And why they matter
Shaun Keep
Paul Adams
Summary
Even before the first industrial revolution, people at work have suffered at the hands of others.
Culture is an organisational mirror, reflective of what is and what is not deemed acceptable.
Anonymity is not a concern but more a necessity when raising concerns. This paper explores this necessity, the misconceptions and argument of what anonymity brings and why, in reality, it’s invaluable for understanding organisational nee sector impact and improvement.
There have, over time, been a small number of arguments against anonymity or the ability to raise concerns anonymously with many, if not all, being straw man arguments. Case in Point (CiP) - A growing belief amongst management groups is that anonymity paves the way for those with malicious intent, the ability to make false accusation or raise false concerns though none of this is backed by evidence. The CPS thinks otherwise1 suggesting that the figure for malicious intent in serious cases is c4%. Comparing this to data from other sources, across multiple sectors supports this, showing figures to be as low as 0.7%.
The second argument is that concerns raised anonymously increases the workload of investigation and/or resolution. As with the first argument, there is no evidence of this and, with a conduit for effective communications established through what is referred to as a ‘sterile corridor’, between the organisation and those raising a concern, even anonymously, effective two-way communications is easily achieved and maintained thus removing this second argument altogether. Appreciate that not all approaches or platforms offer such features but this ought to rank high with any organisation taking speak up seriously.
The aim of this document is not just to address these arguments but to open up the conversation across other organisations and sectors.
The nirvana would be that no-one should need to raise concerns anonymously because the working culture allows for open dialog and indeed full transparency when raising and addressing concerns. Until that day comes however, the volume of concerns raised anonymously ought to serve as a barometer for all organisations. To that end, we analysed a dataset of 1000 concerns which shows that c85% of concerns raised are done so anonymously.
It is only when we explore the underlying reasons behind this ‘need for anonymity’ that further colour is added. That colour is important, both to those raising concerns to show that they’re ‘not alone’ as was the tactics of the post office2 and to the organisation fielding those concerns. Is the real worry – there’s audit trail? Hardly, an audit trail offers a protection mechanism for both sides.
Forward thinking organisations are slowly coming round to the benefits of anonymity. For example - It was an anonymously raised concern that made an organisation aware of a sexual predator operating at one of their locations. Another anonymously raised concern allowed an organisation to address long-term toxic culture.
The available evidence shows that anonymously raised concerns are vital for the health of an organisation and indeed the wellbeing of its staff. Dr. Simon Fleming, having driven a national initiative to tackle behaviours like bullying, undermining and harassment within the Health/Clinical sector, is a strong advocate of anonymity and believes it is absolutely essential that such mechanisms are in place and easily accessible. Further, the mechanism/approach, he insists, should also be totally independent of the organisation concerned.
On that note - This need for anonymity and indeed a totally independent service is growing to the point that some organisations are opting not just for independence but outsourcing concern raising entirely, leaving the prioritisation and ‘Triaging’ of concerns to those providing the service. Whilst this ‘sorting the wheat from the chaff’ approach may seem appealing at first sight, it is not without debilitating issues. Both the process of prioritisation and triage, over time, actually erodes the independence of the service being offered. Further, total outsourcing is also likely to lead to over reliance of this mechanism, with the upping the thresholds to reduce received concerns thus, blindfolding the concern organisation to a degree. This also prompts the perhaps obvious question “who’s responsible if the outsource company gets it wrong, when wheat gets lost amongst the chaff?” and “what impact such an error might have on both the person raising the concern, those involved in the concern and the reputation of the organisation the concern was meant for?
Concerns
Issues within the workplace, or even outside of it, invariably lead to concerns, particularly when ignored or unresolved. But, it’s not just what is addressed but more often the ‘when’ and the ‘how’.
Some organisations have Human Resource (HR) departments to deal with such matters internally, perhaps with their own investigation teams or perhaps occasionally reaching out to external investigators, if things are really serious or going wrong at scale.
