16 October 2026 · Probuddy Etik Hat Team
An ethics hotline is a reporting channel through which employees and other stakeholders can safely raise ethical violations, fraud, harassment or breaches of law and regulation. For many organisations, setting up an ethics hotline feels like the final step of a compliance project: the channel is launched, the policy is published, training is delivered and the matter is considered closed. Yet the real measure of an ethics hotline’s success is not that it exists, but that it is used when it is needed.
The Business Fraud Perception Survey 2026, conducted in collaboration with Turkey’s Ethics and Reputation Society (TEİD) and published on 9 October 2026, paints a striking picture on exactly this point. Ninety-five per cent of respondents say they would report an ethical violation if they witnessed one. Yet only 55 per cent of those who actually witnessed misconduct in the past 12 months used formal reporting channels.
In this article, we examine this 40-point gap between intention and behaviour through the survey’s findings, and discuss its causes, the risks it creates for organisations and the mechanisms through which trust in an ethics hotline can be built.
Ethics hotline use: what does the survey say?
The survey was conducted among more than a thousand senior executives and professionals from a range of sectors, company sizes, management levels and functions. It measures how the business community perceives the risk of misconduct, from economic conditions and ethical culture to reporting mechanisms and internal controls.
The fact that the sample consists of executives and professionals is an important detail. The findings do not represent the entire workforce. Rather than softening the picture, however, this makes it more concerning: even people in relatively strong positions within their organisations do not bring almost half of the misconduct they witness to a formal channel.
The key findings on reporting behaviour are as follows:
| Indicator | Share |
|---|---|
| Would definitely report a violation | 79% |
| Would probably report a violation | 16% |
| Reported misconduct witnessed in the past 12 months through a formal channel | 55% |
| Shared it through informal routes | 32% |
| Did not report it at all | 13% |
| See whistleblowing as the most effective way to detect misconduct | 41% |
| Expect the risk of misconduct to rise over the next 12 months | 69% |
Among those who hesitate to report, the reasons cluster under three headings: the belief that management will not take the necessary action (23%), fear of retaliation (20%) and concerns about confidentiality (17%).
The hidden risk of the 32%: informal channels instead of the ethics hotline
The discussion often focuses on the 13 per cent who never report. Yet for organisations, an equally critical group is the 32 per cent who share what they saw through informal routes. These people do not stay silent. They mention it to a manager in the corridor, raise it in a messaging group or confide in a colleague they trust.
Informal reporting has three concrete consequences for organisations:
- No record is created. The information stays in someone’s memory or in scattered correspondence. When, to whom and in what detail it was passed on cannot be established later.
- No process starts. The organisation’s defined investigation mechanism is never triggered. Whoever receives the information decides at their own discretion what to do, or does nothing.
- The person reporting is not protected. A report that does not go through a formal channel falls outside the organisation’s safeguards against retaliation. And as the information circulates informally, so does the identity of the person who raised it.
In short, the 32 per cent represents risks the organisation is in fact aware of, but remains blind to. Bringing these people to the formal channel is a far shorter path than winning new reporters from scratch.
Three hesitations that shape trust in an ethics hotline, and three mechanisms
The survey’s own assessment points in the same direction: having a reporting channel is not enough on its own. Employees need to believe that they can speak up safely, that they will be protected and that their reports will lead somewhere. That belief is not created by a policy document. Every hesitation needs to be met by a mechanism employees can see for themselves.
“Nothing will change”
The most frequently cited hesitation is the belief that management will not take the necessary action. This concern often stems from the feeling that a report disappears into a “black box”: the employee files a report and never hears about it again.
The answer to this concern is visibility. When a reporter can follow the stage their report has reached without revealing their identity, is notified when its status changes and can assess their experience at the end of the process, the “black box” feeling disappears. An organisation may not be able to share the details of every case. But showing that a report has been handled and concluded is the most basic building block of trust.
Fear of retaliation
The second hesitation is fear of retaliation. It feeds on uncertainty about who within the organisation will receive the report and who might learn the reporter’s identity.
The answer to this concern is independence. Having reports received and assessed by a structure that is independent of the parties to the violation and of the reporting line, technically restricting managers’ access to the reporter’s identity, and clearly communicating a zero-tolerance principle against retaliation all reduce the uncertainty on which that fear rests.
Confidentiality concerns
The third hesitation is confidentiality. Employees cannot be sure whether their identity will come to light at some point.
The answer to this concern is control. When sharing one’s identity is not mandatory, and each report instead receives its own tracking number and security code, the decision rests with the employee. Rather than a promise of absolute anonymity, a concrete mechanism that lets employees decide what to share and when is far more credible.
Two perception gaps: gender and seniority
Two findings that sit behind the averages deserve particular attention from an ethics hotline design perspective.
A trust gap among women respondents
Among men, 60 per cent say they report misconduct they witness through a formal channel; among women, the figure is 50 per cent. Seventeen per cent of women and 10 per cent of men did not report at all. And among those who hesitate to report, 21 per cent of women and 11 per cent of men say they do not trust that their identity will remain confidential.
This gap shows that assurances of confidentiality do not carry the same weight for everyone. In reports on personal and sensitive matters such as harassment, mobbing and discrimination, assurance about identity can directly determine whether a report is made at all. The credibility of an ethics hotline should be assessed through the eyes of its most hesitant user.
