《NAVEX Global:2023年风险与合规热线及事件管理基准报告(英文版)(75页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《NAVEX Global:2023年风险与合规热线及事件管理基准报告(英文版)(75页).pdf(75页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、2023Risk&ComplianceHotline&Incident ManagementBenchmark Report1 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMContentsIntroduction 2How We Calculate Our Benchmark Metrics 3Executive Summary 4Key Findings 12 1.Report Volume 13 2.Report Intake Method 21 3.Report Benchmark
2、Categories&Issue Types 23 4.Anonymous vs.Named Reporting 33 5.Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous Reports 40 6.Substantiation Rate 42 7.Case Closure Time 50 8.Time Difference Between Incident&Report Date 60 9.Report Outcomes 63 10.Appendix 66About the Authors 72Prepared byCarrie PenmanChief Risk and Complia
3、nce Officer NAVEX2 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAn efficient and trusted mechanism by which employees can anonymously or confidentially report allegations of suspected or actual misconduct is the hallmark of a well-designed compliance program.1 Ongoing a
4、nalysis and benchmarking of reporting data helps organizations answer crucial questions about their risk and compliance program including:Do employees know about our reporting channels?Are our communications reaching the intended audience and having the desired effect?Does our culture support employ
5、ees who raise concerns?Are our investigations thorough and effective?Do we need more training on risk areas,reporting processes or fear of retaliation?Do we need to review or update our policies?Tracking internal data to help answer these questions is important.Getting a broader perspective on how y
6、our performance matches up to market and industry norms is invaluable.To help,NAVEX anonymizes the data collected through our reporting and incident management systems every year and creates this report to share with all organizations not just our customers.Because we have the worlds largest and mos
7、t comprehensive database of reports and outcomes,risk and compliance professionals trust our benchmarks to help guide decision making and better understand how their programs stack up.This 2023 report represents data collected from reports received in calendar year 2022.For each benchmark provided i
8、n this report youll find:A description of the benchmark Instructions on how to calculate the benchmark The 2022 combined data for all industries in the NAVEX database with prior year comparisons Key findings and recommendations for organizationsThis annual report is an important resource for organiz
9、ations committed to benchmarking and improving program effectiveness.1.Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.”U.S.Department of Justice,Criminal Division,June 2020,p6.https:/www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/downloadIntroductionNAVEX also offers custom benchmarking reports of thi
10、s data through GRC Insights The GRC Insights reports provide a closer cut of our data by industry,company size and more.Visit our website or reach out to an account executive to learn more about this service.3 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMHow We Calculat
11、e Our Benchmark MetricsFor statistical accuracy,our analysis includes only those organizations that received 10 or more reports in all of 2022.The resulting database includes 3,430 organizations that received a total of 1.52 million individual reports.To remove the impact of outliers that might skew
12、 the overall reporting data,we calculate each benchmark metric for each organization,then identify the median(midpoint)across the total population.The resulting value identified in charts throughout this report as the Median Reporting Value or MRV allows us to create a clearer picture of what is hap
13、pening in our customers organizations,as well as to provide organizations with benchmarking data that is not skewed by organization size.In some cases,we provide the Mean value as additional information.We also have some data presented using Frequencies(percentages of total).Keep in mind,frequencies
14、 have been rounded,and may not add up to exactly 100%.All data presented is clearly marked with the calculation methodology.A more detailed discussion of the calculation methodology,distributions,assumptions and implications of each is presented in the appendix to this report.There are no“right”outc
15、omes in benchmarking reporting data.By definition,a median or midpoint means that half the organizations are higher,and half are lower than the MRV.Where appropriate in this report,we provide what we consider to be an acceptable range of results to provide context for your own data.Falling within th
16、e range generally indicates an organization is on par with medians for the organizations within our database.Falling outside the normal range,in either direction,is a good prompt to take a closer look at whether there is an issue that needs more attention from the organization.New this year,in addit
17、ion to the full range provided for key metrics(the central 80%),we have provided additional information on the central 50%range of the distribution within the full ranges to better reflect the concentration of report data.Also new to this years report:Refined Benchmark Categories/Issue Types Additio
18、nal data points and ranges for some metrics Additional decimal places provided for some key metrics Additional data by organizational size Further exploration into more specific Issue Types Same-day case closures by Issue Type Refined calculation methodolgy for Substantiation RatesIMPORTANT NOTE:Thi
19、s year,the NAVEX data science team has completed a detailed review of all our calculation methodologies.In some cases,this has led to the refinement of some previously reported metrics.This will be most notable in metrics related to Substantiation Rate but also affects several others.Any metrics whe
20、re an update has been made to a prior year data point will be noted as“refined.”These refinements will be our baseline for all future reporting.4 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMExecutive SummaryIn contrast to a year of seemingly emboldened whistleblowing d
21、uring 2021s Great Resignation,2022 incident and reporting data suggest a more cautious workforce in a period of greater economic uncertainty.With higher levels of reporting,fewer named reports and a strong focus on workplace culture issues,a picture emerges where reporters may be less confident in t
22、heir external job prospects and more invested in the long-term dynamics of their current organizational cultures.Organizations that pivoted to temporary remote-and hybrid-work models during the pandemic are likely settling on long-term plans for their workplaces,giving employees more clarity on thei
23、r work locations.It is possible this helped inspire more reporters to speak up about workplace culture issues as their workplace dynamics became more consistent.It is also evident the personal stresses of the last few years are impacting the workplace and warrant attention.This 2023 Hotline&Incident
24、 Management Benchmark Report is a window into the signals risk and compliance leaders can watch while working to turn those inputs into positive cultural outcomes.It examines these trends and others for 1.52 million reports across the globe.It is a cultural temperature reading for 52 million employe
25、es and 3,430 organizations,and provides valuable insight to assess how individual programs are performing compared to their peers.We mapped nearly 22,000 Issue Types used by customers.This report reflects the results of a months-long NAVEX initiative involving our in-house team of data scientists an
26、d subject-matter experts.This team reviewed the mapping of nearly 22,000 Issue Types used by our customers,enhanced the analysis methodologies of our incident reporting data and developed new metrics that are included in this years report.The Issue Type mapping process led to reporting on 24 Issue T
27、ypes contained within our original six Benchmark Categories.We believe these results and this report represent the gold standard for data analytics in our industry and are proud to offer these insights to the risk and compliance community.5 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark
28、 ReportNAVEX.COMIn reviewing our 2022 data,we identified four major themes for consideration:Reporting at highest levels ever,but reporters are proceeding with more caution and,in some cases,reporting outside their organizations In 2022,we saw the highest median level of Reports per 100 Employees(1.
29、47)in the history of this report.And when looking at the distribution frequency of reporting,we found that 21%of organizations received five or more Reports per 100 Employees,representing the greatest share of the distribution.Further,organizations that track reports from all sources,not just the ph
30、one and web intake,have visibility into nearly double the volume of reports,making trend and issue spotting easier.This is positive for organizations.However,while report volume was higher,2022 also brought the return of a higher percentage of anonymous reports,indicating more caution and potentiall
31、y more concerns about retaliation on the part of reporters.While trending gradually downward over more than a decade,anonymous reporting levels dropped in 2021 to 50%as a seemingly emboldened workforce was more willing to put a name behind reports.That shift may have been isolated to 2021 because in
32、 2022,the share of anonymous to named reports was more consistent with historic levels and,at 56%,appreciably higher than the previous year.This comes amid the retreat of the Great Resignation era,and more concerns about the economic conditions.Specifically,organizations saw a median 72%of their web
33、-based intake reports as anonymous and 53%of their hotline-based intake as anonymous.While this report is focused on internal reporting,organizations cannot lose sight of the shifting landscape of external reporting.Whistleblowers have shown in recent years that they are more willing to take their c
34、oncerns outside the organization if the issue is not addressed in a timely and appropriate 16 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMway,as evidenced by the high levels of reporting to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower,as well as the growth of social media sites
35、 like Glassdoor.The SEC Office of the Whistleblower continues to report a record number of global tips as shown below.2 External reporting,whether it be to regulatory agencies or on social media postings,will continue to influence how organizations need to communicate about,and manage,their internal
36、 reporting system.2.Source:SEC Office of the Whistleblower,2022 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program,https:/www.sec.gov/whistleblower/reports-and-publications/annual-reports/2022-annual-report-congress-dodd-frankAddressing fear of retaliation head-on and regularly remain
37、s critical to prevent the loss of an opportunity to address a matter internally first.The frequency of retaliation reports,the enemy of a speak-up culture,increased from 0.78%in 2021 to 0.96%in 2022.Considered alongside the rebound in anonymous reporting rates,risk and compliance professionals shoul
38、d assess whether their organization is doing enough to ensure reporting parties trust the system without fear of retaliation.03,0006,0009,00012,00015,0002020200002212,32212,2106,9115,2125,2824,4844,2187 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark Repo
39、rtNAVEX.COMMore granular analysis of 24 Issue Types reveals workplace stresses as well as the impact of external priorities and eventsThis year,we have provided significant additional data points for 24 Issue Types contained within our original six Benchmark Categories.This deeper dive has revealed
40、some notable findings.As has been typical throughout the years,the median organization saw most of its reports,53.8%,in the major Benchmark Category of HR,Diversity&Workplace Respect in 2022,up from 50.0%in the prior year.However,when looking at the frequency of reporting across the more granular 24
41、 Issue Types,we can see more specifically how workplace stresses and pressures are appearing.In 2022,NAVEX separated out a new Issue Type,Workplace Civility,that previously was captured in Other HR.This Issue Type encompasses reports related to abusive or disrespectful behavior at work that are not
42、harassment or discrimination,such as bullying and abuse of power.This metric is important to watch as a measure of cultural health and potentially a measure of mental health.The frequency of reports that fall into the Workplace Civility category increased to 6.9%in 2022 versus the back-calculated 6.
