Safecall’s 2026 Whistleblowing Benchmark Report is here, offering the clearest picture yet of how employees use independent, external reporting channels to raise concerns. The findings show a system continuing to mature in both scale and sophistication: employees are speaking up more often, identity choices remain cautious but deliberate, and reporting channel behaviour is becoming increasingly distinct.
Here’s what the data reveals – and what leaders need to take from it.
Rising engagement and what it signals about trust
External engagement has reached a new high, averaging one external report per 365 employees. This continued rise reflects growing confidence in independent routes and greater clarity around how to use them.
Crucially, high external reporting doesn’t mean more misconduct. It more often signals that reporting routes are visible and trusted, that employees believe independent channels will treat concerns fairly, and that people feel more comfortable speaking outside local hierarchies.
Poundland’s People Relations Manager, Natasha Williamson, sees this pattern clearly:
“Around 20% of our reports come via Safecall, with the rest raised internally. That split tells us that colleagues largely know how to use our internal routes, but it also shows that confidence isn’t as strong in some areas as we’d like it to be. The data helps us pinpoint where communication may be breaking down at store level, and once we can see that clearly, we’re able to intervene and address it.”
Royal Mail’s Head of Whistleblowing, Debbie King, views high external usage as a positive cultural indicator:
“Our volumes are much higher than the benchmark, but that’s because employees use our Speak Up platform provided by Safecall to raise all kinds of concerns, including many that fall outside the whistleblowing definition. It also tells me that our people feel confident speaking up and calling out wrongdoing. The ability to report anonymously plays a big part, as not everyone feels comfortable raising issues internally, especially in a large, dispersed workforce.”
Across organisations, independent channels are increasingly where colleagues feel safest to speak freely.
Web dominates but the phone remains essential for sensitive issues
Digital reporting continues to surge, with 71% of external reports now coming through the web. Online channels offer convenience and accessibility particularly for digitally confident workforces.
Natalie Jacques, Risk & Assurance at S Three, sees a clear generational divide:
“We have a very young sales team and our research shows that around 95% of them prefer online reporting. More senior colleagues still gravitate towards the phone. It’s a clear generational divide we can’t ignore.”
Yet despite the dominance of digital reporting, the phone line remains critical. Sensitive, personal or complex matters still lean heavily towards human interaction. Phone reports are typically richer, clearer and more complete – and are far more likely to be named. Many callers begin anonymously but choose to identify themselves once they feel reassured by a trained call handler.
As one retail leader put it:
“It would be great to see more named reports, but if someone is comfortable being named, I would always prefer that conversation to happen internally. Choice is hugely important – the choice of channel, and the choice to be named or not – and that’s why independent routes like Safecall remain so valuable. What we do find is that people often start anonymously but open up more once they are speaking to a call handler. Building that rapport helps reduce fear, and it shows the power of human interaction in this process.”
The strongest speak‑up programmes treat both channels as equally important – because each serves very different needs.
Anonymity patterns – intentional and essential
Anonymous reporting remains the most common identity choice externally. Far from being a sign of distrust, anonymity is often a practical safeguard that enables early disclosure without fear of consequences.
Across organisations, several patterns hold true: anonymous reporting continues to account for most submissions; semi‑anonymous options are highly valued for enabling follow‑up; phone reports are significantly more likely to be named; and trust grows during real‑time conversations with trained handlers.
Royal Mail sees this pattern regularly:
“We often see people start a call wanting to be anonymous, but once they speak to a Safecall call handler they feel safe enough to share their name. That human interaction and the experience of the call handlers in this field builds confidence and helps us follow up properly.”
S Three highlights the importance of the semi‑anonymous route:
“When someone chooses even the semi-anonymous route, the quality of the investigation completely changes. We can ask questions, close gaps, and give meaningful updates. It’s hugely beneficial, and we’d really like to see more people using it.”
The principle is clear: identity choice must remain flexible, and employees must never feel pressured to reveal more than they are comfortable sharing.
Shifts in misconduct patterns – where risk is concentrating
While the overall mix of issues remains broadly stable, several notable shifts stand out. Fraud within dishonest behaviour categories has increased meaningfully year on year. Bullying and harassment continue to rise. Substance misuse remains a significant concern in operational environments, including emergency services, airports, utilities and sport.
Poundland highlights how fraud resonates culturally:
“Fraud reporting has been fairly steady for us. Our colleagues are generally very comfortable raising issues in this area, and I think that aligns closely with our organisational value of ‘protect the pound’. It’s an issue people recognise quickly and understand the importance of addressing.”
Across most industries, HR‑related concerns continue to dominate external reporting. These cases often carry interpersonal risk, and employees frequently prefer the neutrality and discretion of an independent listener.
What leaders should take away from the 2026 trends
The 2026 Whistleblowing Benchmark Report offers several clear lessons for organisations:
- External reporting is a trust signal: high usage shows employees believe the system works.
- Web and phone must be promoted equally: the web provides reach; the phone provides reassurance, clarity and richer detail.
- Identity choice must remain flexible: anonymous and semi‑anonymous options are essential for early disclosure.
- Patterns reveal where capability is needed: rising HR, fraud and substance‑misuse cases demand strong investigator skills and clear escalation routes.
- Internal communication and frontline leadership matter: external data often highlights where internal routes or manager capability need strengthening.
- Transparency builds confidence: organisations that share anonymised examples of how reports are handled typically see engagement rise.
The bigger picture: speak‑up is now a cultural barometer
This year’s Whistleblowing Benchmark Report makes one thing unequivocally clear: external reporting is no longer a peripheral option – it has become central to how employees choose to speak up.
It captures the concerns people won’t raise internally, highlights emerging risks before they escalate, and offers leaders a direct, unfiltered window into the health of their culture.
Employees are choosing the channels they trust. They are speaking up earlier. And they expect organisations not just to provide a route, but to demonstrate credibility, independence and follow‑through every time a report is made.
For leaders, the challenge ahead is straightforward but strategic: make reporting routes visible; invest in both digital and human channels; strengthen investigative capability; build confidence through transparency; and treat speak‑up data as one of the most valuable cultural metrics you have.
A strong speak‑up culture doesn’t happen by accident. It is created deliberately — through design, visibility, trust and action. And in 2026, the organisations that get this right will be the ones whose people feel genuinely safe to speak up, and whose leaders see the truth sooner.