Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast which takes a deep dive into a compliance related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. In this episode, Matt Kelly and I go into the weeds on a recent academic paper by Stubben and Welch entitled, Are Secondhand Whistleblowing Reports More Credible. The authors reviewed data from the Navex Global data base of 2 million whistleblower reports from more than 1,000 companies from 2004 through 2017. Their findings have significant implications for CCO, GCs and Boards of Directors.
Some of the highlights include:
- Why is this the first international podcast of Compliance Into the Weeds?
- What are the key differences between a first-hand whistleblower report and a secondhand report?
- Why are over 47% more second-hand reports substantiated than first-hand reports?
- Why do first-hand reports tend to be about actions against a person and secondhand reports be about things which happened to the organization?
- What are the implications for triage/investigations of first and secondhand reports?
- Is confirmation bias at work here?
For additional reading see the following:
Matt’s blog post, Study-Second Hand Reports More Reliable, on Radical Compliance.
Stubben and Welch, Are Secondhand Internal Whistleblowing Reports Credible?