43、4%in 2021.It was also the fourth most frequent Issue Type for reports overall.In addition,the data shows the frequency of Harassment,Discrimination,Retaliation,Workplace Civility and Substance Abuse reports in 2022 all increased.When also considering the highest-frequency issue was Health and Safety
44、 reports and this Issue Type includes concerns such as a threat of assault or violence we have a red flag for organizations.Internal reporting systems serve as an emotional lifeline in some cases.Noting that many compliance programs view human resource matters as“not compliance issues,”it may be tim
45、e to raise the profile of these matters within the compliance program and partner closely with Human Resources teams who are already well-aware of the increase in mental health issues facing their organizations.The impact of external priorities,events and interactions was evident with this more gran
46、ular review as well.The frequency of Bribery and Corruption reports increased in 2022,as did Product Quality and Safety.Conflicts of Interest reporting dropped significantly but is still in the top five.Data Privacy and Protection also made the top five,and we expect this to increase as consumers an
47、d regulators heighten their focus on data privacy.Issue Type analysis by Substantiation Rate is also a rich area for more specific review,and some areas stand out.The frequency of substantiation of Political Activity reports fell from 46%to 17%,which is interesting given 2022 was a mid-term election
48、 year.Workplace Civility held roughly steady at 45%.Substantiation Rates for issues categorized as Environment rose from 57%to 71%.28 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMIn 2022,the five Issue Types representing the highest frequency of substantiation were:Glob
49、al Trade:76%Imminent Threat to a Person or Property:75%Environment:71%Data Privacy and Protection:68%Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets:67%Health and Safety:65%Noting the frequency of Imminent Threat to a Person or Property case substantiation of 75%,these cases are obviously top priority.We also
50、observed that only 4%of these reports were anonymous.People still want to talk to a person when they have a concern,but they are more likely to experience a substantiated outcome when they write it down and submit their report via the webPhone intake not only remains a critical channel for all incid
51、ent management programs the share of reports taken by phone has grown.The median percentage of reports taken via phone rose from 31%in 2021 to 33%in 2022.This seems to contradict trends in general day-to-day communication that are more often electronic,i.e.,texting,and other instant messaging apps.R
52、elatedly,the volume of Other intake which includes intake channels such as walk-in reports has been declining.This is likely attributable to more remote work.A metric to watch,however,is the uptick in median web intake in 2022,where a typical organization sees half of its reports come in via the web
53、.This is significant for two reasons.First,web reports are more likely to be anonymous,which makes sense as there is no rapport building that occurs via the web as compared to speaking directly with a person.Rapport building often leads to a named report.A typical organization saw 72%anonymity in th
54、eir web intake in 2022,compared to 53%for their hotline.Second,and most notable here,web reports are more likely to be substantiated than phone reports,and this has been consistent over the last three years.In 2022,the median Substantiation Rate for web reports was 39%compared to 33%for phone.Perhap
55、s the key takeaways are people who have a concern,and most often are upset or angry,prefer to share this directly with a person.But taking the time to thoughtfully write down their experiences or observations provides a more actionable report regardless of whether the reporter is anonymous.(This is
56、another reminder of the value of accepting anonymous reports.)A tyical organization saw 72%anonymity in their web intake in 2022,compared to 53%for their hotline.39 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMSize matters smaller organizations have different intake and
57、 outcome trends than their bigger counterparts;mid-size companies are experiencing some challengesWith significant new data this year provided by organizational size,we can demonstrate what compliance officers have always known and regulators acknowledge every company is different,and every program
58、is different.And processes that are effective for a large organization may not be as effective for a smaller one.At 2.99 Reports per 100 Employees,the smallest organizations those with fewer than 2,500 employees had,by far,the greatest reporting volume across the size spectrum in 2022.This compares
59、to 1.37 Reports per 100 Employees for organizations with between 50,000 and 99,999 employees,the next-largest-volume size cohort in 2022.Organizations with over 100,000 employees experienced a significant reporting increase over 2021,but still only had 1.20 Reports per 100 Employees.This is likely a
60、ttributable to larger organizations having more designated local resources capturing a higher percentage of reports directly.Organizations with fewer than 10,000 employees saw relatively higher rates of anonymous reporting than the larger organizations in our database in 2022.The greatest rates were
61、 in the 2,500-to-5,999 range,at 60%anonymity.The scale tips toward named reporting for the largest of organizations,with those with 50,000 or more employees seeing 45%to 48%anonymity.The higher anonymity rates here did not seem to impact Substantiation Rates,once again highlighting the value of anon
62、ymous reports.4Takeaways by organization sizeSmall organizations:Substantiation Rates were highest for the smallest organizations(even with high anonymity),with those under 2,500 employees registering a 47%Substantiation Rate.No other organizational size cohort registered greater than 42%substantiat
63、ion.It should be noted that this finding comes amid an important distinction for smaller organizations even a single substantiated report can have a disproportionately significant impact.However,considered alongside the fact that smaller organizations are seeing the largest Report Volume per 100 Emp
64、loyees,a clear picture emerges of the value of,and need for,a formal and anonymous reporting channel in smaller organizations.Large organizations:Because larger organizations receive less than half the Reports per 100 Employees of small organizations,they are more likely to be capturing and managing
65、 reports locally in addition to their formal anonymous reporting system.These organizations should consider ways to better capture reports from all sources to ensure they are able to identify trends and risk areas.Large organizations likely have more resources to investigate reported issues as they
66、have the shortest median Case Closure Time of 19 days.Mid-size organizations:Mid-mid/large size organizations(2,500-50,000 employees)seem to be the most challenged as reflected in the data.They receive the fewest reports,all under 1.0 Reports per 100 Employees.They have among the highest anonymous r
67、eporting levels and longest Case Closure Times.They track along the median for Substantiation Rates.Resource constraints may be most at play in these organizations both in communications and messaging as well as in case investigation.10 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark Rep
68、ortNAVEX.COM1234 Key actions to considerThere are many more findings and data points contained in the report that are not addressed in this summary,and we hope they will add additional insights for your specific program.These findings highlight several actions for compliance professionals to conside
69、r,including:Reassess the health and messaging of your organizations speak-up culture.With the uncertainty of the current economic environment,reporters may be less confident to speak up.Consider if a change in messaging and more training on retaliation are needed to address the dynamics of a workpla
70、ce that may have changed significantly in recent years.Continue to monitor,and act on,workplace civility issues.As in last years report,these concerns are critically important to the health of a workplace culture and appear to be growing in prominence for reporting parties.Consider these in the cont
71、ext of organizational pressures to perform.Support and track reports from the variety of intake channels available to meet the needs of your current workforce.All reporting channels have value,and it is interesting to see the telephony channel on the rise.The complex working environments of todays e
72、conomy suggest it is critical to provide channels that meet reporters where they are,be that in-person,remote or some mix.Recognize that anonymous reports are more valuable than many have recognized,particularly in small organizations.At the same time,encourage web reporting that allows a reporter t
73、o take the time to consider and provide more detailed accounts to improve substantiation rates of anonymous reports.3,430Organizations1.52 MILLIONReports52 MILLIONEmployeesA SNAPSHOT OF OUR DATABASETOP 6 INDUSTRIES90%10%ALLEGATIONSINQUIRIES NAVEX customers generate the worlds largest database of rep
74、ortsNAVEXs data collection captures all intake methodsReport distribution by employee count(2022)Reports are any unique contact,including both questions and claims1.1%1.5%6.8%76.0%1.2%5.3%8.0%34%29%37%HOTLINEWEBOTHERFinance and InsuranceHealthcare and Social AssistanceRetail TradeTransportation and
75、WarehousingTransportation Equipment Manufacturing Food Services and Drinking Places0-2,4992,500-5,9996,000-9,99910,000-49,99950,000-99,999100,000+8%4%8%30%19%31%2023Key Findings13 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM1Report VolumeNAVEX methodology update NAVEX
76、refined its analysis to include an additional decimal place to better differentiate year-over-year reporting.Central 50%range of the distributions were included as an additional refinement to this metric within the overall range graph to better reflect the concentration of report volumes.The smaller
77、 bars collocated within the graphs show the range of Report Volume per 100 Employees represented by the central 50%.The full bar represents the central 80%of all organizations.The Report Volume per 100 Employees benchmarking metric allows organizations of all sizes to compare total unique contacts a
78、cross all reporting channels(web,hotline,open door,email and more).It is key for organizations to have accurate employee counts when assessing this metric.Additionally,any large changes in staffing levels over the course of a period should be considered.How to calculate:Find the number that reflects
79、 all the reports gathered by all reporting channels,divide that number by the number of employees in the organization and then multiply it by 100.For this metric to accurately compare to the calculation weve provided,organizations should not exclude any reports,regardless of intake method,issue type
80、,substantiation or category.Report Volume Reports per 100 Employees Median Report Value(MRV)Median Reporting Value(MRV)and Ranges12.711.310.70.30.2 0.570.533.483.450.634.000.21.301.261.470220212022RangeMedianCentral 50%RangeReports per 100 EmployeesReport Volume Reports per 100
81、 EmployeesReport Volume rebounded,reaching highest levels ever14 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMReport Volume(continued)Report Volume Reports per 100 Employees Mean Values1FINDINGS:With the inclusion of the additional decimal place in the Report Volume per
82、 100 Employees,we note that 2021 actually reflected a further decline from 2020 in reporting during the pandemic,which makes the increase in report volume in 2022 even more notable.The increased median report volume of 1.47 per 100 employees in 2022 reflects a rebound from a pandemic-related dip,and
83、 even exceeds levels that had stabilized in the years prior to COVID-19.Historically,median Report Volume per 100 Employees has been a slow-moving metric.Annual volumes crept upward in the 2010s,and in the years prior to the disruption of the pandemic,stabilized at 1.4 Reports per 100 Employees for
84、several years.Regarding ranges,as noted in the updated methodology,we have now provided the central 50%of the ranges to better reflect the concentration of report volumes.The full range bar represents the central 80%.The high end of the central 50%range is 4.0 Reports per 100 Employees,while the hig
85、h end of the central 80%range reached the highest level in three years at 12.7 Reports per 100 Employees.Report Volume Reports per 100 Employees Mean ValuesSome organizations have requested that we provide the mean for Reports per 100 Employees.As the chart below shows,the mean value is considerably
86、 higher than the median and can vary significantly based on the treatment/trimming of outliers.As we note in the appendix discussion on statistical calculations,the mean is most affected by a skewed distribution due to the impact of outliers.NAVEX recommends the use of the median values or frequenci
87、es in benchmarking.2.842.873.282.132.482.2022120225%TRIMMED MEAN10%TRIMMED MEAN15 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAs shown in the chart below,report volumes plunged in the early part of 2020 as many parts of the world entered lockdown.
