Looking beyond the numbers
For years, reporting volume has been one of the headline metrics organizations use to measure the success of their speak-up programme. For years, reporting volume has been one of the headline metrics organizations use to measure the success of their speak up programme. Higher reporting volumes were often seen as a sign of employee confidence and transparency, while lower volumes were sometimes interpreted as evidence of fewer issues or a healthy workplace culture.
Today’s reality is far more nuanced.
The latest NAVEX UK benchmark data shows that organizations generally have mature governance structures, established reporting channels and strong leadership commitment to speak up programmes. Yet the figures also raise important questions. UK organizations record just 0.69 Reports per 100 Employees, less than half the global average of 1.65. At the same time, 66% of UK reports are submitted anonymously (55% globally), and investigations take a median of 49 days, compared with 28 days globally.
These figures shouldn’t immediately be viewed as positive or negative. Instead, they raise a more important question.
What Separates a Mature Speak-Up Programme from an Effective One?
UK organisations report just 0.69 cases per 100 employees, compared to the global benchmark of 1.65, while 66% of reports are submitted anonymously. So, what do these figures really mean? Join …
Do employees genuinely trust the process when they need it most?
Reporting numbers only tell part of the story
Reporting volume is a useful benchmark, but only when viewed alongside other measures.
A low reporting rate does not automatically indicate a healthy culture. Equally, a high reporting rate does not necessarily mean an organization has more misconduct than its peers.
To understand whether a speak up programe is effective, organizations need to look at reporting data alongside employee survey results, grievance trends, regulatory findings and changes over time. Comparing reporting rates across different business units also helps identify areas where employees may feel less confident raising concerns.
Rather than focusing solely on how many reports are received, organizations should consider whether employees know when to speak up, understand how the process works and feel safe using it. Looking at multiple indicators provides a much clearer picture of programme health than reporting volume alone.
Trust is built through experience
Employees rarely decide to become whistleblowers overnight. Raising a concern often comes after careful consideration of the personal and professional risks involved. In fact, NAVEX benchmark data found a median delay of 13 days between an incident occurring and it being reported in Europe, highlighting that employees often take time to weigh the potential consequences before speaking up.
That means every interaction with a speak up programme shapes trust.
One of the strongest themes from the discussion was that organizations should measure the reporter experience, not just reporting numbers.
Useful questions include whether reporters felt listened to, understood the investigation process, believed they were treated fairly and received enough communication throughout the investigation. Employee engagement surveys can also help identify whether confidence in speaking up differs across business areas.
Another useful indicator is the quality of reports coming through the channel. If employees understand when to use the whistleblowing process rather than HR or grievance channels, it suggests communications and training are working effectively.
Anonymous reporting should not be seen as a failure
The benchmark report found that 66% of UK reports are submitted anonymously, a figure that is higher than many other regions.
While some employees choose anonymity because they fear retaliation, that is not always the reason. Others simply prefer to keep their identity private or believe reporting the concern is all that is required of them.
What matters more is whether investigators can continue engaging with anonymous reporters. Secure two-way communication allows investigators to ask to follow up questions, build trust and manage expectations without revealing the reporter’s identity.
Experience also shows that anonymous reports can be investigated just as effectively as named reports when communication begins early and continues throughout the investigation. However, the UK benchmark found that only 31% of anonymous reporters re-engage after submitting their initial report, highlighting an opportunity for organizations to encourage follow up and strengthen investigations through ongoing two-way communication.
Preventing retaliation starts before it happens
any speak up policies make it clear that retaliation will not be tolerated. However, mature programmes go a step further by putting practical measures in place to prevent retaliation before it occurs. This starts by identifying potential risks at the outset of an investigation, monitoring for signs of retaliation throughout the process and continuing to assess those risks after the investigation has concluded.
This starts during case triage by identifying potential warning signs. Could the reporter’s identity be easily inferred? Are there workplace dynamics that increase the risk of retaliation? Does the case require additional safeguards from the outset?
Assessing these risks early helps organizations develop appropriate protection strategies throughout the investigation. It also provides meaningful metrics that can be shared with leadership to demonstrate how retaliation risks are being actively managed.
Communication is just as important as speed
The UK median investigation time is 49 days, significantly longer than the global average of 28 days.
Long investigations inevitably create uncertainty for everyone involved. However, the discussion highlighted that silence is often more damaging than delay.
Reporters want reassurance that their concerns have been received, the investigation is progressing and is being handled independently.
Simple actions make a significant difference, including acknowledging reports quickly, agreeing on how often updates will be provided, explaining what information can and cannot be shared and setting realistic expectations from the beginning.
Even where organizations cannot disclose disciplinary outcomes, transparent communication helps reporters understand that their concerns have been taken seriously and investigated fairly.
Creating a culture where speaking up feels normal
A mature speak up programme extends far beyond a reporting hotline.
Employees should regularly encounter speak up messaging through codes of conduct, policies, compliance training and internal communications rather than only during annual training.
Leaders and line managers also have a significant influence on employee confidence. Employees are often guided more by how managers respond to concerns than by what policies say. Training managers to recognise retaliation, encourage psychological safety and respond constructively helps make speaking up feel like a normal part of organisational culture rather than a last resort.
Looking beyond the numbers
Whistleblowing programmes are an increasingly important part of organisational governance, supporting the reporting of issues ranging from fraud and financial crime to harassment and misconduct.
As expectations continue to evolve, organizations should be careful not to judge programme maturity by reporting volumes alone.
The strongest speak up programmes are built on trust. Employees need confidence that they will be heard, treated fairly and protected throughout the process. When that trust exists, reporting becomes a natural outcome of a healthy culture rather than a number organizations feel they need to increase.
Ultimately, reporting volume is only one piece of the picture. The real measure of success is whether employees believe the process will work when they need it most.
