Many organizations say they want people to speak up about misconduct, but employees – and others – decide whether to do that based on what they see happen in practice. If a reporter doesn’t trust an organization will take their allegation seriously, why bother? If they fear retaliation for raising a concern, why take the risk?
A poor reputation for supporting reporters can prevent an internal reporting program from ever flourishing, while a stellar reputation can pay huge dividends in encouraging a speak-up culture that turns employees and others into real-time eyes and ears for risk. This can be an invaluable contribution of the compliance program to the health of the organization.
In a positive finding, reporters are more engaged than ever before – the NAVEX 2026 Whistleblowing & Incident Management Benchmark Report showed a median global reporting volume of 1.65 Reports per 100 Employees, achieving another record high level of reporting following years of record reporting levels.
Where does your organization fall within this benchmark? Wherever you stand, how can you work to improve?
What a speak-up culture really means
A “speak-up culture” means more than providing channels for individuals to report misconduct. It is the combination of safety, clarity, responsiveness and accountability that makes employees and third parties believe speaking up is worth it.
While repeated statements of values starting at the very top of the organization are important, they are not alone in broadcasting an organization’s commitment to creating a space for people to speak up. Efficient Case Closure Times and consistent Report Outcomes are examples of concrete programmatic metrics to measure how seriously the organization is taking allegations of misconduct. When employed together, messaging and metrics represent measurable efforts to promote a speak-up culture.
Why trust is the real differentiator
Would-be reporters weigh confidentiality, retaliation risk, fairness, response speed and visible follow-through when deciding whether to raise their concerns internally. When there is a high level of trust in the company and program, reporters are more likely to weigh these elements positively and to make a report.
Compliance leader survey data from the NAVEX 2026 State of Risk & Compliance Report provides some signals that should raise eyebrows. More than half (51%) of respondents selected “employees fear negative career consequences” as a challenge affecting speak-up culture in their organization, and only 55% said their organization has clear non-retaliation policies. Where employees lack reassurance that they can speak up without fear, they are less likely to raise concerns through the internal reporting system.
Consider these simple “trust tests” to help assess if your program is doing enough to encourage a speak-up culture:
- Do we have a clear non-retaliation policy in place?
- Are senior leaders – and other leaders at all levels – reinforcing the value of speaking up?
- Do our program metrics (such as Case Closure Time Report Outcomes) meet or exceed global averages?
Prospective reporters are more likely to become actual reporters when they trust the organization takes misconduct seriously. For compliance and risk managers, this healthy willingness for employees and others to speak up provides a real-time source of information about the threats facing the organization.
Not surprisingly, a larger proportion of respondents who ranked their compliance programs at the highest end of the maturity spectrum (59%) said their leadership broadcasts regular messaging reinforcing the importance of speaking up. Only 37% of those at the lowest end of the scale said the same. When it comes to how compliance leaders view the strength of their programs, those trust-building measures matter – and employees are watching.
The barriers that make employees stay quiet
Fear of retaliation, uncertainty about what qualifies as reportable, lack of confidence in management response and concern that nothing will change are all factors that negatively impact a speak-up culture.
When it comes to management response, while 70% of senior leaders were said to encourage compliance and ethical behavior in our recent survey, only 55% were seen as modeling that behavior.
Further, only half (50%) were seen as persisting in a commitment to ethics in the face of competing priorities. Employees sense when leadership is not embodying the behaviors they evangelize, which can diminish trust that leaders will respond appropriately in the face of misconduct.
Barriers to employee reporting are surmountable – starting with the tone from the top, and following a set of established best practices.
Make reporting channels visible, credible and easy to use.
While every workplace will differ in terms of preferences, reporters use a variety of channels to allege misconduct. This includes traditional phone hotline reporting, web-based reporting and “other”-type reporting (typically in-person reports, often made to a supervisor).
It’s important for organizations to offer a variety of these channels, as well as to advertise their availability, train on their use and, importantly, track usage metrics. Data from the 2026 Hotline & Incident Management Benchmark Report shows use patterns evolving over time toward a greater share of reports received via Web – hitting 33.8% in 2025. Programs should be prepared to receive reports via this channel, yet should also be mindful to track other intake methods. Those that track “Other” reports have over twice the median Reports per 100 Employees (2.36) than those who do not (1.06).
Train managers to respond well in the moment
Only 43% of respondents to our recent survey said managers receive mandatory training to promote a strong speak-up culture. This represents a significant gap – if managers don’t know how to respond in the moment, reports may fall through the cracks.
Managers are often the first test of whether a reporting culture is “safe,” and their behavior can have a big impact on the trust in an internal reporting program. Managers should receive training on receiving concerns, anti-retaliation, appropriate escalation and “closing the loop” respectfully.
Show follow-through after a report is made
A speak-up culture is built in part based on providing a thorough and consistent response to allegations of misconduct.
Organizations should aspire to appropriately expedient case closure times across different categories of allegations. This helps demonstrate that resources are being used for investigations, and is a clear metric to track the efficacy of a program.
Report outcomes are also key – if report outcomes, such as employee separation, are well above or below comparative medians, this might signal a concern with the way the organization is acting in response to substantiated reports. Inconsistent outcomes can also risk undermining trust in the program – even difficult outcomes can build trust when the process is fair and visible.
Communication with reporters, when possible, can also be powerful. The median global Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous Reports reached a five-year high in 2025, yet at 31%, we would hope to see this rate climb as organizations make anonymous reporters aware of the potential for anonymous communications and lean into opportunities to do so.
Treat retaliation prevention as a core control
Retaliation represents a relatively small share in the mix of misconduct reported globally, yet it has a disproportionate impact on trust in an internal reporting program. Organizations should elevate anti-retaliation language to an operating practice. Are programs monitoring for retaliation, escalating concerns, educating managers, analyzing patterns and providing board-level visibility where appropriate? Trust collapses quickly when retaliation concerns are perceived as tolerated or invisible.
Measure cultural signals, not just channel activity
Cultural signals are difficult to measure, but a healthy speak-up culture remains critical to the overall success of an internal reporting program.
Performance metrics can provide a signal to look a little closer at culture in a particular area. For example:
- If your Reports Per 100 Employees is trailing the global median, it may signal caution or a dearth of trust among reporters
- When anonymity is high, it may signal fear of retaliation
- Low substantiation rates may show a failure to adequately equip reporters to identify actual misconduct
In general, these metrics and others provide clues about when organizations should look more closely at culture.
What employees need to see next
It’s important to remember that employees talk to each other about their workplace dynamics, and trust grows when those conversations highlight examples of when concerns were handled fairly, leaders acted on patterns, and learning followed investigation. A well-functioning internal reporting program, messaged vigorously from the top levels of the organization down to frontline management, helps to build that trust. In the end, when employees and others embrace “speaking up,” organizations have a clearer, real-time view of risk and cultural health.
Benchmark your speak-up culture
NAVEX provides a number of resources to help benchmark your speak-up culture, including our 2026 State of Risk & Compliance Report and Whistleblowing & Incident Management Benchmark Report. Visit here to learn more.
The 2026 State of Risk & Compliance
Discover what top-performing compliance teams do differently. Join NAVEX on June 10 for the 2026 State of Risk & Compliance webinar – benchmarking, board readiness, employee trust and practical AI …
