For a long time, ethics and compliance programs were judged on basics. Did you have a code of conduct? Was there a hotline? Could you show training completion rates?
That bar has moved.
Boards don’t just want to know you have controls. They want answers they can use. Where are we exposed right now? Are we seeing the same issues in more than one region? Are cases closing in a reasonable time? Regulators don’t just want your policy. They want to see the file trail: what you did, when you did it, and what changed afterward.
The role didn’t change overnight. But the standard leaders are held to has changed.
We recently spoke with Derek Safnuk, Product Manager for Resolver’s Whistleblowing & Case Management Software. Safnuk also participated in a recent panel discussion hosted by Consero, focused on the evolving role of ethics and compliance leadership. Through his work with compliance and investigations teams, he spends a lot of time listening to how expectations for the role are changing — especially as leaders face growing scrutiny with systems that haven’t always kept pace.
Across conversations with ethics and compliance leaders, one theme comes up consistently. Influence today has less to do with formal authority and more to do with credibility. And credibility comes from being able to explain what’s happening in the program clearly, without weeks of back-and-forth to reconcile data.
“What I hear most often is that leaders aren’t being asked for more rules,” says Safnuk. “They’re being asked to explain what’s happening and why — and to do it in a way people can actually understand.”
That expectation becomes real when those explanations are tested in boardrooms and executive conversations.
What influence looks like in day-to-day compliance work
Influence sounds abstract until you put it in the context of the questions leaders actually get.
Safnuk describes it as being able to walk into a board meeting and answer, “What are our top allegation types this quarter?” without asking someone to pull three reports from three systems. It’s being able to say, “We’re seeing a repeat pattern in one business unit,” and back that up with consistent categorization and case notes. And it’s being able to explain why a sensitive case took 90 days to resolve without digging through inboxes to reconstruct the timeline.
Across conversations with ethics and compliance leaders, those moments come up again and again. Influence isn’t about having more authority. It’s about having enough clarity to explain what’s happening and why it matters.
In practice, that credibility tends to come from a few very practical things. Handling similar issues the same way across regions. Applying judgment that reflects both policy and how the business actually operates. And following through in ways leaders can point to later, such as corrective actions that are clearly assigned, tracked, and verified.
Most compliance leaders recognize this shift before they ever put words to it. They know they’re no longer evaluated only on whether policies were enforced. They’re evaluated on whether their program helps the organization make sound decisions when the pressure is on.
 |
Watch: How Fujifilm Built a Global Ethics and Compliance ProgramSee how Fujifilm unified investigations across 20+ subsidiaries to strengthen its speak-up culture and prove the value of its ethics and compliance program. |
Credibility is built through collaboration, not control
Ethics and compliance programs don’t operate in isolation. Investigations involve HR. Allegations pull in Legal. Reputational risk brings Communications into the conversation. Data access and privacy typically sit with IT or Security.
On paper, that level of collaboration sounds manageable. In practice, it’s one of the most common friction points compliance leaders describe.
Safnuk points out that the issue isn’t a lack of effort across teams. It’s that work still happens in too many places. One group tracks issues in a case management tool. Another relies on HRIS notes. Others use spreadsheets, while sensitive conversations live in email. Regions may classify the same allegation differently, and systems rarely change at the same time.
The result is predictable. Information gets copied and pasted. Details are re-entered. Updates are chased in meetings. Over time, that friction slows decisions and chips away at confidence in the program.
When collaboration depends on manual handoffs or stitched-together reporting, leaders struggle to present a clear picture of risk. Case status gets out of date. Ownership gets fuzzy. According to Safnuk, the cost isn’t just inefficiency. It shows up when leaders are asked for a single view of risk and the most honest answer is, “It depends which system you’re looking at.”
