「公益揭發行為」係指將組織內部的不法資訊，透過內部通報機制、相關權責機關、媒體或其他訴諸社會大眾之管道來揭發其可疑之不當或違法行為。其相當類似於國外的「吹哨行為」概念。此等問題起因於近年來各國重大的企業舞弊頻傳，經由員工進行吹哨行為揭弊後，對社會公益具有高度貢獻，惟吹哨者揭弊後，卻往往換來公司無情的解雇或不利益對待，此等「犧牲小我，完成大我」的不合理現象，已逐漸受到世界各國的重視並亟欲調整。 我國近年來「爆料文化」盛行，尤其以立法委員收到線報後利用政論節目或記者會對外揭弊的景象最令人印象深刻，然而，為何背後真正的揭弊者總得躲躲藏藏採取間接爆料，不敢直接挺身而出？就此，不難體悟出我國似乎沒有一套令社會大眾「信服且得以親近」的公益揭發體制。勞動基準法第74條及勞工安全衛生法第30條設有公益揭發保護之規定，惟其僅就勞動之相關事項做規範，保障顯然不足，其他與個人生命或身體、消費者之權益、環境之保護及其他公眾利益等相關之揭發保護，更是亟待立法保障之。 正因我國現行法欠缺相關規範，故本文將援引與我國鄰近且風俗民情較近似之日本法律政策與制度，加以觀察並討論公益揭發保護法制於我國之可行性，及其可能衍生之相關問題與對策。因此，本文將對日本公益通報者保護法作詳細探討，並於重要之處再輔以美、英兩國之公益揭發保護規範作附帶說明。 除此之外，本文亦會廣納我國其他相關之公益揭發事例，藉此一窺我國公益揭發之輪廓，甚且再進一步針對我國近年司法實務上幾個重大公益揭弊判決如新海瓦斯林子文案、陽信商銀陳政峰案、華航機師甘國秀案、年代新聞導播穆光中及盛奇玉案、中環公司曾建煥案等等作深度討論。最後，本文將對我國未來公益揭發之制度建立提出相關立法政策芻議。

近來各國政府對於公共服務的提供，越來越傾向公私協力的方式，以滿足人民的多元需求，但是有時因為政府的監督效率不彰甚至是政府與財團勾結，以至於企業組織的不法行為嚴重影響了公共利益。而外部的監督機制效果失靈，弊端揭發(whistle blowing)就成為了最後一道防線。但是，不論在公私部門，只要是在組織內揭露不法情事，勢必牽涉許多複雜的因素，以及可能對揭發者造成風險，再加上我國法制的不健全難以對揭弊者提供完善的保護，這些都將影響成員揭發的意願。 因此，為探討上述問題，本研究採取質性研究的方式，運用文獻回顧與深度訪談作為研究方法。本研究的研究架構是從弊端揭發者的心理進程發展依序探討，首先，以公務倫理或企業倫理、揭弊前因素以及預期揭弊後因素之三類現有因素做出初步判斷，再者，以前述判斷結果作為依據，將揭弊管道、對象以及手段納入綜合考量，最後做出揭發弊端與否的決定。本研究之研究發現認為，第一，企業倫理與公務倫理難以促使揭弊行為產生。第二、有利組織弊端揭發的情境與結構包括溝通管道暢通、扁平化的組織以及創新傾向的組織文化並且權力在其中居於主導地位。第三、現行保護機制無法保障私部門成員之工作與公務人員之安全。 另外，建議後續研究者可以選擇公私協力之個案，或是可以就組織中的「有權者」的角度來探討。最後，本研究根據研究發現提出幾點實務建議： 一、 制定公益揭發專法 二、 增加組織成員職涯規劃的多元性 三、 加重行賄者責任 四、 改善政風單位處理程序 關鍵詞：弊端揭發過程、公務倫理、企業倫理、弊端揭發者保護機制 / Nowadays, to satisfy the diverse demands from people, governments tend to work with business organizations to provide better public service. However, due to the possibilities of poor supervision from governments and collusion between both parties, public interest is often under great threat or even severely violated. Therefore, whistle-blowing will be the last defense once the external control systems fail. No matter in public or private organizations, it may put the whistleblower at risk while disclosing wrongdoings which involves many complex factors. And it could also affect people’s willingness of being a whistleblower due to the lack of protecting system in our existing legal regime. To investigate above topic, this study is conducted with qualitative research analysis, and is to use documentary analysis and depth interview as the research methods. The conceptual framework is to investigate by the whistleblower’s psychological process in sequence. First of all, the whistleblower will make the initial judgments with three existing factors: administrative ethics or business ethics, the factors prior to whistle-blowing, and the expected factors after whistle-blowing. Therefore, based on the initial judgments mentioned above, the whistleblower will decide whether to blow the whistle or not after taking channels, objects, and means into account. The findings of this research indicate three following points: (1) Administrative ethics or business ethics lead to little possibility that brings out whistle-blowing. (2) The situations or structures which are conducive to whistle-blowing include unimpeded communication channel, horizontal organization, and innovation-tended organizational culture. And the power holds a dominant position. (3) Existing protecting system cannot ensure the right to work of people working in private sector, nor the safety of public servant. In addition, the author suggests that succeeding investigators choose the case related to public private partnership, or probe from the perspective of the powers. At last, the practical suggestions based on the findings of this study are as following: 1. To legislate for public interest disclosure 2. To enrich the diversity of members’ career development 3. To aggravate the consequences of giving bribes 4. To improve the working procedures of the department of civil service ethics Keywords: the Process of Whistle-blowing, Administrative Ethics, Business Ethics, Whistleblower Protecting System