Whistleblowing refers to the reporting of potential breaches of the law by a person who has become aware of relevant information through their professional activity. This mechanism has always been seen as an essential indicator of the characteristics of an organisational culture, i.e. the usual practices and mindset within a company. Companies that have rigorously implemented systems that allow such breaches of the law to be reported have always been considered companies interested in establishing and maintaining a high level of compliance. In other words, whistleblowing systems have always been associated with a company’s compliance level and its commitment to operating a fair and ethical business model.

Whistleblowing however stands for much more than that, which is why we wanted to show some of the most interesting statistics on whistleblowing below:

• 43% of fraud cases are discovered through whistleblowing tips

This should come as no surprise: breaches of the law are most often reported by people within the companies to which the breaches relate, or by others in close proximity to the companies. Thus, the integrity whistleblowing mechanism is by far the most effective way of uncovering internal or external fraud, outperforming internal audits (which are not necessarily designed to uncover breaches of the law, such as corruption for example) and regular checks or screenings by management. Moreover, whistleblowers have the ability to detect fraud at an early stage, often even before it is completed. By looking at these statistics, it is easier to understand why whistleblowing is, above all, a relevant indicator of a company’s level of compliance.

• Over 50% of integrity reports are made by employees

As mentioned above, a company’s employees and contractual partners are usually the first to know about potential violations of the law. From this point of view, it would seem logical that integrity warnings should be made primarily by employees.

However, there are other aspects to consider here: as a rule, labor law gives greater protection to employees (as opposed to legislation governing the rights of business partners, for example) and rigorously seeks to respect their rights in a climate of fairness, protection and security. As such, employees are likely to feel more protected against retaliation than a business partner.

• 73% of integrity warnings are recorded via digital reporting channels

From this point of view, the preference of whistleblowers is clear: digital reporting channels such as email addresses or digital platforms are used in preference, while hotlines do not necessarily have the same appeal.

There are many reasons for this: digital reporting channels can be used at any time and easily, without any interaction between the whistleblower and the person called upon to record and resolve the warning. Moreover, when it comes to sensitive and complex situations, many of us feel more comfortable expressing ourselves in writing, rather than verbally. You might also consider the following question: if you were to be heard as a witness, would you prefer direct interaction with the judge or the opportunity to submit a written statement?

• Damages suffered by fraudulent companies are on average 50% lower when reporting channels are in place

Integrity warnings, when managed intelligently, are an indispensable resource for companies. Imagine being able to order an “X-ray”of your company’s key vulnerabilities, showing you what problems you are facing and what problems you may develop over time. We all know that X-rays are a valuable first step in establishing a correct diagnosis.

Integrity warnings have this ability to catch fraud and operational vulnerabilities early, before they lead to massive financial losses and heavy penalties.

• More than 67% of employees reported potential violations of the law in their employer companies

This statistic shows us two key points: firstly, a company’s employees do have the ability to report potential breaches of the law early, and secondly, these breaches of the law, whether suspected or real, are more common than we would like to think.

Globally, it is estimated that internal fraud is responsible for losses of up to 5% of turnover and no company is forgiven. But the difference is the awareness of the phenomenon and the strategy that companies implement to prevent internal fraud and limit its effects.