The strongest compliance leaders don’t try to control every step. Instead, they focus on acting as connective tissue across functions. The goal is shared visibility and accountability, so HR, Legal, and Compliance are working from the same timeline, documentation, and understanding of next steps.
 |
Building Trust at Scale: Five Considerations for Global Ethics & Compliance ProgramsGet deeper insight into the key factors leaders consider when scaling ethics and compliance programs, including infrastructure, leadership alignment, culture, and trust. |
Speak-up culture depends on follow-through
Most organizations already have reporting channels, codes of conduct, and documented procedures. On paper, those foundations are in place. Yet compliance leaders still describe a gap between what exists and what employees experience after they raise a concern.
At scale, intent matters less than execution.
Whether employees choose to speak up often comes down to what happens next. How quickly someone responds. Whether communication is clear or inconsistent. Whether the process feels predictable, or changes depending on who is involved or where the issue originated.
Safnuk notes that trust is shaped less by policy language and more by follow-through. When updates stall, responses vary by region, or outcomes aren’t clearly communicated, confidence fades quietly. Not because people don’t care, but because the process feels unreliable.
Over time, that inconsistency has a broader impact. Speak-up culture becomes a reflection of operational reality, not internal messaging. Leaders may continue to promote reporting, but employees take cues from what they see happen after concerns are raised.
The compliance programs that sustain trust are the ones where follow-through is visible and consistent. Concerns are acknowledged promptly. Cases move forward in a clear, documented way. And outcomes lead to action employees can recognize, even when details can’t be shared.
Using data to earn trust with senior leadership
Most compliance leaders can produce metrics. What’s harder is explaining what those numbers actually mean in a way senior leaders trust.
Raw counts answer what happened. Boards and executives usually want something more practical. Are we improving? Where are we seeing repeat issues? What’s slowing us down?
In decentralized organizations, those questions are harder to answer cleanly. Regions track different measures. Teams follow different workflows. Even basic reporting can turn into a debate about definitions, timelines, or ownership.
Safnuk sees that tension show up frequently in leadership conversations. When data isn’t consistent or comparable, discussions stall. Instead of focusing on risk or outcomes, leaders end up questioning the numbers themselves.
“Most boards aren’t asking for more metrics,” Safnuk says. “They want to understand what the data actually means and what it tells them about what’s going on.”
As a result, reporting becomes defensive rather than informative. Compliance teams spend time explaining how numbers were compiled instead of what they reveal.
 |
5 Roadblocks to Scaling an Ethics & Compliance Program — and How to Fix ThemMove beyond fragmented investigations and low engagement to build a program that earns trust and scales with confidence. |
The next generation of ethics and compliance leadership
The shift ethics and compliance leaders are navigating isn’t about title or tenure. It’s about how clearly they can operate when expectations are higher and scrutiny is constant.
Across conversations with compliance leaders, Safnuk sees that clarity under pressure has become a defining requirement of the role. Leaders are expected to explain decisions across functions, navigate ambiguity without losing credibility, and connect program activity to real outcomes like consistent handling, timely resolution, and risk reduction.
Technology plays a role in that shift, but adoption isn’t uniform. Safnuk notes that some teams are actively looking for more automation because they’re under-resourced and spending too much time on manual work, such as summarizing cases, routing tasks, and assembling reports. Others remain cautious, particularly in highly regulated environments where data sensitivity and defensibility matter as much as efficiency.
What stands out in those conversations is that speed alone isn’t the goal. Leaders aren’t looking to replace judgment with technology. They’re looking to reduce the friction that keeps experienced teams focused on administrative work instead of analysis and decision-making.
For modern compliance programs, the next phase of leadership is less about new capabilities quickly and more about applying them responsibly. The leaders who succeed will be the ones who use technology to support consistency, visibility, and follow-through — without losing human oversight.
What this means for modern compliance programs
Across conversations with ethics and compliance leaders, one tension stands out: expectations have outpaced infrastructure.
Leaders are asked to answer faster and defend decisions under greater scrutiny, often using systems that weren’t designed for consistent, cross-team work. That’s why structured whistleblower and case management matters. When teams can see case status, history, and follow-through in one place, they spend less time reconciling information and more time making sound decisions.