to bring down any just way of whistleblowing. They have a lot more money, time, manpower, influence and corrupt people who execute the dirty work.
To have incorruptible lawmakers lay the ground work is only the first step.
Then the laws have to pass in their original intention, ie. waterproof wording without loopholes. Any unintentional loopholes have to be identified and fixed.
Then the law has to uphold to "accidental" mistakes, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, official or secret changes, additional laws that reverse them, ....
But if the regulator is building a legal case in the US against a company and the only evidence they have is what the whistleblower provides, right to face one's accuser (a right we do not give up lightly) demands that the whistleblower be named.
Yeah, for case against human individuals that standard is absolutely essential. But for case against corporate entities that are already under periodic regulatory audits, that shouldn't be required. Then, within that non-compliant corporate, if there are individuals who committed the crime (criminal negligence, intentional malpractice etc) that lead to non-compliance, then to prosecute such individuals, they would need further evidence etc. But at least, the bad airplanes won't make it to airlines, just with anonymous tips.
Corporations are made up of humans and are, fundamentally, owned by people.
It should still be necessary that the State let people face their accuser before the State uses its monopoly on violence to deprive people of their property via the judicial process. Otherwise, I can think of all kinds of methods that a corrupt executive or judiciary could leverage against poeple ("we're shutting your company down." "Wait, why?" "Anonymous whistleblower. Definitely not because you're contributing legally to a PAC that's making it harder for the President to get reelected.")
Note that here I'm assuming that the whistleblower's participation is necessary. I think you are assuming a more happy path where the whistleblower can nudge the State in a direction to put more scrutiny on a company that they don't realize is a problem. That already happens and sometimes works, but we also have whistleblowers because only they have access to internal documents that the company has chosen not to divulge (legally or illegally). When the case hinges on those, it's still quite just that if the State says "We're shutting you down because you replaced door plug bolts with chewing gum," the accused has the right to say "What? Who the hell is telling you we replaced door plug bolts with chewing gum, and what evidence do they have?" Because without that back-stop, it's just the government presenting evidence that they got... somewhere... and that's open to even more abuse than the status quo.
Corporate rights aren't human rights, but the right to face one's accuser should be extended to any entity under the judicial process.
I don't think it's wise to just hand the government the power to dissolve corporations on evidence they got from... Somewhere, they don't need to tell you. Imagine how that could be abused by a corrupt executive or judiciary.
