Anonymity in workplace investigations is a double-edged sword: it can protect whistleblowers but also complicate investigations and fairness. In the recording of our recent IFSEA webinar, we were joined by: - Rachida el Johari, Sagiure Legal, Amsterdam - Mathilde Houet Weil, Weil & Associés, Paris - Colleen Cleary, Simmons & Simmons, Dublin - Andrew Pavlovic, CM Murray LLP, London - Emma Bartlett, CM Murray LLP, London (Chair) The key highlights covered in this webinar include: Jurisdictional Differences: - In Ireland, anonymous complaints may not require action, risking procedural issues. - In France, anonymous statements are allowed but must be supported by other evidence; cultural sensitivities are significant. - In the UK, anonymous complaints are accepted if detailed, but pose evidentiary challenges. The Netherlands emphasises fair trial rights, making anonymous reporting complex. Investigator & Regulator Challenges: - Anonymous reports protect identities but make evidence gathering and transparency harder. Regulators like the SRA and BSB struggle to act on such complaints. Practical Guidance: - Investigators should build trust, follow clear protocols, and explain the process to all parties. Policies should discourage anonymity where possible, ensuring fair hearings and due process. Bystander Role: - Employees must be empowered to report misconduct, with clear escalation routes and cultural support. - Organisations should review their investigation policies to balance confidentiality, fairness, and legal compliance. If you have any questions relating to this recording or if you would like discuss work place investigations in further detail, please contact Partners Emma Bartlett or Andrew Pavlovic.