88、They recovered to roughly match pre-pandemic volumes in the later months of the year,leading to an overall 2021 median of 1.26 Reports per 100 Employees.Interestingly,the drop in volumes seen in the first part of 2020,while pronounced amid widespread COVID-19 lockdowns,appear to be part of a regular
89、 Report Volume Monthly Report Volume ComparisonPercentage of reports by month varies significantly,but follows similar patternsReport Volume(continued)1Report Volume Monthly Report Volume Comparison Frequency Distribution8.5%7.4%8.7%7.6%7.9%8.1%7.6%9.1%9.1%9.0%8.6%8.3%202120222020Percent of ReportsJ
90、FMAMJJASOND6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%pattern now that we have three years of data available by month.The first year NAVEX analyzed volume on a month-by-month basis was 2020,and the subsequent two years have shown a relative lull in activity from April to July.Unlike the first two years,however,2022 was t
91、he first year to show a December decline rather than an increase.16 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMThis chart shows the distribution of all organizations Report Volume per 100 Employees across a group of ranges.For example,11.9%of the organizations had a R
92、eport per 100 Employees measure between 0.25 and 0.49 in 2022.Report Volume-Frequency Distribution21%of organizations received 5 or more Reports per 100 EmployeesReport Volume(continued)1Report Volume-Reports per 100 Frequency Distribution21.3%18%3.9%4%6%5.9%11%7.4%10.4%20%18.2%13%12.9%11.9%12%6%8.1
93、%10%0%5%15%10%20%25%4.0-4.993.0 3.99 2.0 2.991.5 1.991.0 1.490.5 0.990.25 0.49 0.0 0.24 202120225.0 or moreFrequency of Reports per 100 Employees17 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMThe share of organizations in a given range of Reports per 100 Employees held
94、 generally steady year-over-year,with the largest changes seen at the lowest and highest ends of the distribution.Organizations that received five or more Reports per 100 Employees represented a greater share of the distribution overall in 2022,increasing from 18%in 2021 to 21.3%in 2022.The share of
95、 those with the lowest level of Reports per 100 Employees decreased from 10%in 2021 to 7.4%in 2022.These are positive trends,showing a greater share of organizations are at the best end of this spectrum(receiving more reports)while a smaller share are receiving few reports.Research shows organizatio
96、ns with high adoption of their internal hotlines see fewer external whistleblower reports to regulatory agencies and other authorities.3 Further,consistent usage of internal hotlines leads to fewer material lawsuits brought against the company,and lower settlement costs if a lawsuit does occur.Final
97、ly,organizations receiving more reports have greater profitability and workforce productivity as measured by return on assets.Report Volume(continued)13 Stubben,Stephen and Welch,Kyle,Evidence on the Use and Efficacy of Internal Whistleblowing Systems(February 29,2020).Available at SSRN:https:/ /202
98、3 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMFINDINGS:Median Intake Method volumes rose for both organizations that only measure web and hotline intake,and organizations that measure other intake channels such as walk-ins.Data by Intake Method reflects the observed overall
99、increase in report volumes.For organizations only measuring web and hotline intake,volumes increased from 0.97 Reports per 100 Employees to 1.08 Reports per 100 Employees.For organizations measuring all sources,volumes increased from 1.74 reports to 2.08 Reports per 100 Employees.The report Intake M
100、ethod compares the level of reporting received by two groups of organizations.The first group only tracks reports received from their hotline and web reporting channels.The second group tracks reports gathered by other means (open-door conversations,email,mail,mobile and more)in their incident manag
101、ement system in addition to the reports received via their hotline and web reporting channels.How to calculate:First determine which group best reflects your organizations approach.Then conduct the Reports per 100 Employees calculation as described previously.NAVEX methodology update NAVEX refined i
102、ts analysis to include an additional decimal place to better differentiate year-over-year reporting.Central 50%distributions were included as an additional refinement to this metric within the overall range graph to better reflect the concentration of report volumes.The smaller bars collocated withi
103、n the graphs show the range of Report Volume per 100 Employees represented by that central 50%group.The full bar represents the central 80%of all organizations.In previous years,NAVEX has used both open and closed case sources to determine customer category.This year we have refined the methodology
104、to only use open cases,which has resulted in some refinements to prior year reporting.This will be our methodology moving forward.Report Volume Intake Method Organizations tracking reports from all sources record twice as many reports Report Volume(continued)1NOTE Regarding reports received via mobi
105、le intake:while some organizations have requested a breakout of reports received via mobile intake,we found that the process of anonymizing the data removes identifiers that would or could be used to flag“mobile”reports.Therefore,“mobile”reports reports made online through a mobile device are counte
106、d with the“web”Intake Method.19 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAs noted in the methodology updates,this is the first year NAVEX has included a central 50%distribution.Retroactive analysis shows the central 50%range holding relatively steady for those measu
107、ring only web and hotline in recent years,but the central 50%range grew in the direction of more reports for organizations measuring all sources.Report Volume Intake Method:Organizations Tracking Web&Hotline OnlyMedian Reporting Value(MRV)and Range,RefinedReport Volume Intake Method:Organizations Tr
108、acking All SourcesMedian Reporting Value(MRV)and Range,Refined0.930.971.080220212022RangeMedianCentral 50%Range7.37.26.40.20.20.22.30.42.20.42.40.5Reports per 100 Employees1.681.742.0804286020202021202218.414.316.40.40.40.3 0.74.50.74.80.95.8RangeMedianCentral 50%RangeReports p
109、er 100 EmployeesReport Volume(continued)120 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMNAVEX methodology update Report Volume per 100 Employees calculated by organizational employee count has been refined to reflect additional ranges of employee counts.Report Volume R
110、eports per 100 Employees by Employee CountSmaller organizations receive the most Reports per 100 Employees Report Volume(continued)1Reports per 100 Employees202120222020Employee Count0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50100,000+50,000-99,99910,000-49,9996,000-9,9992,500-5,9990-2,4991.200.960.691.371.000.
111、780.980.860.750.850.800.730.910.830.952.992.923.00Report Volume Reports per 100 Employees by Employee CountMedian Reporting Value(MRV)FINDINGS:When looking at reporting by employee count,the median Reports per 100 Employees rose across all cohorts,most substantially for the 50,000-99,999-employee-co
112、unt group.The cohort of 100,000 or more employees also saw a substantial increase.21 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM2Report Intake MethodIt is important to offer a variety of intake channels to employees and to track all reports received in a single,centra
113、lized database.This includes hotline,web intake and all other intake sources such as open-door conversations,letters to leadership,emails and walk-ins to the compliance office.Monitoring the methods employees choose for reporting can help determine which are preferred or easy to access,and which met
114、hods employees may not know are available to them.Employee choice will vary depending on the makeup of the workforce and their access to phones,computers or onsite human resources.How to Calculate:Group all non-hotline and non-web intake reports such as open-door,email,postal mail,fax and manager su
115、bmissions together as Other.Then total up the number of reports received by each channel,hotline,web intake and other methods,and divide each by the total number of reports.FINDINGS:Two charts are provided for this metric.The first compares intake by frequency,the second compares intake by median.Pe
116、rcent of Reports30%31%34%49%26%29%29%40%37%44%0%10%20%30%40%50%20202022212022Report Intake Method Frequency ComparisonFrequency DistributionHotline(phone use)rises,other methods decline22 /2022 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark Report NAVEX.COMPhone intake n
117、ot only remains a critical channel for all incident management programs the share of reports taken by phone has grown.It is possible the stabilization of a work-from-home arrangement for some job roles creates an environment that enables phone intake for certain workers.Relatedly,other,which include
118、s channels such as walk-in reports,has declined.This could also be attributable to the stabilization of some remote work.A metric to watch is the uptick in web intake in median in 2022,indicating a typical organization sees half of its reports come in over the web.Report Intake Method(continued)2Per
119、cent of Reports31%31%33%48%47%50%22%21%24%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%20202022212022Report Intake Method Median ComparisonMedian Reporting Value(MRV)23 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM3Report Benchmark Categories&Issue TypesReceiving reports i
120、n a variety of categories can be an indication of program effectiveness.Tracking the reports collected for each of the Benchmark Categories or Issue Types can reveal program gaps and successes.Receiving below-typical volumes could speak to a need for more training or awareness,while receiving above-
121、typical volumes could indicate an area where there is risk to be addressed.We organize our database into five primary categories,as well as an Other category,by grouping together like Issue Types.These are the six Benchmark Categories.This allows us to compare all the reports collected,even when ind
122、ividual organizations are utilizing unique Issue Types or naming conventions.We further break down the Benchmark Categories into 24 Issue Types.Last year we published a first look at data for 24 Issue Types.At NAVEX,we believe the standardization of Issue Types across the ethics and compliance indus
123、try is necessary for effective benchmarking.It is more meaningful to understand,and report on,the true nature of issues impacting an organization when Benchmark Categories and Issue Types are more standardized.The appendix to this report provides a list of the Benchmark Categories as well as the 24
124、Issue Types.It also includes the definitions we use for each of the 24 Issue Types.We hope all organizations will consider adopting a standardized taxonomy going forward to aid consistency in benchmark data.Environment,Health and Safety(EHS)-related reports continue to recede from COVID-19 highs,and
125、 Human Resources(HR)reports are back on the rise24 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMThe Benchmark Categories are defined below:Accounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting are reports that pertain to these functions in an organization(e.g.,financial misconduct,in
126、ternal controls,audit).Business Integrity are reports that show how an organization interacts with third parties,data,legislation,patients or customers.Issue Types include conflicts of interest,vendor/customer issues,fraud/waste/abuse,HIPAA,data protection,global trade,human rights,free and fair com
127、petition,product quality/safety,and insider trading.Human Resources(HR),Diversity&Workplace Respect are reports that involve internal parties and often relate to employee relations or misconduct.Issue Types include discrimination,harassment,workplace civility,retaliation,compensation and benefits,su
128、bstance abuse,and general or other HR.Environment,Health&Safety(EHS)are reports that involve an element of safety typically pertaining to employees,environmental regulations or workplace health(e.g.,EPA compliance,assault or threat of an assault,workplace safety,OSHA).Misuse or Misappropriation of A
