What an Ethics Program Looks Like from the Outside

When I sit down with a new client, the first thing I ask for is documentation. Policies, training records, investigation protocols, governance structures. I want to see the architecture of the program — how it’s designed, what’s written down, how it’s supposed to work.

That’s what a program assessment is built to do. We review formal program elements through a detailed questionnaire, collect documents, conduct interviews across the organization, and write a report that benchmarks the program against what mature, high-functioning ethics and compliance programs look like. The question we’re trying to answer is: does this program, as designed, hold up?

It’s a powerful lens, and one that regulators are paying closer attention to. The DOJ’s updated Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs now explicitly asks how companies measure program effectiveness, and boards are increasingly looking for independent verification rather than internal self-assessment. But even a rigorous program assessment has a ceiling.

Here’s the thing about being an outside assessor: you can see everything that’s documented and very little of what’s felt. I can tell you whether a code of conduct covers the right topics, whether policies are legally sound, whether investigation procedures are clearly defined. What I can’t tell you from documentation alone is whether employees know those policies exist, whether they trust the reporting system, or whether the message their manager sends on a Monday morning aligns with what the code says on page twelve.

That’s where culture data becomes essential.

I’ve been doing this work since 2008, and the two most informative things you can know about an ethics and compliance program are how it’s built and how it’s experienced. A program assessment tells you the former. A culture survey that reaches hundreds or thousands of employees and measures trust, speak-up comfort, manager perceptions, and organizational justice, tells you the latter. Together, you get something neither one can offer alone.

When culture data tells me where to dig

One area where this pairing really comes into focus is organizational justice. Culture data consistently surfaces employee concerns about whether misconduct reports actually lead to action, whether investigations are fair, and whether discipline is applied consistently. These aren’t hypothetical worries. They’re measurable, recurring gaps in survey data.

When I see organizational justice concerns in a client’s culture results, I know exactly where to start the program assessment: how are you communicating about the investigations process? Not just the policy itself, but the actual practice. Are employees getting any information about what happens after a report is filed? Are they seeing anything about substantiation rates or disciplinary outcomes?

There’s been a real shift in this area among Ethisphere’s World’s Most Ethical Companies honorees over the past few years. More organizations are sharing data about their investigations — not just raw numbers, but categories of reports, ranges of outcomes. Not because they’re required to, but because employees who understand what the process looks like are more likely to trust it. Making the “black box” a little more gray is one of the most effective things you can do for speak-up culture, and it starts with a programmatic decision to communicate differently.

I also look hard at discipline calibration. A culture survey may not surface this directly, but a pattern of organizational justice concerns often points to inconsistencies in how discipline is applied — different standards for top performers versus individual contributors, for example. When I see that signal in the culture data, I go looking for how the organization ensures fairness across the board.

Managers are the program

Another area where program assessment and culture data reinforce each other is around managers. Culture surveys consistently show that employees with managers who have regular ethics and compliance conversations are dramatically more likely to report misconduct, trust the non-retaliation policy, and believe that concerns will be investigated. The data on this is striking. But knowing the gap exists doesn’t tell you why it exists, or what’s missing programmatically.

From the program assessment side, I look at whether managers are being equipped to succeed as ethical linchpins. Are they trained on what to do when someone brings them a report? Do they have real tools — not just an email to forward, but conversation starters, scenario-based modules, meeting frameworks? Are they required to have E&C conversations, and if so, is anyone checking whether those conversations happen?

The best example I’ve seen in my career was a large organization — around 60,000 employees — that built scenarios from real-life events and required every manager, from the CEO down, to hold structured discussions with their direct reports twice a year. It’s not a model that works for everyone. But it shows what it looks like when an organization treats manager communication as a serious programmatic investment rather than an afterthought.

For organizations that aren’t ready for something that ambitious, even an ethics and compliance moment at the start of a team meeting is a start. Anything is better than nothing. The key is making sure managers have what they need to have the conversation in the first place.

If you’ve never done a culture survey

I know there’s resistance in some organizations to adding a standalone culture survey. The calendar is full, survey fatigue is real, buy-in is hard. My answer to that is: start somewhere.

One thing I’ve been seeing more of in the last eighteen months or so is organizations appending a short culture survey to the end of annual code training. Employees are already there. The logistics are already in place. You get meaningful data without launching a major new initiative. Even a handful of well-chosen questions can give you far more insight than flying blind.

The insight you gain is worth it. A program assessment tells you whether your policies are in place, whether your training curriculum covers the right topics, whether your investigation process has a documented framework. What it can’t tell you is whether any of that is landing.

That’s the gap. Culture data closes it.

When I’m doing a program assessment without any culture data, I’m working with half the picture. I can spot structural gaps, weak spots in governance, missing policy elements. But I can’t tell you whether a communications program that looks complete on paper is actually reaching employees. I can’t tell you whether the tone from the top is translating to the shop floor. I can’t tell you whether employees in a particular business unit feel comfortable speaking up.

Culture survey data tells me where to look harder. And when both assessments happen, the findings talk to each other in ways that make both more actionable.

You can build a program that looks right on paper. The harder question is whether it’s working for the people it’s supposed to serve. That’s a question worth asking — and worth having the data to answer.

Author Bio

Jodie Fredericksen, J.D.  |  Vice President of Data and Services, Ethisphere

Jodie Fredericksen is Vice President of Data and Services for Ethisphere. Ms. Fredericksen specializes in implementing corporate compliance solutions for Ethisphere’s clients. Her work includes providing clients with ethics and compliance thought leadership, drafting and revising policies that meet the highest legal and ethical standards, and evaluating clients’ ethics and compliance programs.