Image: Istock
Investigations that stand up to scrutiny
When is a formal approach required and what does good investigation practice look like when the stakes are high?
GOVERNANCE
Deb Bannigan
Senior Associate, Campbell Tickell
Deb Bannigan
Associate, Campbell Tickell
Issue 84 | June 2026
Issues that start small can escalate quickly if they are not handled well. In an environment of increased scrutiny and reduced tolerance for poor process, organisations need to be confident that concerns within the staff team are addressed in a way that is fair, robust and defensible.
This article looks at when a more formal approach is required, and what good investigation practice looks like when the stakes are getting higher.
When a deeper look is needed
Employees can – and arguably should be encouraged to – raise concerns freely in the workplace. Good employers will have policies and procedures in place – grievance, whistleblowing, disciplinary, codes of conduct and others – to enable concerns to be considered appropriately, maintaining a sense of safety and security for the person raising the concern and anyone affected by it. Of course, most concerns can be resolved informally, through conversations between team members and their managers, so that all parties can learn and move forward, ideally strengthened by the experience.
Investigation protocol
But what if things don’t respond to informal intervention? Depending on how serious the concern appears to be, appointing someone within the organisation, who is not directly involved, to carry out an independent investigation is one obvious next step. A clear investigation protocol is essential to define how the investigation will be conducted and to set expectations for all those involved, particularly where the investigator has limited experience.
In our experience, a protocol covering the following actions enables the investigator, and people contributing to the investigation, to understand what’s happening and make good progress:
- Setting out terms of reference for the investigation. Having clarity about what is to be investigated, why, and to whom the investigator is accountable is an important starting point.
- Building the fact-finding framework, showing what questions need to be answered, potential sources of documentary evidence and identifying individuals who may need to be interviewed to obtain witness statements.
- Inviting people to contribute, including clarity on whether their contributions are on the record, whether confidentiality will be maintained and how they will be interviewed, including whether they are able to bring a companion to any meetings.
- Record-keeping, in particular whether online transcripts are acceptable, how statements will be agreed and at what point they might be shared.
- Seeking any necessary legal advice, for instance if discrimination has been alleged, or if someone may have committed gross misconduct.
- Reporting back to the business, identifying how evidence will be scrutinised and how decisions might be made for organisational change or further action.
Investigations should also help organisations meet their wider statutory duties by identifying patterns, behaviours or control weaknesses that may require preventative action, rather than treating each concern as a standalone issue.
It’s important to maintain boundaries around the investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to seek evidence and allow facts to emerge. Once this has happened, evaluation of the evidence, especially weighing balance of probability, is best carried out by someone who can bring a critical eye to the process, thus mitigating the chance of conscious or unconscious bias.
“Sometimes it's good for everyone’s integrity and wellbeing to commission an investigation from someone who is independent, experienced, ideally a calm head and a safe pair of hands.”
When independence really matters
What if the issues raised are too serious, too complex, or implicate too many people within the business? What if the complaint is about senior leaders?
Receiving a complaint that falls into these categories and more can be scary and emotive. It may be outside the sphere of expertise of anyone in the business and the potential repercussions, especially in a regulated sector, may be significant. Sometimes it makes sense for matters to be investigated independently. Sometimes it's good for everyone’s integrity and wellbeing to commission an investigation from someone who is independent, experienced, ideally a calm head and a safe pair of hands.
An external, independent investigator should be able to demonstrate a track record of successful inquiries. Whether these involve financial stewardship and potential fraud, safeguarding matters, allegations of serious harm including sexual misconduct, discrimination, collusion and corruption or other significant matters, knowing that the investigator has been there, done that and also understands the intersections with civil and criminal law can help the organisation to get a grip on the concerns while maintaining focus on the day to day running of the business.
As mentioned above, a judgement needs to be made as to whether and when to seek legal advice. Some concerns may be raised in the public interest and attract statutory whistleblowing protection, meaning particular care is needed to ensure that individuals are not subjected to any form of detriment as a result of speaking up.
Over the past five years, Campbell Tickell has conducted around 40 exercises that could be described as formal inquiries or investigations. These investigations have covered a range of areas including (alleged) bullying, racism and harassment. Relevant fields include care, property maintenance, gas servicing, compliance, malpractice and related governance and business assurance matters. We have also investigated fraudulent activity, mismanagement, financial malpractice, development and land issues, data protection, unlawful killings, governance and management issues, overspends, potential corruption and other matters.
James Tickell, who has taken the lead for many of these pieces of work, says: 'An appointed investigator needs to approach each assignment with an entirely open mind. Allegations may or may not be well-founded, and the key task is to assemble and assess the evidence to a high standard of proof. In the great majority of cases, complainants are acting in good faith, and deserve an objective hearing of their concerns.'
Act fast
When difficult issues arise, organisations need help fast. Not just to protect individuals and to preserve evidence, but to ensure that the organisation’s reputational risk is managed. We know that often ‘gossip is round the world before truth’s got its boots on’, so alongside the rigorous and diligent work that lies at the heart of every good investigation, preparing pro-active and reactive communications for internal, stakeholder and external audiences should not be left to chance.
Whatever the outcome of the investigation, there are lessons to be drawn. In our experience, these often include recognising a lack of preparedness for this kind of matter. Putting the policies and procedures in place that you wish you’d had before the complaint arose may seem like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but its essential organisational hygiene. Luckily, having seen many of these issues through to conclusion, we know what can be helpful and where gaps are likely to have arisen, so we always prefer to support businesses to become investigation-ready, even before the whiff of a concern emerges.
And finally, closure. Depending on the nature and depth of the investigation, individuals, teams, structures and cultures may well have been impacted. Closing the matter with a narrative that everyone can understand promotes healing and is, in our view, the best possible organisational vaccination against the same issues arising again.
“We always prefer to support businesses to become investigation-ready, even before the whiff of a concern emerges.”
To discuss this article, click here to email Clare Sion (Senior Consultant, People and HR) or Matthew McClelland (Director, Governance Team)