129、ssets are reports that specify company assets or time is being wasted or used in a manner other than what is expected(e.g.,employee theft,inaccurate expense reporting,time clock abuse).Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)3Other is a category for hard-to-classify reports,that might rang
130、e from complaints about too few snacks in the breakroom to feral cats prowling the corporate parking lot(those are actual reports organizations have received over the years).Historically these Other reports were included with HR,Diversity and Workplace Respect issues,as these issues were typically a
131、ddressed by Human Resources.Starting in 2021,we report these separately to be more precise in our analysis and keep the HR category as truly HR-related issues.How to Calculate:First,ensure each report is sorted into one of the six Benchmark Categories or the 24 Issue Types as defined in the appendix
132、.Then,divide the number of reports in each of the six categories by the total number of reports.Please note,when we are using the median for each category,the total wont necessarily add up to 100%.25 /2022 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark Report NAVEX.COMNAVEX methodology update
133、 In calculations involving Benchmark Category or Issue Type frequency,we categorize the reports and find the frequency among all reports without grouping by organization.Frequency values should total 100%,or close to it,due to rounding.This year,NAVEX undertook an exhaustive audit of the categorizat
134、ion of each Issue Type which comprise the six Benchmark Categories.As a result of the extensive audit,findings related to reports of Harassment,Discrimination and Retaliation have been refined,including data reported in prior year reports.Based on a need to further refine the Human Resources-related
135、 reports,we eliminated the Issue Type called Industry-Specific Regulations used last year and created a new Issue Type,Workplace Civility.Industry-Specific Regulations is now part of the Other Business Integrity Issue Type.Issue Types are shown as part of their respective Benchmark Categories throug
136、hout this report.As part of the audit of the Issue Type mappings,flags for two healthcare-related terms were created as they comprise a significant portion of the Business Integrity Benchmark Category.Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)3FINDINGS:Looking at the median value of reports
137、per Benchmark Category,EHS reports comprised a smaller share of overall reports in 2022 compared to 2021.This is consistent with the previous NAVEX assessment that COVID-19-related workplace concerns were declining.However,safety concerns are still high as will be shown when reviewing the breakdown
138、of the 24 Issue Types.26 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMReport Benchmark Categories&Issue Types Benchmark Categories by Category,MedianMedian Reporting Value(MRV)Accounting,Auditing&Financial ReportingBusiness IntegrityHR,Diversity&Workplace RespectEnviron
139、ment,Health&SafetyMisuse or Misappropriation of Assets5.1%4.4%18.2%6.8%8.7%18.8%4.3%3.7%13.3%14.2%50.0%53.8%Other0%10%20%30%40%50%60%202222022220222Percent of ReportsReport Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)3Meanwhile,HR,Diversity&Workplace Respect reports i
140、ncreased in 2022.This comes as workplace dynamics shift amid return-to-office or other long-term plans for organizations.While the next chart references the median for each Benchmark Category,the following chart depicts the frequency of each Benchmark Category,which parallels trends observed across
141、the medians.27 /2022 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark Report NAVEX.COMReport Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)3Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types Reports by Benchmark Category,Frequency202120222.1%29.4%10.0%3.9%4.8%49.8%2.3%30.1%11.7%3.8%4.5%47.6%Business Integrit
142、yHR,Diversity&Workplace RespectAccounting,Auditing,&FinancialReportingMisuse or Misappropriation of AssetsEnvironment,Health&SafetyOtherPercent of All ReportsA complete analysis of all 24 Issue Types is provided in the following tables.(As noted,the appendix includes an explanation of how each Issue
143、 Type is defined.)This table shows the frequency for each Issue Type,indicating the volumes experienced by a typical organization.Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types Issue TypesIssue Types highlight ongoing health and safety concerns,and a red flag on workplace behaviors28 /2022 Risk&Compliance
144、Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark Report NAVEX.COMReport Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)3Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types Reports by Issue Type,FrequencyFrequency DistributionBenchmark CategoryIssue Type20212022Accounting,Auditing&Financial ReportingAccounting,Auditing and Fin
145、ancial Reporting2.28%2.12%Business IntegrityBribery and Corruption0.54%0.69%Confidential and Proprietary Information0.56%0.47%Conflicts of Interest10.11%7.87%Data Privacy and Protection5.37%4.90%Free and Fair Competition0.11%0.10%Global Trade0.14%0.13%Human Rights0.08%0.10%Insider Trading0.03%0.03%O
146、ther Business Integrity12.75%14.54%Political Activity0.02%0.02%Product Quality and Safety0.47%0.52%HR,Diversity&Workplace RespectCompensation and Benefits2.28%2.23%Discrimination7.39%7.91%Harassment3.64%4.39%Other Human Resources26.57%26.67%Retaliation0.78%0.96%Substance Abuse0.56%0.71%Workplace Civ
147、ility6.37%6.88%Environment,Health&SafetyEnvironment0.13%0.12%Health and Safety10.76%9.53%Imminent Threat to a Person or Property0.78%0.37%Misuse or Misappropriation of AssetsMisuse or Misappropriation of Assets3.82%3.94%OtherOther4.46%4.80%Total100%100%29 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Manag
148、ement Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMExcluding Issue Types defined as Other,the five Issue Types representing the greatest frequency across all reports in 2022 were:Health and Safety:9.53%Discrimination:7.91%Conflicts of Interest:7.87%Workplace Civility:6.88%Data Privacy and Protection:4.90%Although lower
149、 than the previous year,Health and Safety reports had the highest frequency.It is important to highlight here that this Issue Type includes concerns such as a threat of assault or violence(not including an imminent threat).It is notable that the frequency of Bribery and Corruption reports increased
150、in 2022,as did Product Quality and Safety.Conflicts of Interest reporting dropped significantly but is still in the top five.It is also interesting that Data Privacy and Protection made the top five we expect this to increase as consumers and regulators heighten their focus on data privacy.Workplace
151、 behavior red flagPerhaps the most concerning for organizations,however,is the increase in the frequency of cases attributable to workplace behavior issues and organizational stresses.The data shows the frequency of Harassment,Discrimination,Retaliation,Workplace Civility and Substance Abuse reports
152、 in 2022 all increased.When also considering the highest-frequency issue was Health and Safety reports and again,that this Issue Type includes concerns such as a threat of assault or violence we have a red flag for organizations.Separate from the data analytics,there is also a concerning increase in
153、 matters of workforce sentiment and mental health found in keyword searches of our databases.These include terms such as anxiety,depression,exhaustion,mental health,pressure,quiet quitting and bullying cases.Internal reporting systems serve as an emotional lifeline in some cases.Noting that many com
154、pliance programs view human resource matters as“not compliance issues,”it may be time to raise the profile of these types of matters within the compliance program and partner closely with Human Resources teams who are already well-aware of the increase in mental health issues facing their organizati
155、ons.Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)3It is notable that the frequency of Bribery and Corruption reports increased in 2022,as did Product Quality and Safety.30 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMHealthcare flagsAs part of the audit of the Issu
156、e Type mappings,flags for two healthcare-related terms were created because of the volume of these issues in our data:Patient Quality of Care Healthcare Fraud,Waste and AbuseThese are exclusively within the Business Integrity category and showed that of all Business Integrity cases opened in 2022,11
157、.8%were related to Patient Quality of Care and 4.6%to healthcare fraud,waste and abuse.Issue Type mediansWhile the previous table represents frequency,the following chart presents the median of each of the 24 Issue Types.Some variation is evident when compared to frequency values but many of the tre
158、nds are the same.Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)331 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMReport Benchmark Categories&Issue Types Reports by Issue Type,Median Median Reporting Value(MRV),Arranged by Issue Category20212022Substance AbuseRetaliat
159、ionOther Human ResourcesHarassmentDiscriminationCompensation and BenefitsProduct Quality and SafetyPolitical ActivityOther Business IntegrityInsider TradingHuman RightsGlobal TradeFree and Fair CompetitionData Privacy and ProtectionConflicts of InterestConfidential and Proprietary InformationBribery
160、 and CorruptionWorkplace CivilityEnvironmentHealth and SafetyImminent Threat to a Person or PropertyMisuse or Misappropriationof AssetsOtherAccounting,Auditing and Financial Reporting13.20%3.70%3.87%1.45%1.28%6.70%0.89%1.08%1.96%2.03%2.53%2.43%6.87%6.67%12.10%12.10%4.96%4.56%1.69%1.74%0.71%0.42%10.6
161、0%11.00%0.57%0.74%1.41%1.40%0.78%0.54%1.08%1.43%3.72%3.97%4.76%5.30%1.75%2.02%2.33%2.62%22.70%21.70%17.39%15.80%8.20%14.27%4.46%5.13%ACCOUNTING,AUDITING&FINANCIAL REPORTINGBUSINESS INTEGRITYHR,DIVERSITY&WORKPLACE RESPECTENVIRONMENT,HEALTH&SAFETYMISUSE OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF ASSETSOTHER0%5%10%15%20%2
162、5%Report Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)332 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMThis metric categorizes reports made by employees as either an allegation or an inquiry.Both types of reports provide valuable insight.Allegations are important points o
163、f concern or incidents employees have trusted their organization to investigate.Inquiries are questions,requests for guidance,etc.and are not any less important.Inquiries highlight key areas where more training may be needed,or policies that may need to be refreshed.How to Calculate:Categorize each
164、of your reports as either an inquiry or an allegation.To find your percent of inquiries,divide the number of inquiries by the total number of reports received in the period.Repeat this process for your allegations.Ninety percent of reports were allegations in 2022,the same as the record high seen in
165、 2021.Only 10%of reports were inquiries well under half of the rates of inquiries seen a decade ago.Benchmark Categories&Issue Types Allegations vs.Inquiries Inquiries remain at all-time lowReport Benchmark Categories&Issue Types(continued)320022Allegation85%86%90%90%Inquiry15%14%10%10%Be
166、nchmark Categories&Issue Types Allegations vs.Inquiries Seeing these rates endure for a second year could be an early signal of a“new normal.”Inquiries are healthy for any program,so the decline should not be taken lightly.Some ways to interpret these findings could include:Employees are more confid
167、ent when reporting an actual violation,having greater ability to“do their own research”via a mobile device or remote work environment.Organizations are not doing enough to encourage their reporting system as a channel for inquiries.Compliance programs are simply not capturing inquiries in their syst
168、ems.These points all deserve consideration.Organizations should be doing everything they can to ensure reporters feel comfortable making inquiries this helps reporters to be properly informed on policy before alleging a violation and builds trust that an investigation will be taken seriously.33 /202
169、3 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM4Anonymous vs.Named ReportingA typical organization still has seen its share of reports that are anonymous generally tick downward since 2009.This is an encouraging trend,as more named reports generally suggest a greater trust in
