Whistleblower intake

This page covers both halves of the intake flow: the reporter's experience filing a concern, and the ethics admin's experience receiving and triaging it. The intake is designed to be low-friction for the reporter (multiple channels, anonymous by default, mobile-friendly) and high-fidelity for the workspace (structured metadata, statutory routing, retaliation-protection attachment).

TL;DR — Reporters file from /ethics/report-a-concern, the hotline, the dedicated email, or an in-office kiosk. Every intake produces a confidential case + a reporter access code for two-way messaging. Ethics admins triage from Ethics → Intake, route to the right reviewer (ethics / audit committee / EEO / legal), and run the confidential investigation through to resolution.

Reporter experience

What the reporter sees

/ethics/report-a-concern is the workspace's intake landing page. It opens with an honest scope statement (what the channel is for, what it isn't), a confidentiality + retaliation-protection statement, and the option to file anonymously OR identified.

The form has four sections:

After submission

The reporter receives a report code (e.g. R-7Y2K-91Q) + a single-use access code. They use these two together to log back into the confidential thread without revealing identity — even on an anonymous report. The reporter is encouraged to save both somewhere private.

The thread allows:

• The investigator to ask follow-up questions.
• The reporter to add information, documents, or corrections.
• The investigator to share progress updates ("we've assigned an investigator; expect contact within 5 business days").
• Final notification when the matter resolves.

Channels other than the web form

• Hotline — third-party multilingual service, available 24/7. Operator captures the same intake data + issues a report code. Lands in the same Intake queue as web submissions.
• Email — ethics@<workspace>.com (workspace-configurable). Auto-acknowledged with a report code; converts to a structured case on receipt.
• In-office kiosk — a tablet at a non-trafficked location (typically by HR or building security) with the same web form.
• Physical mail — to the audit committee chair, addressed externally. Converted to a case by the chair's staff (with the chair's direct review).

Ethics admin experience

Triage a new report

1. 1

   Open Ethics → Intake

   The queue lists new reports oldest-first. Anonymous reports show as Anonymous; identified reports show the name + role. Each row carries the reporter's category guess + severity flag.

2. 2

   Click "Triage"

   A side panel opens with the report. Read it once before classifying.

3. 3

   Classify + route

   Pick the category. The form recommends a route: ethics (default) / audit committee (financial misconduct, senior-leader allegations) / EEO (discrimination / harassment) / ELR (workplace conflict) / legal (regulatory, contractual). You can override with a documented reason.

4. 4

   Run the conflict check

   If you appear in the reported parties OR you supervise one, the form blocks self-assignment and surfaces the alternate intake path.

5. 5

   Attach a retaliation-watch window

   Default 12 months. Any subsequent adverse action against the reporter within the window is flagged for review by Ethics leadership.

6. 6

   Send the first reporter message

   Confirm receipt + set expectations. Use the template; the confidential thread is now active.

Work the case

The case file mirrors the EEO + ELR file shape with one critical addition: the reporter-identity firewall.

Run the audit-committee channel

For reports routed to the audit committee:

1. 1

   The committee chair is notified on intake

   Through their secured workspace channel; the report content is available in the file for committee members only.

2. 2

   The committee chair (or designee) acts as case lead

   Outside counsel often investigates; the file tracks counsel activity at a high level (engagement, periodic status updates, final memo) without breaching counsel's work-product privilege.

3. 3

   The disposition is recorded

   The committee's disposition is recorded in the file. The ordinary ethics admin sees the case existed + closed; the underlying narrative is restricted to committee + counsel.

Every field, explained

Common gotchas

• "A manager wants to know which of their reports filed an ethics report." Don't speculate. Disclosure of reporter identity to a subject — directly or indirectly — is the single most reportable violation in the module.
• "The reporter's narrative doesn't quite match a category." Triage to the closest match + document why. Routing into the wrong category is a recoverable error; refusing to route delays the response.
• "The investigator wants to interview the reporter." Send the request through the confidential thread first; never go outside the thread (a hallway approach, a personal email) unless the reporter has explicitly consented to direct contact.
• "The report is clearly false / vexatious." Document the basis for that conclusion in detail. A bad-faith conclusion reached lightly is itself reportable; the bar for it is high.
• "A subsequent reporter named the same subject — should we merge?" Don't merge silently. Link the cases; let each reporter's thread stay distinct. Merging removes the separately-protected paths.

Troubleshooting

How this is recorded

The intake form, every reporter message, every triage decision, every investigator action, every audit-committee notification — all written to the case ledger. Anonymous reporter identity is stored encrypted with a separately keyed reveal flow; every reveal is itself a ledger row reviewable by the audit committee. Retention follows the longest of the statutory minimum (SOX § 802: 7 years for matters related to financial reporting), the workspace's audit-log retention policy, and any litigation hold attached during the matter.