The distance between senior management and middle management
Positive views of senior management’s ethical leadership stand at 82 per cent among senior managers but fall to 63 per cent among middle managers. The view that ethical violations are handled equally drops from 74 per cent to 56 per cent. According to the survey, similar differences appear on sanctions and protection against retaliation.
This finding points to a clear perception gap between the ethical culture management believes exists and the culture experienced at other levels of the organisation. For an ethics hotline, this has a practical implication: the channel’s design and communication should be based on the perceptions of the employees who will use it, not those of senior management. Internal reporting should track not only the volume of reports but also the levels and channels they come from.
Ethics hotline checklist: what should organisations review?
The questions below offer a starting point for assessing how far your current ethics hotline helps close the gap between intention and behaviour:
- Can a reporter find out what stage their report has reached without revealing their identity?
- Is the reporter notified when the status of their report changes?
- Is the reporter’s experience measured at the end of the process?
- Are reports received and initially assessed by a structure independent of the parties to the violation and of the reporting line?
- Is managers’ access to the reporter’s identity technically restricted?
- Is sharing one’s identity optional, and is this option clearly explained to employees?
- Is the zero-tolerance principle against retaliation written down, communicated and visible in practice?
- Are reports from different channels such as phone, email and online forms held to a single record standard?
- Have managers been taught how to direct an issue raised with them informally to the formal channel?
- Does reporting track not only the volume of reports but also the levels and channels they come from?
A “no” to any of these questions may indicate that one of the three hesitations described in the survey is going unanswered in your organisation as well.
How Probuddy Etik Hat works to close this gap
Since 2018, Probuddy Etik Hat has provided organisations with an independent and impartial ethics hotline and report management infrastructure. The platform’s core mechanisms respond directly to the three hesitations highlighted in the survey:
| Hesitation | How Probuddy Etik Hat responds |
|---|---|
| “Nothing will change” | The reporter follows the status of their report using a Report Tracking Number (RTN) and Security Code. They are notified by SMS or email when the status is updated, and receive an evaluation survey at the end of the process. |
| Fear of retaliation | Reports are consolidated and initially assessed by Probuddy’s expert consultants, independently of the organisation. Company managers cannot access the reporter’s identity. Reports are shared only with the authorised ethics committee, through encrypted channels. |
| Confidentiality concerns | Sharing one’s identity is not mandatory. Each report receives its own RTN and Security Code. Data is stored in encrypted form on servers located in Turkey. |
All reports received by phone, email, online form or AI-assisted assistant are brought together in a single system. Employees can choose the channel they feel most comfortable with, and the organisation handles every report to the same standard, whichever channel it comes through.
Conclusion
The most important message of the Business Fraud Perception Survey 2026 is that ethics hotlines face a trust problem, not a channel problem. The 95 per cent intention shows that organisations have strong potential at hand. The 55 per cent behaviour shows that only about half of that potential is being realised.
The gap closes with the answers to three simple questions employees ask: Will my report lead anywhere? Will I be harmed for it? Will my identity be protected? Organisations that answer these questions not with posters or policy documents, but with mechanisms employees can verify through their own experience, can turn their ethics hotline into a genuine early warning system.
To assess your ethics hotline processes in this light and discuss how Probuddy Etik Hat can be tailored to your organisation, get in touch with us: probuddy.com.tr · +90 850 304 7595 · info@probuddy.com.tr
Ethics hotline: frequently asked questions
What is an ethics hotline?
An ethics hotline is a reporting channel through which employees, suppliers and other stakeholders can report ethical violations, fraud, harassment, conflicts of interest or breaches of law and regulation. It can operate through phone, email and online forms, and can be run by a structure independent of the organisation.
Is an ethics hotline the same as a whistleblowing hotline?
The two terms are often used interchangeably. An ethics hotline, however, usually refers to a broader report management structure that covers not only receiving reports but also recording, assessing, tracking and reporting on them.
Can I report to an ethics hotline without sharing my identity?
In a well-designed ethics hotline, sharing your identity is not mandatory. At Probuddy Etik Hat, each report receives its own Report Tracking Number (RTN) and Security Code, and the reporter decides whether to share their identity.
Why don’t employees use the ethics hotline?
According to the Business Fraud Perception Survey 2026, the most frequently cited reasons are the belief that management will not take the necessary action, fear of retaliation and concerns about confidentiality.
Is an ethics hotline mandatory?
Obligations vary by country and sector. The EU Whistleblowing Directive, for example, requires organisations with 50 or more employees to establish internal reporting channels. We recommend assessing the obligations that apply to your organisation with your legal counsel.
Sources
- İş dünyasında suistimal riski artıyor, etik kültür sınav veriyor (in Turkish), Platin, 9 October 2026. The Business Fraud Perception Survey 2026 (İş Dünyasında Suistimal Algısı Araştırması 2026) reported in the article was carried out in collaboration with the Ethics and Reputation Society (TEİD) and conducted by FutureBright Group.
The survey data cited in this article is drawn from the findings the survey made public. The sample consists of senior executives and professionals, and the findings may not represent the entire workforce.