Increased Anonymous Reporting is a Signal Compliance Leaders Cannot Ignore

Against a backdrop of job insecurity, general instability and fear of retaliation, increased anonymous reporting will continue, Gregory Keating of Littler predicts. That is unless corporate leaders and compliance professionals make meaningful strides in their programs. 

A trend has emerged that should cause tremors throughout the compliance community. Recent benchmarking and survey data indicate that anonymous reporting on whistleblower hotlines has increased or remained elevated in recent years, reversing an earlier trend toward named reporting. 

NAVEX Global, which canvassed more than 2 million reports across over 4,000 organizations, reported in its 2025 benchmark report that about 52% of reports in the US were made anonymously. In a 2026 report, Ethico found a 5% drop in the number of self-identified reporters from the previous year, the largest single-year reversal in its dataset.

Seasoned compliance professionals should recognize that this is a dangerous development. While the availability of anonymous reporting is a widespread and even required feature of reporting policies and procedures, a trend toward an increased incidence of anonymous rather than named reporting introduces challenges to an organization’s efforts to identify and remedy misconduct. Complaints by anonymous reporters are significantly more challenging to investigate and often suffer from significantly lower substantiation rates. The point is not to close the door to anonymous reporting but rather to create a workplace culture in which employees with concerns feel comfortable and even welcome to come forward, knowing they will be met with serious interest and steadfast protection from retaliation.

Those familiar with organizational risk understand that the efficacy of an organization’s compliance program can be seen in the overall level and quality of reporting. On one end of the spectrum is crickets — little to no reports or communications emanating from employees up to the organization. On the other end is a steady volume of reporting where individuals come forward in person. In the middle lies continued reporting from those in the organization but in a manner whereby the reporters are more inclined to choose anonymity. 

What reporting reveals about workplace culture

A healthy organization should experience a steady volume of compliance reports with reporters willing to identify themselves as they come forward. Professor Kyle Welch at George Washington University accessed and analyzed enormous amounts of data from hotline reporting channels. He concluded in 2020 that organizations with robust internal reporting have stronger cultures and better business outcomes, including higher profitability and return on assets, reduced litigation costs and fewer external reports to regulators.

By contrast, a culture of silence and rare reporting in the workplace is widely viewed as a leading indicator of compliance risk. A 2022 study published in MIT Sloan Management Review found that silence among workers and an unwillingness to report is directly tied to a feeling of being psychologically unsafe.

Until as recently as 2023, empirical data indicated a trend toward an increased willingness among employees to report suspected misconduct — likely the effect of increased focus on robust compliance programs and effective training. In a 2023 survey, ECI found that 72% of employees reported misconduct when they observed it. This reflected a then-record-high reporting rate.

But this upward trajectory has taken a sharp and troubling detour in the past three years. In what has been described as a trend toward “scared reporting,” an increasing number of employees have indicated that while they are generally inclined to report misconduct when they observe it, many of those same employees in fact chose not to do so when they witnessed it. Ethisphere’s 2024 ethical cultural report, based on 2 million responses from around the world, found that while 93% of employees said that they were inclined to report misconduct only 50% actually did so. 

What has caused this trend? Fear. Recent developments, including geopolitical uncertainty and the rapid rise of AI in the workplace and attendant concerns about job security, have increased anxiety and uncertainty in the workplace. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey of over 5,000 employees found that 52% are worried about the future of AI in the workplace and nearly a third believed AI will lead to fewer job opportunities for them in the future. In that environment, employees may be more likely to worry that raising concerns will mark them as difficult, disloyal or expendable.

Recent data reflects that fear of retaliation is a significant factor causing workers not to report. The most recent global surveys are all consistent in finding a noticeable increase in employees reporting that they fear retaliation should they speak up about workplace misconduct. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement and litigation statistics, retaliation is the No. 1 employment law claim in the US, making up roughly 48% of all claims.

What compliance professionals can do

The time is now for compliance professionals and the organizations they support to invest in concrete measures that will encourage a return to self-identified reporting and help avoid the potential spiral into a workplace culture of fear, silence and avoidance.

Four recommendations should be considered. 

First, research overwhelmingly demonstrates that the optimal starting point for any workplace concern is with an employee’s manager. Organizations must engage in training of managers so that they understand the pivotal role they play, are able to recognize nuanced concepts like what is “protected activity” and an “adverse action” and understand their obligation to communicate effectively with compliance, HR and legal. 

Second, organizations should consider holding managers accountable by measuring and ranking their commitment to compliance annually as a metric in their performance evaluations. 

Third, organizations should also audit and modify their investigation protocols to ensure that they have communication channels in place to respond to anonymous complaints. These can be challenging to investigate, but numerous vendors have established protocols that allow the organization to communicate back to anonymous reporters, who should be given the opportunity to remain anonymous yet cooperate by either providing more specific information or meeting face-to-face with an independent third-party investigator retained by the organization. 

Finally, organizations should endeavor to create a culture in which good-faith reporting is modeled, encouraged and met with a prompt and effective response. An organization must articulate and commit to a strong anti-retaliation policy, protecting and encouraging employees who come forward and continuously demonstrating that others can come forward without fear of retaliation.

Reprinted with permission from Corporate Compliance Insights. Click here to view the original article.