However, the desire to protect an organisations reputation can in itself become quite toxic; keeping a lid on it, not letting things get out of hand by dealing with those raising concerns or managing the process internally, without creating external noise.
It must also be clarified that concerns aren’t always accusatory. Sometimes, anonymous concerns are raised to help others or indeed the raiser themselves asking for help with welfare matters or support which internal mechanisms often hinder.
Raising concerns in the main, even internally, has invariably required someone to identify themselves with the default position being - any self-respecting person would naturally wish to step forward and identify themselves, rather than skulking in the shadows or being considered a coward. With c85% of concerns being raised anonymously, the data tells a different story. Organisations unwilling to allow anonymous concern raising are missing out on many of the vital warning signs.
So let’s delve into anonymity, its importance and what we all stand to lose without it.
Anonymity
What does anonymity mean, why do those raising concerns wish to remain anonymous and what is the negative impact?
Speaking with different groups ‘anonymity’ means many things.
Some suggest Pseudo anonymity is the same – whereby a person’s details are taken but sit, hidden, behind a randomly generated ID, to some, this is considered or framed as anonymous. In truth it’s not.
Also, there’s not a one size fits all approach that works either. In reality there’s a need for multiple levels to meet different user needs:
Anonymous: whereby a person or persons raising concerns do so without providing any personal information whatsoever.
Confidential: where a person shares a level of personal detail but only with those who provide the mechanism they are raising the concern through - Sometimes referred to as pseudo-anonymous. ‘Confidential’ is where many internal mechanisms/approaches falter for no matter how good the process or the intent, someone within the concern organisation knows the personal details of the person raising the concern.
Fully open: where a person shares a level of personal with those through whom they are raising the concern which is in turn shared with the organisation/s the concern refers to.
The need for anonymity is one of fear, perceived, imagined or real. There is a clear need for it if we are to paint a true picture, for without the anonymous mechanism, many concerns would not surface, at all. However, the arguments against anonymity invariably boils down to one precise point from the organisations perspective – “We want to know who’s raising concerns” which infers a retaliatory position from the offset but the arguments itself is presented in the opposite way, “If we don’t know who is raising the concern how can we contact those raising concerns?”
This presents a second false narrative based on the first, giving rise to certain myths.
Myths:
Anonymity paves the way for malicious intent
The ability for those with malicious intent or bad actors to make false accusation or raise false or vexatious concerns is nothing new. This has been voiced a number of times across a small number of sectors. There’s evidence to suggest quite the reverse is true. The landscape, across multiple sectors, is littered with examples where individuals, management teams and/or organisations, under the guise of ‘reputation management’ have actively targeted those acting openly and in good faith when raising genuine concerns.
3Dr Chris Day v NHS: Whistleblowing, Evidence Destruction, and the Limits of Judicial Oversight, 4Maxwell McClean – Former Chairman at Bradford Teaching Hospitals, 5NHS maternity, 6Mental Health scandal et al. And, more recently 7“We wish to highlight the toxic culture and serious mismanagement perpetuated by the executives and operational directors, which has left staff fearful of speaking out, raising concerns and, in some cases, being punished for doing so.
For general evidence of this malicious intent, we looked to the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Sexual Violence & Rape: Research for the Home Office and independent studies estimate that approximately 2% to 4% of reported cases are found or suspected to be false. A landmark CPS study found that over a 17-month period, while there were over 5,000 rape prosecutions, only 35 resulted in prosecutions for making a false allegation.
Domestic Abuse: Malicious allegations in this category are estimated to be even rarer. Data from the Metropolitan Police (2018–2021) indicated that only 0.01% of reported domestic abuse offences were flagged as false allegations.
Child Abuse: Studies suggest a rate of under 10% for false accusations of child sexual abuse, with the majority of these originating from adults (often in the context of custody battles) rather than the children themselves.
Family Courts: Some independent analyses of family court proceedings argue for much higher rates, suggesting up to 50-60% of domestic abuse allegations in private law cases may be false or unproven. However, these figures are heavily contested by groups like the NSPCC and Rape Crisis, who state that "malicious allegation" is often a misapplied label for genuine reports that lack sufficient evidence.