170、 using the system without fear of retaliation.However,this is a metric to watch,and as the Anonymous vs.Named Reporting Percentile Comparison chart on the next page shows,the top of the central 50%range sits at 73%of reports coming in anonymouslyThe Anonymous vs.Named Reporting benchmarking metric s
171、hows the percentage of all reports submitted by reporters who chose to not disclose their identity.How to calculate:Divide the number of reports submitted by an anonymous reporter by the total number of anonymous and named reports received.FINDINGS:In 2021,more reporters were putting their names beh
172、ind their reports amid a strong job market and the so-called Great Resignation.That dip in anonymous reporting rebounded in 2022 to match more historic trends,with an MRV of 56%of reports being anonymous.Anonymous vs.Named Reporting Anonymous Reporting RateMedian Reporting Value(MRV)Percent of Repor
173、tsReporting Year65%64%62%62%60%61%59%58%56%57%59%58%50%56%20092000002140%45%50%55%60%65%70%Anonymous reporting rate rebounds,unfortunately34 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAnonymous vs.Named Reporting(continued)4
174、0%20%10%40%30%60%50%70%80%90%100%RangeMedianCentral 50%Range2021202256%50%84%14%35%73%83%3%22%70%Anonymous vs.Named Reporting-Anonymous Reporting Percentile Comparison35 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMThe following chart shows the share of reports a typica
175、l organization sees as anonymous across the major Benchmark Categories.Environment,Health&Safety received the highest percentage of anonymous reports.Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets showed the biggest increase.Anonymous vs.Named Reporting Anonymous Reporting by Benchmark CategoryEnvironment,Hea
176、lth&Safety reports are most likely to be anonymousAnonymous vs.Named Reporting(continued)4Anonymous vs.Named Reporting Anonymous Reporting by Benchmark CategoryMedian Reporting Value(MRV)2022202120%080%60%40%55%45%Other2022202120%080%60%40%64%38%Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets2022202120%080%60%
177、40%63%67%Environmental,Health&Safety2022202120%080%60%40%58%50%HR,Diversity&Workplace Respect2022202120%080%60%40%50%50%Accounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting2022202120%080%60%40%56%50%Business Integrity36 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMThe following tabl
178、e shows Anonymous vs.Named Reporting by Issue Type.Note:due to smaller report volumes for some Issue Types,we are using overall frequency by calculating the anonymity rate by Issue Type rather than using median values.In 2022,excluding Issue Types defined as Other,the five Issue Types representing t
179、he greatest frequency of anonymous reporting across all reports in 2022 were:Workplace Civility:44%Human Rights:42%Substance Abuse:42%Free and Fair Competition:41%Harassment:41%Notable here is the Issue Type that was almost never anonymous was Imminent Threat to a Person or Property at 4%.Anonymous
180、vs.Named Reporting-Anonymous Reporting by Issue TypeWorkplace behavior-related issues comprise three of the top five Issue Types to be anonymousAnonymous vs.Named Reporting(continued)437 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAnonymous vs.Named Reporting Anonymous
181、 Reporting by Issue Type Frequency DistributionIssue CategoryIssue Type20212022Accounting,Auditing&Financial ReportingAccounting,Auditing and Financial Reporting32%35%Business IntegrityBribery and Corruption36%24%Confidential and Proprietary Information20%24%Conflicts of Interest14%17%Data Privacy a
182、nd Protection8%11%Free and Fair Competition35%41%Global Trade13%12%Human Rights54%42%Insider Trading32%31%Other Business Integrity22%25%Political Activity30%21%Product Quality and Safety21%22%HR,Diversity&Workplace RespectCompensation and Benefits28%34%Discrimination36%40%Harassment40%41%Other Human
183、 Resources33%35%Retaliation31%34%Substance Abuse44%42%Workplace Civility46%44%Environment,Health&SafetyEnvironment21%23%Health and Safety38%34%Imminent Threat to a Person or Property2%4%Misuse or Misappropriation of AssetsMisuse or Misappropriation of Assets22%25%OtherOther35%41%Anonymous vs.Named R
184、eporting(continued)438 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMA typical organization saw 72%anonymity in their web intake in 2022,compared to 53%for their hotline.Other includes channels such as walk-in reports that are unsurprisingly minimal in this analysis.Anon
185、ymous vs.Named Reporting Anonymous Reporting by Intake MethodWeb reporting is far more likely to be anonymous than phone reportingAnonymous vs.Named Reporting(continued)4Anonymous vs.Named Reporting Anonymous Reporting by Intake MethodMedian Reporting Value(MRV)Percent of Reports0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
186、70%80%2020202221202255%49%53%49%75%71%72%2%1%4%39 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMWhen looking at anonymous reporting by employee count in 2022,we find that smaller organizations tend to register higher levels of anonymity.Organization
187、s with fewer than 10,000 employees experienced 57%to 60%anonymity levels.Organizations with more than 50,000 employees ranged from 45%to 48%anonymity.Anonymous vs.Named Reporting Data by Employee Count,Anonymous Reporting Rate Smaller organizations receive the most anonymous reportsAnonymous vs.Name
188、d Reporting(continued)40%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%100,000+50,000-99,99910,000-49,9996,000-9,9992,500-5,9990-2,49948%46%52%45%43%45%55%47%53%58%58%56%60%54%60%57%50%59%Percent of Reports202120222020Employee CountAnonymous vs.Named Reporting Data by Employee Count,Anonymous Reporting RateMedian Reporting
189、Value(MRV)40 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM5Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous ReportsHow to calculate:Find the number of reports where the anonymous reporter returned to the system at least once.Divide this number by the total number of anonymous reports receiv
190、ed.Please note,we do not count multiple follow-ups to the same report per metric.If an anonymous reporter returned to the system two times,that report would be included once.Training and communication about the organizations reporting system should always highlight the capabilities provided for anon
191、ymous reporters to follow up on their reports while maintaining their anonymity.The Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous Reports benchmarking metric indicates the percentage of reports that were submitted anonymously and subsequently followed-up on by the reporter.Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous ReportsMedian Re
192、porting Value(MRV)Percent of ReportsReporting Year30%31%33%30%30%32%20%36%33%30%27%200002220210%10%20%30%50%40%Trend passes troubling threshold41 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMFollow-Up Rate to Anonymous Reports(continued)
193、5FINDINGS:Now at 27%for a typical organization,the Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous Reports has dropped below a 30%threshold.The highest this metric has ever achieved was 36%in 2019 and it has been dropping steadily since then.As we said in last years report,organizations should continue to communicate t
194、he importance of anonymous report follow-up.Educating employees about the steps to effectively make and follow-up on a report is one significant way to affect this metric.NAVEX also hopes that the anonymous reporter email technology released in 2022,which allows follow-up via an anonymized email add
195、ress,will improve anonymous follow-up rates.Follow-Up Rate to Anonymous Reports Percentile Comparison0%20%10%40%30%60%50%70%80%90%100%0.632021202227%30%RangeMedianCentral 50%Range50%8%17%38%54%8%19%42%42 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM6Substantiation RateN
196、AVEX methodology update Organization overall Substantiation Rates of 0%and 100%are included in the distribution this year.This ensures that median calculations are more reflective of changes that may occur across the entire population previously considered to be outliers.This change impacts some pre
197、viously published metrics for prior years.The refinements to previous year calculations are noted throughout this section when updated.FINDINGS:The median overall Substantiation Rate continued a years-long trend of stability in 2022,matching the prior years(refined)value of 41%.This makes for 10 yea
198、rs where the median Substantiation Rate has remained between 40%and 44%a remarkable consistency given the historic disruptions such as a global pandemic seen during that period.The overall Substantiation Rate reflects the median rate of reports from both named and anonymous reporters that were close
199、d as substantiated or partially substantiated.A high Substantiation Rate reflects a well-informed employee base making high-quality reports,coupled with effective investigation processes.How to calculate:For overall Substantiation Rate:Divide the number of allegation reports that were closed as subs
200、tantiated or partially substantiated by the total number of allegation reports that were closed as substantiated/partially substantiated or unsubstantiated as defined below.1.Substantiated:Reports that when investigated prove to be correct or partially correct as reported2.Unsubstantiated:Reports th
201、at when investigated prove to be inaccurate as reported or reports that cannot be proven to be trueNote:Due to smaller reporting levels for some Issue Types,we are using overall frequency to calculate the Substantiation Rate by Issue Type rather than using median values.Overall Substantiation Rate r
202、emains stable year-over-year regardless of the pandemic43 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMSubstantiation Rate(continued)6Percent of ReportsReporting Year*Refined36%40%40%41%40%44%42%42%43%41%41%20000222021*25%30%35%40%45%50%
203、Substantiation Rate Overall Substantiation RateMedian Reporting Value(MRV),RefinedSubstantiation Rate Percentile Comparison41%41%0%20%10%40%30%60%50%70%80%90%100%RangeMedianCentral 50%Range0.632021202283%0%25%59%77%0%25%57%44 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.CO
204、MSubstantiation Rate Substantiation Rate of Allegations by Benchmark CategorySubstantiation Rate of accounting-related issues declining over the last two yearsThe Substantiation Rate of EHS reports has ticked up incrementally since 2020,which could reflect a decrease in uncertainty for reporting par
205、ties around COVID-19-related issues.EHS and Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets were the two most frequently substantiated allegations,while HR,Diversity&Workplace Respect,being the least likely to be substantiated(excluding Other),is still substantiated close to 40%of the time.Substantiation Rate(
206、continued)6Substantiation Rate Substantiation Rate of Allegations by Benchmark CategoryMedian Reporting Value(MRV),RefinedAccounting,Auditing&Financial ReportingBusiness IntegrityHR,Diversity&Workplace RespectEnvironmental,Health&SafteyMisuse or Misappropriation of AssetsOther2020(refined)48%44%37%4
207、2%50%2021(refined)44%43%38%46%50%33%202246%43%38%50%50%33%45 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMIssue Type analysis for substantiation is a rich area for different avenues of interpretation,and some areas stand out.The frequency of substantiation of Political
208、Activity reports fell from 46%to 17%,which is interesting to note given 2022 was a mid-term election year.Workplace Civility,a newly defined Issue Type,held roughly steady at 45%.Substantiation for issues categorized as Environment rose from 57%to 71%.Substantiation Rate Substantiation Rate by Issue
209、 TypeGlobal Trade and Imminent Threat issues have the highest frequency of substantiationIn 2022,the five Issue Types representing the highest frequency of substantiation were:Global Trade:76%Imminent Threat to a Person or Property:75%Environment:71%Data Privacy and Protection:68%Misuse or Misapprop
210、riation of Assets:67%Health and Safety 65%At first glance,observing that Global Trade has the highest frequency of substantiation may be surprising,but given the focus on sanctions against Russia,it makes sense.Also note the frequency of Imminent Threat case substantiation of 75%;these cases are obv
