We are currently witnessing a profound shift in the expectations placed on organisations. For decades, the standard corporate response to a crisis or serious complaint was often defensive posturing. However, the current UK debate regarding a statutory ‘duty of candour’ (commonly known as the Hillsborough Law) is set to change the rules of engagement.

The proposed legislation aims to ensure that public bodies and their officials have a legal duty to be honest and transparent during inquiries and investigations. But the ripple effects will be felt far beyond the public sector.

Transparency is no longer just a ‘nice to have’ in a CSR report; it is becoming a baseline legal and ethical expectation. A process that hides the truth will eventually fail, in court, in regulatory inquiries and in the eyes of the public.

One of the most difficult tensions for any organisation is balancing this need for candour with the welfare of its team. When a complaint is made, the pressure of a transparent investigation can be immense for all involved.

We must be careful that ‘candour’ does not become a tool for a ‘blame culture’. A genuine duty of candour should be supported by a robust framework of psychological safety. Protecting the mental health of the complainant and the subject of the complaint is not an obstacle to the truth; it is a prerequisite for a fair process. If anyone fears that honesty will result in a penalty without due process, they will remain silent.

In the past, ‘reputational risk’ was often managed by controlling the narrative. In the post-Hillsborough Law landscape, reputation will be shaped by the integrity of the investigation.

The debate in Westminster highlights that public trust is not lost because of an error; it is lost when an organisation is seen to be more interested in its image than in justice. We must move away from ‘reputation management’ and towards ‘accountability management’.

Try these suggestions:

• Do not wait for a statutory requirement. Update internal grievance and whistleblowing policies to explicitly value transparency and honesty.
• Ensure that confidentiality clauses (NDAs) are never used to suppress the truth about systemic failings or misconduct.
• Invest in independent welfare support for those involved in investigations to ensure the process remains human, even when it is rigorous.

The duty of candour is not a threat to well-run organisations; it is a safeguard. It reminds us that the best way to protect a reputation is to ensure that, when things go wrong, the organisation is the first to seek an explanation.