What makes a Good Investigation Report

There is no one size fits all approach to investigation reports. They come in all shapes and sizes. But good reports share a common thread: they capture what led to an investigation and how it was conducted, with clarity, neutrality and defensibility.

What a poor investigation report looks like:

Even well-intentioned investigation reports can miss the mark. Some common flaws in reports include:

• Failing to describe the investigation process
• Presenting findings without anchoring them in evidence
• Drawing vague conclusions that leave the reader confused about the outcome
• Taking an overly clinical approach to writing the report, which overlooks the fact that the investigation relates to someone’s lived experience.
• Allowing bias to seep into the report, whether in the tone of writing, the selection of evidence included or emphasized, or the conclusions drawn.

These flaws can compromise trust in the process and undermine the integrity of the entire investigation.

What are the implications of a poor investigation report?

An investigation report shows how an organization responds when an issue is raised. So with every investigation report, the credibility of the organization and its complaint handling systems is on the line. A poorly written report can carry serious consequences, such as:

• Letting problems linger: A good report helps organizations identify, address and resolve issues before they turn into lawsuits. A poor report can hide important facts, lead to incorrect conclusions and leave problems unresolved. This can damage trust in leadership, undermine the workplace culture and expose the organization to legal risk.
• Misguided decisions: Leaders often use investigation reports to make important decisions, including on corrective action, policy changes or other preventative steps. If the report is unclear, incomplete or biased, it can lead to misguided decisions and unfair outcomes. This can impact an organization’s culture and reputation.
• Failing to show compliance: A good report demonstrates that the organization met its legal duty to investigate and took reasonable action to address an issue. A poor investigation report, however, can undermine the credibility and integrity of the investigation, exposing the organization to legal risk.
• Offering poor or misleading legal guidance: While there are limitations to how investigation reports can be used in legal proceedings (a full discussion on this topic can be found here), it provides organizations with a preview of the strengths and weaknesses of their case. A poor report can distort that picture, exposing the organization to greater legal risk.
• Increased costs: A poor investigation report may compel an organization to conduct another investigation, prepare for legal proceedings, or allocate additional time and resources to remediating the workplace, all of which would add to costs.

What does a good investigation report look like?

A good investigation report has these features:

• Shares a story: It shares a story with the reader, guiding them through the different perspectives on a conflict, building the case for why a certain narrative is most likely based on the evidence, and explaining why conclusions were drawn.
• Shows the investigator’s work: It explains how the investigation was conducted, and importantly, why it was approached that way. This is the investigator’s opportunity to show their work: outlining their process, including the steps that were and were not taken and the rationale behind this.
• Adopts a style that serves the organization’s purposes and objectives: A good investigation report will tailor the format and depth of the report to what the organization needs and when they need it by. For example:
  • A preliminary assessment report could provide an early view of whether the alleged facts, if taken to be true, could breach policy or law. This style of report helps the organization determine whether an investigation is warranted.
  • An interim or summary report could be a practical option when time is critical. It sets out a brief overview of the investigation process and delivers the findings without the detailed fact-finding analysis. This style of report offers clarity on a situation quickly.
  • A full investigation report is the most comprehensive format, detailing the steps taken in the investigation, the evidence reviewed, and a thorough analysis supporting findings. This style of report is the most defensible and can help mitigate risk.

Guiding leadership on the best report for them

The key is to understand the employer objectives and concerns and guide leaders toward the report format that best meets those needs. Employers should understand the different pathways available to them. For example, they may decide to start with a preliminary assessment report and then proceed with a full investigation of the allegations that meet the threshold to warrant one. Similarly, they may begin with a summary report and later request a more detailed report if the matter escalates.

It is also important for employers to understand the cost and benefits of different options, and recognize that how they proceed will have implications, financial and otherwise. While a summary report may seem cost-effective upfront, it lacks the depth and defensibility that a full report provides. If litigation is likely, a summary report may not be the best option.  A higher quality report may come at a higher price tag, but it can be an investment in restoring credibility in the workplace and mitigating risk.

Organizations should be encouraged to view investigations as a tool to manage business and legal risk, not merely as a way to tick a compliance box.  When done correctly, an investigation can have a positive and lasting impact on an organization’s reputation and culture.

A Bernardi Investigation Report:

At Bernardi, our investigations are always conducted with objectivity, independence and integrity. We ensure our investigations are fair, thorough and aligned with organizational values.

When it comes to reporting on our investigations, we go beyond a one-size fits all approach.

• Laying the groundwork: We invest the time to understand the purpose of the report, review the cost and benefits of different report styles, and ensure our reports are tailored to reflect objectives.
• Trauma-informed and relationship-centred: We deliver reports that are trauma-informed and relationship-centred. We understand the sensitivities of tone, language and structure of a report, and the impact it can have on workplace relationships and organizational culture.
• Legally defensible reports: We prepare reports that are defensible under legal scrutiny.  We ensure that the procedural fairness of the investigation process is evident throughout the report, findings are sound and well supported by evidence and law, and the report is presented in a clear and impartial manner.
• Depth of expertise: Our reports are conducted by highly trained and experienced investigators. They reflect proven investigative and writing techniques, grounded in decades of experience and HRPA-endorsed training.

We understand that an investigation report is rarely the end of a story. Our role goes beyond writing a report. We help organizations restore trust, mitigate future risk, and foster a positive culture.