211、iously top priority.Substantiation Rate(continued)646 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMSubstantiation Rate(continued)6Substantiation Rate Substantiation Rate by Issue Type Frequency Distribution Issue CategoryIssue Type20212022Accounting,Auditing&Financial R
212、eportingAccounting,Auditing and Financial Reporting53%53%Business IntegrityBribery and Corruption41%40%Confidential and Proprietary Information45%57%Conflicts of Interest39%41%Data Privacy and Protection70%68%Free and Fair Competition54%40%Global Trade93%76%Human Rights42%43%Insider Trading45%61%Oth
213、er Business Integrity51%53%Political Activity46%17%Product Quality and Safety57%46%HR,Diversity&Workplace RespectCompensation and Benefits51%49%Discrimination31%31%Harassment43%43%Other Human Resources46%44%Retaliation15%17%Substance Abuse40%49%Workplace Civility43%45%Environment,Health&SafetyEnviro
214、nment57%71%Health and Safety65%65%Imminent Threat to a Person or Property82%75%Misuse or Misappropriation of AssetsMisuse or Misappropriation of Assets66%67%OtherOther41%44%47 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMSubstantiation Rate Substantiation Rate of Anonym
215、ous vs.Named ReportsNamed reports are always more likely to be substantiated,but one-third of anonymous reports are also foundedThe comparison of Substantiation Rates between anonymous and named reports shows the percentage of all reports submitted by reporters who chose to remain anonymous versus t
216、he percentage of all reports submitted by reporters who did disclose their identity.Substantiation Rate(continued)6Substantiation Rate Substantiation Rate of Anonymous vs.Named ReportsMedian Reporting Value(MRV),RefinedNAMEDANONYMOUS0%60%20202021202233%33%47%33%47%46%The rates of named and anonymous
217、 substantiation remained essentially flat for 2022 and the prior two years.Named reports have always been more likely to be substantiated.This is most likely attributed to the ability to follow-up directly with the reporter.This further highlights the need to train and encourage anonymous reporters
218、to follow-up after filing their report.48 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMSubstantiation Rate Substantiation Rate by Intake MethodReports received via Other intake method most likely to be substantiatedThe intake channel where the greatest number of overall
219、 reports are found to be substantiated is Other,which primarily includes walk-in reports.This is notable given data elsewhere in this report that shows Other to be declining slightly in its share of report intake overall.Further,web reports have been consistently substantiated at a higher rate than
220、phone reports.Substantiation Rate(continued)6Percent of Reports33%33%33%38%37%39%53%56%55%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%20202022212022Substantiation Rate Substantiation Rate by Intake Method Median Reporting Value(MRV),Refined49 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark
221、 ReportNAVEX.COMSubstantiation Rate Substantiation Rate by Employee CountSmaller organizations have the highest Substantiation RatesWe have calculated the Substantiation Rate by employee count as shown in the chart below.At 47%,the median Substantiation Rate for the smallest organizational cohort in
222、 this distribution 0-2,499 employees remains the highest among the other groups.This group also saw a significant jump in median Substantiation Rate in 2022.Other cohorts were mostly consistent.Substantiation Rate(continued)6Percent of Reports202120222020Employee Count40%40%40%41%42%42%40%39%41%40%4
223、2%40%42%40%42%47%43%47%0%10%20%30%40%50%100,000+50,000-99,99910,000-49,9996,000-9,9992,500-5,9990-2,499Substantiation Rate Substantiation Rate by Employee CountMedian Reporting Value(MRV)50 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM7Case Closure TimeNAVEX methodology
224、 update Previously,Case Closure Times were based only on organization mean values.This year,the“median reporting value(MRV)of organization mean”values and“median reporting value(MRV)of organization median”values are calculated for additional data comparisons.FINDINGS:For this years report,NAVEX exam
225、ined Case Closure Time through two methodologies:The“median of organization mean”values gives cases with longer closure times greater weight in the results.The“median of organization median”values diminishes the impact of those outliers.Through these two lenses,it is clear that long-lasting cases ha
226、ve a major impact.Median Case Closure Time,using each organizations case closure mean value,is impacted by those longer cases,showing a median reporting value of a 44-day Case Closure Time.Case Closure Time metrics measure the number of calendar(not business)days it takes an organization to close a
227、case.This benchmark is a key indicator of program effectiveness and impacts employees perception of the process.How to calculate:Calculate the number of days between the date a report is received and the date it is closed for each report.Then,calculate your mean Case Closure Time by dividing the tot
228、al sum of all Case Closure Times by the total number of cases closed.For median values,find the middle point of the data this is an important metric to explore,as it helps lessen the impact of outliers that can have a major impact on overall metrics.Outliers have big impact,median times hold steady5
229、1 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMCase Closure Time(continued)7Median Case Closure Time,using organization median values,shows a median reporting value of 24 days.Our previous reporting provided the median of the mean values.We have provided both here.Both
230、methodologies show roughly similar year-over-year trends by Benchmark Category,though closure times incorporating organization mean values are naturally higher.In each case,EHS reports are following a consistent march toward longer closure times.This could reflect a shift from a period when more of
231、those reports were COVID-19-related and followed a consistent process in investigation.24240402080600022RangeMedianCentral 50%Range955444204020806000212022RangeMedianCentral 50%Range0142483Case Closure Time-Organization Mean Values Pe
232、rcentile ComparisonCase Closure Time-Organization Median Values Percentile ComparisonMedian Case Closure Times Using Organization Mean ValuesIN DAYS2024244Median Case Closure Times Using Organization Median Values IN DAYS202242452 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Manageme
233、nt Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMTime to Close(in Days)Organization Median ValuesAccounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting353234Business Integrity272525HR,Diversity&Workplace Respect242426Environment,Health&Safety162022Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets292730Other1818Accounting,Auditing&Financial Reporti
234、ngBusiness IntegrityHR,Diversity&Workplace RespectEnvironment,Health&SafetyOtherMisuse or Misappropriation of AssetsOrganization Mean Values50454742430333837423029202020222222202020200204060Case Closure Time Comparison in Days by Benc
235、hmark CategoryMedian Reporting Value(MRV)Case Closure Time(continued)753 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMCase Closure Time Distribution of Cases Closed Same Day by Benchmark Category&Issue Type CategorySame-day closure data suggests a“closed”case for compli
236、ance may not be a“closed”case for the organizationOverall,18%of all cases are recorded as“closed”on the same day they are received.Of those,EHS represents the greatest share at 21.4%.This metric,new to 2022,reflects cases that the Compliance team may have referred to another department and marked as
237、“closed”before they are fully addressed.Some cases may indeed be closed on the same day,particularly those that are inquiries,yet Case Closure Time(continued)7Case Closure Time Distribution of Cases Closed Same Day by Benchmark Category Frequency DistributionBusiness IntegrityHR,Diversity&Workplace
238、RespectEnvironment,Health&SafetyMisuse or Misappropriation of AssetsOtherAccounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting05%10%15%20%25%30%11.5%19.5%16.9%21.4%13.3%20.5%Percent of 0 Days Casesthe weight in this distribution suggests an area where a“closed”case for Compliance may not be a“closed”case for the
239、organization.This metric highlights the importance of Compliance collaborating with other functions to ensure that all cases received are tracked to closure and that risk management data is being shared.It also presents some interesting contrasts for example,Accounting comprises only 2.1%of all case
240、s,but 11.5%of all same-day closures.54 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMCase Closure Time(continued)7Case Closure Time Case Closure Time by Report Issue TypeMEDIAN(IN DAYS)MEAN(IN DAYS)Issue CategoryIssue Type20222Accounting,Auditing&Financial Rep
241、ortingAccounting,Auditing and Financial Reporting36344748Business IntegrityBribery and Corruption61577173Confidential and Proprietary Information27273234Conflicts of Interest33304145Data Privacy and Protection21213030Free and Fair Competition44485456Global Trade3841 4846Human Rights26314537Insider T
242、rading24272724Other Business Integrity24243839Political Activity1415 2017Product Quality and Safety2618 2435HR,Diversity&Workplace RespectCompensation and Benefits17162424Discrimination32314343Harassment28293938Other Human Resources22213636Retaliation34324042Substance Abuse22212627Workplace Civility
243、28283940Environment,Health&SafetyEnvironment28182034Health and Safety21223332Imminent Threat to a Person or Property13162328Misuse or Misappropriation of AssetsMisuse or Misappropriation of Assets30283840OtherOther1918293255 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM
244、Case Closure Time(continued)7The impact of longer-duration cases is evident in the higher values seen in the mean calculations for Case Closure Time.The median measurement helps mitigate the impact of outliers,showing cases in most issue categories closed in 30 days or less.In 2022,the five Issue Ty
245、pes representing the highest median Case Closure Times were:Bribery and Corruption:57 days Free and Fair Competition:48 days Global Trade:41 days Accounting,Auditing and Financial Reporting:34 days Retaliation:32 daysEight Issue Types have a median Case Closure Time higher than 30 days.Some of these
246、 would likely be more complicated cases that typically take longer to investigate,especially if there is a need to engage outside counsel.One notable finding from this metric,however,is the length of time it takes to close a Workplace Civility case a median of 28 days.These are cases,such as bullyin
247、g or abuse of power,that would likely not rise to the level of a harassment,discrimination or retaliation case that may require more investigation time.Allowing a Workplace Civility issue to fester for a month or more could have damaging consequences to the culture of the work group involved.Case Cl
248、osure Time Distribution of Case Closure TimeMore than half of organizations have a median case closure time under 30 daysLooking at the“median of organization mean”values,the share of organizations with a mean of 100 or more days for Case Closure Time weighs heaviest in the distribution.This is not
249、surprising given the significant impact of outlier cases in this calculation method,where even one long-lasting case can significantly increase an organizations mean closure time.The“median of organization median”values which moderates the impact of those longer fringe cases shows the weight tilts m
250、ore heavily toward shorter Case Closure Time.Longer duration cases have a muted impact,with 59%of organizations having a median Case Closure Time under 30 days.With a Case Closure Time of 30 days or less considered an industry best practice,most reports are achieving this result.For others,there is
251、an opportunity to improve.56 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMCase Closure Time(continued)7202120222020Percent of Closed Cases11%9%10%1%1%2%1%2%2%2%2%3%7%7%8%5%5%5%10%10%10%3%3%4%18%17%15%19%21%22%25%20%20%Organization Median Values22%17%20%2%3%4%3%3%4%4%15%
