Reputational risk has become one of the most significant threats facing organizations today. While internal investigations once focused mainly on financial misconduct, modern challenges increasingly arise from cultural tensions, employee activism, misinformation, and the speed at which issues spread online. Remote work, decentralized communication tools, and AI-driven amplification further complicate how concerns surface and escalate.
On 19 November, K2 Integrity, H/Advisors, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom hosted a webinar with experts Jason Wright, senior managing director at K2 Integrity; Shannon Rainey, senior managing director at K2 Integrity; Vikki Kosmalska, partner, Crisis and Reputation, H/Advisors; and Andrew Good, partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. The discussion outlined the forces shaping internal investigations, the growing risks posed by leaks and misinformation, and practical steps organizations can take to prepare for and respond to reputational crises. Click here to watch a recording of the session.
The Changing Landscape of Internal Investigations
Internal investigations now unfold against a backdrop of social media visibility, polarized public dialogue, and rapid information flow. Employees and leaders routinely share opinions online, sometimes without recognizing their impact on organizational reputation. Remote work has also weakened day-to-day cultural cohesion, making misunderstandings and conflicts more likely.
These dynamics mean that concerns—whether legitimate or exaggerated—can reach public audiences quickly. What once might have remained an internal HR matter can now escalate into a reputational issue requiring coordinated legal, investigative, and communications responses.
Whistleblowing has expanded far beyond exposing corruption. Individuals now raise concerns about culture, bias, leadership decisions, or organizational values. Some reports are made out of genuine ethical concern; others are influenced by interpersonal grievances or employment uncertainty.
Because motive is not always clear, organizations benefit from first assessing the substance of a report rather than making assumptions about intent. Even complaints rooted in personal conflict may identify operational weaknesses worth addressing.
Informal reporting has also grown. Employees may bypass whistleblowing channels entirely and post concerns anonymously online or share them externally. Once this occurs, an organization’s ability to manage the matter quietly diminishes, and public expectations for transparency rise.
Leaks, Misinformation, and Public Narratives
Leaks remain a major driver of reputational crises. They often originate during periods of internal change—such as leadership transitions or restructurings—when trust may be strained. Leaked information may include a mix of fact, partial truth, and fabrication. Investigators typically analyze who had access to the information, when it circulated, and whether digital trails or linguistic patterns point to specific individuals.
Misinformation from external actors poses an additional threat. False narratives may be shared for political, financial, or social reasons and often spread faster than factual corrections. Even unfounded claims can influence public perception or investor behavior.
Organizations can mitigate damage by responding promptly and clearly. Rapid corrections, well-managed media relationships, and consistent messaging help reestablish credibility. Employees can also be strong advocates when equipped with accurate information and guidance.
Legal and Compliance Considerations
The regulatory framework surrounding internal investigations continues to evolve, particularly with respect to whistleblower protections and data privacy. Many jurisdictions require timely acknowledgment of reports, opportunities for individuals to respond, and clear documentation of investigative steps.
Engaging external legal counsel may be appropriate when allegations involve senior leadership, have regulatory implications, or could result in litigation. Doing so helps preserve legal privilege, ensures independence, and aligns investigative and communications strategies under a unified framework.
Conducting Investigations in a High-Speed Information Environment
Modern investigations must balance the need for thorough fact-finding with the urgency created by rapidly moving public narratives. Investigators frequently navigate large volumes of emails, conversations on internal messaging platforms, personal messaging apps, and social media content. While the variety and number of communications channels can add to the complexity, they also produce valuable digital footprints.
Protecting the integrity of an investigation requires swift data preservation, clear confidentiality protocols, and a core response team that shares information on a need-to-know basis only. Early missteps—such as premature announcements or broad internal messaging—can fuel further leaks or alert individuals who may attempt to hide evidence.
At the same time, organizations may need to provide interim reassurances to internal or external stakeholders. Clear but cautious communication helps maintain confidence without compromising the investigative process.
Governance and Crisis Oversight
The appropriate leadership structure for an investigation depends on who is implicated. When potential conflicts of interest exist, oversight should shift to the board or a designated committee, often supported by external counsel. For issues confined to other parts of the organization, management may lead while keeping the board informed.
Across all scenarios, alignment among legal, communications, and investigative teams is essential. A coordinated approach provides clarity, prevents contradictory actions, and strengthens overall credibility.
Building Organizational Resilience
Although reputational crises cannot be eliminated entirely, organizations can significantly reduce their vulnerability by investing in preventive measures. Clear communication protocols, scenario planning, and pre-approved holding statements help leaders respond decisively under pressure. Strong compliance programs and accessible policies reinforce expectations and reduce ambiguity.
A well-designed whistleblowing framework—supported by training and cultural reinforcement—encourages employees to raise concerns internally rather than publicly. At the broader cultural level, fostering transparency, fairness, and trust greatly reduces the likelihood of leaks or misinformation driven by internal dissatisfaction.
Finally, organizations benefit from establishing relationships with legal, communications, and investigative advisors before a crisis occurs. Knowing whom to call allows for immediate, coordinated action.
Conclusion
Reputational risk now intersects with cultural sensitivity, digital discourse, and accelerated information flows. Organizations must be prepared for concerns to surface publicly with little warning and for misinformation to spread quickly.
By strengthening internal culture, building trusted investigative and whistleblowing frameworks, planning communications proactively, and coordinating legal and operational strategies, organizations can respond effectively and protect their long-term reputation in an increasingly complex environment.
If your organization is looking to strengthen its investigative, legal, or communications readiness, our team is here to help. Contact us to discuss how we can support your needs.