Taking the above into consideration, other data sources suggest the average is an order of magnitude lower at just 0.4%, suggesting that the vast majority of concerns raised are indeed genuine and those raising concerns are acting in good faith. This is perhaps also explained by Say So’s combination approach, of technology & human interaction, rather than just technology alone.
We’re encouraging others, providing independent speak up, to share volumetric data to solidify future research opportunities and provide a broader representation across multiple sectors.
Equally, organisations have had their reputations saved through anonymous concern raising. Examples include where sexual predators have been identified far earlier than normal and appropriate action taken.
There’s also the missed data - To act from this position alone also removes a valid data opportunity. For every concern raised in a malicious manner, albeit small in number, leaves a trail, breadcrumbs which may indicate the person raising such concerns might be in need of support themselves. Thus, it’s far better to have visibility of concerns than not, malicious or not - for even malicious concerns add colour to the organisational canvas.
Thus, where individuals, management teams and organisations, under the guise of ‘reputation management’, have targeted those acting openly and in good faith when raising genuine concerns is, in reality, organisational self-harm.
Myth:
Anonymity creates additional workload: Ordinarily, this might be true with some approaches, approaches that don’t provide an appropriate conduit for communication, thereby frustrating or delaying an organisations ability to verify details and/or carry out its own enquiries/investigations efficiently. The same is not true of approaches that do. Offering an effective communications channel or as we call it ‘a sterile corridor’ enables two way communication without the concern raiser having to identify themselves. “But what if the anonymous user doesn’t respond to comms, surely that impedes investigation and/or resolution?” Perhaps but, this is also true even if all the details of the concern raiser are known. You can’t force or bully someone into responding…can you?
Ian Hynes (Professional impartial and independent investigator) suggest the contrary, that the emphasis should be on proper investigation and that “the worth of anonymous reporting platforms is incalculable”
If this myth persists, even with an effective communications conduit in place, perhaps it brings into question more the approach, competency and efficacy of investigation techniques. Is workload being created or exacerbated by this and if so would mentoring be an appropriate resolution strategy or, is workload merely a convenient misdirector to obfuscate other underlying reasons?
The reality is that some organisations still go with these myths.
Wellbeing
Wellbeing of staff might often be perceived complex but ought to be one of the top priorities. If 85% of concerns being raised are raised anonymously, that speaks volumes of the underlying culture of the organisation itself but similarly, may also act as a barometer for improvement. Reduction not in concerns but in the need for anonymity could be seen as a shift in user confidence and/or organisation culture. Thus ignoring Anonymous concerns or treating them with suspicion is often counterproductive, for all concerned.
Final words
One of the outputs of this paper is a planned round table event. We’d like to encourage participation from as many sectors as possible, particularly Health, Care, Local Authorities and higher education. If you’re interested in attending, have something to contribute or simply have questions, please feel free to get in touch via email - info@say-so.co.uk
References
- https://www.msrs.co.uk/dr-chris-day-v-nhs-whistleblowing-evidence-destruction-and-the-limits-of-judicial-oversight/
- https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/
- https://www.msrs.co.uk/dr-chris-day-v-nhs-whistleblowing-evidence-destruction-and-the-limits-of-judicial-oversight/
- https://calderdaleandkirklees999callforthenhs.wordpress.com/2025/02/13/a-whistleblowing-campaign-about-preventable-neonatal-deaths-at-bradford-royal-infirmary-starts-next-week-at-leeds-employment-tribunal/
- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/26/nhs-england-maternity-cover-up-childbirth-report
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-68436610
- https://nation.cymru/news/staff-say-they-have-no-confidence-in-their-nhs-trusts-management/
- https://nccpr.org/nccpr-supplemental-issue-paper-3-false-allegations-what-the-data-really-show/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62v51d1ry2o - Simon Fleming – the era of bullying is over - https://www.tedxnhs.com/previous-events/2017-inspired-by-people/simon-fleming/