252、14%6%5%9%9%9%7%7%9%13%12%12%5%6%6%13%14%13%14%12%5%5%Organization Mean Values0%5%10%15%20%25%90 to 10080 to 9070 to 8060 to 7050 to 6040 to 5030 to 4020 to 3010 to 2010100+0%5%10%15%20%25%Case Closure Time Distribution of Case Closure TimeFrequency Distribution57 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incide
253、nt Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMCase Closure Time Case Closure Time for Anonymous vs.Named ReportsCase Closure Time for anonymous reports ticking down and approaching the rate of named reportsLooking at overall trends across the mean-and median-focused assessments,the Case Closure Time for an
254、onymous reports ticked downward.Case Closure Time for named reports inched upward year-over-year.Pre-COVID-19,closure times for these categories were widening,but they now appear to be Case Closure Time(continued)7coming back together.Case Closure Time by named reports was faster during the pandemic
255、 which may be attributable to organizations receiving fewer cases in 2020 and 2021.Case Closure Time Case Closure Time for Anonymous vs.Named Reports Median Reporting Value(MRV)ANONYMOUSNAMED2022202120202019Time to Close(in Days)262327212822Organization Median Values43443Organization Mean
256、 Values08 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMCase Closure Time Case Closure Time by Employee CountLargest organizations had the shortest Case Closure TimeCase Closure Time is a critical metric for any organization.Organizations whose size
257、 puts them in the middle of this distribution tend to have longer case closure times than the smallest and Case Closure Time(continued)7Time to Close(In Days)Employee Count20200,000+50,000-99,99910,000-49,9996,000-9,9992,500-5,9990-2,4992262325262225252421212421Case
258、Closure Time Case Closure Time by Employee CountMedian Reporting Value(MRV);Organization Medianlargest.A special note for smaller organizations the impact from even a single case is disproportionately pronounced.59 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMOne again,
259、outliers that take an unusually long amount of time to close bring up case closure times for all organizations in the“organization mean value”calculation.It is encouraging to see“organization median value”calculations,which help moderate the Case Closure Time(continued)7impact of the most extreme va
260、riables,falling well under 30 days for all cohorts in the distribution.It is important to remember,though,that the median metric reflects that half of the organizations would be higher.Time to Close(in Days)2020203040506070100,000+50,000-99,99910,000-49,9996,000-9,9992,500-5,9990-2,499Emp
261、loyee Count404263424548494448464044454439404142Case Closure Time Case Closure Time by Employee CountMedian Reporting Value(MRV);Organization Means60 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM8Time Difference Between Incident&Report DateFINDINGS:Time Difference Betwee
262、n Incident and Report Date was unchanged between 2021 and 2022.This is a metric to watch.Ease and willingness to report an incident internally in a timely manner makes it less likely a reporter would turn instead to an external regulator or plaintiffs counsel.Introduced in 2019,this metric measures
263、the days between the date on which an alleged incident occurred and the date the report was made.This gap can help assess an organizations culture,particularly around fear of retaliation.How to calculate:Find the time difference between the alleged incident date and the date the report was made for
264、each report.Then,calculate your mean difference by dividing the total sum of all the differences between alleged incident dates and report dates divided by the total number of cases closed.For median values,find the middle point of the data this is an important metric to explore,as it helps lessen t
265、he impact of outliers that can have a major impact on overall metrics.NAVEX methodology update Previously,Time Difference Between Incident and Report Date was based only on organization mean values.This year,the“median reporting value(MRV)of organization mean”values and“median reporting value(MRV)of
266、 organization median”values are calculated for additional data comparisons.Time Difference Between Incident and Report Date Organization Mean ComparisonIN DAYS202120222323Time Difference Between Incident and Report Date shows no change year-over-yearTime Difference Between Incident and Report Date O
267、rganization Median Comparison IN DAYS202120227761 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMTime Difference Between Incident&Report Date(continued)8Time Difference Between Incident&Report Date Distribution of Time Gap Between Dates58.4%of organizations are seeing gap
268、s between the incident and the report of 9 days or fewerIt is clear looking at the distributions of cohorts in the chart on the next page for mean gap between incident and report dates that outliers have a major impact.When the“median of organization mean”values are used,those outliers incidents tha
269、t took an exceptionally long time to report cause a spike in the cohort of organizations averaging a 60-plus-day gap.The spike in the proportion of organizations in the 60-plus-day cohort is far less pronounced when median is used.By this analysis,a full 58.4%of organizations are seeing gaps of nine
270、 days or fewer.62 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMPercent of Closed Cases20212022Organization Mean ValuesOrganization Median Values16.8%13.7%11.6%12.5%10.2%10.8%8.2%8.9%5.8%6.9%5.6%6.8%7.8%8.1%7.0%5.5%4.5%5.1%22.6%21.7%35.8%33.7%22.0%24.7%10.0%10.3%6.7%7.6%
271、4.3%4.5%3.7%2.9%4.1%3.7%3.1%1.8%1.6%1.8%8.6%8.9%0%10%20%30%40%5594252930394049505960+0%10%20%30%40%Time Difference Between Incident&Report Date Distribution of Time Gap Between Dates Frequency DistributionTime Difference Between Incident&Report Date(continued)863 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hot
272、line&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COM9Report OutcomesTo analyze this metric,we organized Report Outcome results to include:discipline,no action,policy review/change,referral,separation,training and other.Also included in this section is the median Substantiation Rate by Outcome,which re
273、flects the percentage of reports in each outcome category that were substantiated.How to calculate:Sort substantiated reports into one of the seven outcomes.Divide the number of reports in each of the outcomes by the total number of reports.NAVEX methodology update Previously noted updates to the Su
274、bstantiation Rate calculation methodology carry through to impact Report Outcome calculations,as these calculations use Substantiation Rate.Report Outcome frequencies now uses only substantiated reports(rather than all closed reports)for metrics noted as refined.FINDINGS:Eighty-three percent of subs
275、tantiated reports resulted in some kind of action in 2022.Thirty-four percent of all substantiated reports resulted in discipline,and 14.4%resulted in separation.35.7%34.0%14.3%17.0%16.2%13.4%10.2%9.7%3.2%3.6%12.4%14.4%8.0%8.1%DisciplineNo ActionOtherPolicy ChangeReferred SeparationTraining0%10%20%3
276、0%40%20212022Report Outcomes Report Outcomes for Substantiated Reports Frequency Distribution,RefinedDisciplinary action or separation of employment taken in nearly half of substantiated reports64 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMReport Outcomes(continued)9R
277、eport Outcomes Percent of Each Outcome Resulting From a Substantiated ReportAll separations,and nearly all disciplinary actions,resulted from a substantiated reportHow to calculate:To identify the Substantiation Rate for each Report Outcome:sort reports into one of the seven outcomes.Then,within eac
278、h outcome,divide the number of reports that were closed as substantiated or partially substantiated by the total number of reports that were closed as substantiated,partially substantiated and unsubstantiated.NAVEX methodology update Previously noted updates to the Substantiation Rate calculation me
279、thodology carry through to impact Report Outcome calculations as these calculations use Substantiation Rate.This section will reflect refined metrics for 2021 as well.It is not surprising that all separations,and nearly all disciplinary actions,resulted from a substantiated report.In addition,policy
280、 changes and training were outcomes of substantiated reports approximately 60%of the time.97%96%100%100%4%8%56%56%57%61%61%50%67%57%DisciplineNo ActionOtherPolicy ChangeReferred SeparationTraining202220210%20%40%60%80%100%Report Outcomes Percent of Each Outcome Resulting From a Substantiated ReportM
281、edian Reporting Value(MRV),Refined 65 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMReport Outcomes(continued)9Report Outcomes Actions Taken by Benchmark CategorySubstantiated Accounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting cases were the most likely to result in a separationSub
282、stantiated Accounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting cases were the most likely to result in a separation,at 23.1%of outcomes for that category.Close to half of Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets cases resulted in discipline.The Benchmark Category of Other was most likely to result in no action.Cate
283、gory No Action Other ReferredPolicy Change Training Discipline Separation TotalAccounting,Auditing&Financial Reporting16.4%12.1%4.0%6.7%4.5%33.2%23.1%100%Business Integrity21.5%16.6%3.1%9.6%12.7%26.8%9.7%100%HR,Diversity&Workplace Respect13.4%13.1%2.4%6.9%7.8%39.1%17.4%100%Environment,Health&Safety2
284、1.5%15.3%5.4%24.0%4.7%18.4%10.7%100%Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets9.6%6.3%10.1%5.2%4.3%47.1%17.5%100%Other30.8%12.8%2.3%13.6%11.2%20.4%8.9%100%Report Outcomes Action Taken by Benchmark Category Frequency Distribution of Action Taken 66 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmar
285、k ReportNAVEX.COM10AppendixAppendix:Guide to Benchmark Categories and Issue Types including definitionsHR,Diversity&Workplace RespectIssue TypeIssue Type DefinitionHarassmentReports of harassment that are linked to a protected characteristic(such as race,gender,sex,religion,disability,age,etc.)and i
286、ncludes allegations of unwelcome behavior that is offensive to a reasonable person,and is related to,or done because of,a protected characteristic.DiscriminationReports of discrimination or concerns relating to accommodation requests.Discrimination generally occurs when there is a negative employmen
287、t action impacting a term or condition of employment,that action is taken by the employer(which can include managers as well as others who have control over terms or conditions of work such as team leads),or the action was taken because of protected characteristic.A workplace accommodation involves
288、a request to adjust something relating to work linked to either a religious practice/belief or a disability.This includes allegations or reports related to religious practices or beliefs or speaks to a workplace modification or leave request linked to a medical condition or disability.Substance Abus
289、eReports related to impairment resulting from use of substances(drugs/alcohol legal or illegal)impacting the workplace or violating a policy can be on or off-duty and on-or off-premises including at company events.Compensation and BenefitsReports related to matters of compensation,pay,insurance,time
290、-off,retirement benefits,leaves of absence(paternity,maternity,other medical)and other common employee benefits.Examples could include incorrect paycheck or inaccurate recording of vacation/time-off/sick time.Workplace CivilityReports related to abusive or disrespectful behavior connected to work th
291、at are not harassment or discrimination.Other Human ResourcesReports that cannot be categorized elsewhere and likely involve Human Resources.Examples include performance management,discipline,immigration,labor relations,grievances,job eliminations,arrests and convictions,and the sale or distribution
292、 of drugs.RetaliationReports of retaliation/reprisal of any kind against an employee including claims of any action taken to punish or dissuade an employee from making a report or participating in an investigation either internally or externally.Retaliation claims most often involve allegations agai
293、nst a manager,supervisor or some other person with control and power over the reporting person.However,retaliation can also involve conduct by a coworker.67 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAppendix(continued)10Business IntegrityIssue TypeIssue Type Definiti
294、onConflicts of InterestReports about a conflict of interest,either a self-report or a report involving the behavior of others.A conflict of interest can arise in any situation where an employees financial or personal interest could potentially or actually interfere,or even appear to interfere,with t
295、heir business judgement or the interests of the organization.Confidential and Proprietary InformationReports related to confidential and proprietary information or intellectual property.Confidential information is any non-public information that is not intended or permitted to be shared beyond those
296、 with a genuine business need to know the information.Confidential information can include information about people or companies and specifically includes business plans,trade secret information,customer lists,sales and marketing strategies,pricing,product development plans,and any notes or document
297、ation of the foregoing.Intellectual property refers to an original,intangible creation of human intellect that is legally protected from unauthorized use.Intellectual property includes patents,trademarks and copyrighted works of authorship,like photographs,music,literary works,graphic design,source
298、code,and audio and audiovisual recordings.Data Privacy and ProtectionReports related to the rights and responsibilities relating to data held or processed by an organization.This data can include data about employees,customers,consumers or others.Examples include allegations of data misuse,loss or t
299、heft of data,breaches or attempted breaches or requests by an individual relating to their own data.Free and Fair CompetitionReports involving activities that undermine free and fair competition in the marketplace.These activities frequently involve any agreement with a competitor to fix prices or o
300、therwise limit competition.Even the appearance of such agreement is problematic.Bribery and CorruptionReports of public or private instances of bribery.Bribery occurs when a person offers money or something else of value to an official or someone in a position of power or influence for the purpose o
301、f gaining influence over them.Corruption includes dishonest or illegal behavior especially of people in authority using their power to do dishonest or illegal things in return for money or to get an advantage over someone else.Insider TradingReports that a person is buying or selling any companys(em
302、ployers or any other companys)securities/stock based on non-public information as well as passing(tipping)this information on to someone else who then buys or sells stock.Global TradeReports related to the import and export of goods and services globally.It can include imports(bringing goods or serv
303、ices into a country)or exports(sending goods or services including software from one country to another).This category also includes reports relating to sanctions/trade sanctions(people or countries)which make it unlawful to do business with sanctioned people or countries.Political ActivityReports o
304、f improper use of employer resources(time,assets,brand,etc.)for political activity(by an individual or an organization)such as using work time for political activities,pressuring colleagues to give money or time to a political action committee(PAC)or associating organization name with a political ca
305、ndidate/official/group.It can also include misuse of company funds for political activities,using company resources to create or distribute political messages and violations of lobbying regulations and restrictions.68 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAppendi
306、x(continued)10Business Integrity(continued)Issue TypeIssue Type DefinitionHuman RightsReports related to human rights which generally refer to the basic rights and freedoms of individuals.Examples include reports relating to human trafficking or modern-day slavery that involve the use of force,fraud
307、 or coercion to obtain labor or sex for money,drugs or other goods.Product Quality and SafetyReports about quality and safety issues related to products.Examples include allegations that a product is not safe for intended use,is putting others at risk of harm or that it fails to meet industry standa
308、rds.Other Business IntegrityReports related to business integrity that cannot be categorized elsewhere.Examples include industry-specific policies,regulations or laws.Accounting,Auditing&Financial ReportingIssue TypeIssue Type DefinitionAccounting,Auditing and Financial ReportingReports related to a
309、ccounting,financial reporting or auditing.Examples include the unethical or improper recording and analysis of the business and financial transactions associated with generally accepted accounting practices.Examples include misstatement of revenues,misstatement of expenses,misstatement of assets,mis
310、applications of GAAP principles,and wrongful transactions.Misuse or Misappropriation of AssetsIssue TypeIssue Type DefinitionMisuse or Misappropriation of AssetsReports that the organizations assets are being wasted,inappropriately used,abused,or not properly protected.This category can include a wi
311、de array of assets such as property,tools,money/credit cards,facilities,company vehicles,employee time and even abuse of employer provided benefits.69 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAppendix(continued)10Environment,Health&SafetyIssue TypeIssue Type Definit
312、ionImminent Threat to a Person,Animals or PropertyReports of imminent or immediate threat of harm to a person or people,animals or property.Reports may or may not involve a weapon and generally are the kind of incident where authorities(such as police or fire)are called to assist.EnvironmentalReport
313、s about impact to the environment.This could include intentional,negligent or accidental acts or omissions that harm the environment or violate policy,regulatory or legal requirements.It can also include acts or omissions that otherwise present a risk to the climate.Examples can include such things
314、as spills,mismanaged wastewater or resources,release of harmful materials or substances into the atmosphere or improper disposal of hazardous waste.Health and SafetyReports about workplace safety.This can include employee safety and facilities or equipment.Each employee is responsible for maintainin
315、g a safe and healthy workplace for all employees by following safety and health rules and practices and reporting accidents,injuries and unsafe equipment,practices or conditions.Reports about concerns such as a threat of assault or violence(not including an imminent threat).Reports about physical se
316、curity in a facility.OtherIssue TypeIssue Type DefinitionOtherReports that do not fit any of the other categories listed.70 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAppendix(continued)10Lets Talk Statistics:Distributions,Assumptions and Their ImplicationsThroughout
317、this report we reference a number of statistical terms when discussing calculation methodologies.What is a distribution?A distribution is a set of numbers considered as a whole.Defining average:mean vs.median vs.modeThere are three primary calculations when considering what is“average”for a set of n
318、umbers:Mean:the sum of all values divided by the number of values summed Median:the number at the exact middle point of a sorted distribution Mode:the most repeated value in a distribution.Mode is not used for any of the statistics presented in this report.This report primarily presents medians beca
319、use it mitigates the influence of extremely high and low values in the distribution,called outliers.To illustrate the impact of outliers,we can consider the following two distributions:DISTRIBUTION A:1,2,3,4,5DISTRIBUTION B:1,2,3,4,490If you take the mean of Distribution A,you will get 3.If you take
320、 the mean of Distribution B,you will get 100.In both of cases,the median is 3.That median value is much closer to the values of 1,2,3 and 4 than the mean.We consider both median and mean values for select metrics.Doing so allows our readers to both ensure they are comparing against the correct metri
321、c for their internally calculated statistics and affords insight into how skewed the distributions of those metrics are.Skewed distributions A distribution is said to be skewed when the values are not evenly spread in both directions from the median.A skewed distribution can make it more challenging
322、 to analyze the data in the distribution.In fact,out of the three calculations of what is“average”in a distribution,the mean is most affected by a skewed distribution.If there are some values above the median that are comparatively high,that distribution is said to be skewed high and the mean will b
323、e higher than the median.The converse is true when you have a distribution which is skewed low.A classic example of distribution which is skewed high is income in the United States;as of 2021,the mean income was$97,962,while the median was$69,717.This gap in median and mean income calculations is du
324、e to a relatively small number of very high incomes.71 /2023 Risk&Compliance Hotline&Incident Management Benchmark ReportNAVEX.COMAppendix(continued)10Examples and implications of altering a distribution Lets consider the following distribution:1,2,3,5,6,8,9,12,17We can see that the median is the hi
325、ghlighted figure 6 and calculate the mean as(63/9)=7.This implies that the distribution is skewed high,which makes sense when considering the values 12 and 17 in relation to the rest of the distribution.Now lets trim the top and bottom values,leaving us with this distribution:2,3,5,6,8,9,12The media
326、n does not change,however when we calculate the mean,we get 6.42,lower than the value calculated on the distribution before trimming off the top and bottom values.Methods like this are used to reduce the influence of very high and very low values on the calculation of means while leaving the median
327、unchanged.There are times when using rules to remove values from a distribution can have unintended consequences for calculated statistics.Lets consider a situation where we have a rule to exclude values of 0 and 1 when calculating statistics and this distribution:0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9
328、With the distribution as it stands,this has no impact on median or mean,both of which are 0.5.Now lets say that a situation arises which decreases the values in the distribution to this:0,0,0,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8If we take the median and mean of this distribution excluding the zero values,we get
329、a mean and median of 0.55,higher than the calculations on the original distribution with overall higher values.Taking the zeroes into account,the median comes out to 0.4 and the mean to 0.367,much more reflective of the new situation.Hopefully,this appendix has illustrated the need for careful consi
330、deration and research of a distribution,and a solid fundamental understanding of what statistic is needed when asking questions about compliance or any other data.There are three ways to consider what is average in a distribution:mean,median and mode.Skewed distributions affect means much more than
331、medians.Making changes to a distribution will almost always change calculated statistics.About the AuthorsCarrie PenmanChief Risk and Compliance Officer,NAVEXAs one of the earliest ethics officers in the industry,Carrie Penman has been with NAVEX since 2003 after serving four years as deputy directo
332、r of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association(ECOA),now ECI.A scientist by training,she developed and directed the first corporate-wide global ethics program at Westinghouse Electric Corporation from 1994-1999.As chief risk and compliance officer for NAVEX,Carrie leads the companys formal risk
333、management processes.She also oversees its internal ethics and compliance activities employing many of the best practices that NAVEX recommends to its customers.Carrie has extensive client-facing risk and compliance consulting experience,including more than 15 years as an advisor to boards and executive teams;most recently as NAVEXs SVP of Advisory Services.She has also served as a corporate monit