Compliance in Practice: Insights on What’s Working, What’s Not, & The Rise of AI
Executive Summary
This report analyzes employee perceptions of corporate compliance programs across four countries: the United States, Canada, Germany, and France. Drawing on survey data from more than 800 employees across multiple industries, the findings provide a comprehensive, cross-national view into how compliance programs are perceived, implemented, and supported within organizations, including the use of AI.
Ultimately, the study aims to improve the effectiveness of compliance programs by understanding the perspective of the people the programs are designed to protect and guide. Specifically:
- Determine whether employees know the compliance program exists, understand its purpose, were adequatelytrained, and know where to find policies and procedures.
- Understand whether employees feel safe reporting misconduct and trust that action will be taken without retaliation.
- Determine whether employees feel like the compliance team is educating and empowering them with data.
- Assess whether leadership is perceived as setting the appropriate tone at the top regarding ethics and compliance.
- Gauge employee attitudes towards the use of AI in compliance
While individual employee commitment to compliance is strong across all markets, the data reveals critical gaps in leadership engagement, training coverage, reporting comfort, transparency concerns, while showing measured optimism about AI in compliance. These findings present both risks and opportunities for compliance leaders to strengthen ethical culture, increase employee trust, and leverage optimism for AI to improve their programs.
Methodology Overview
- Respondents: 828 total employees across the U.S. (216), Canada (204), France (203), and Germany (205)
- Industries represented: Financial services, IT, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, government, and more
- Roles: Ranged from entry-level employees to senior leadership (VP/Director)
- Survey Topics: Compliance awareness, training, leadership perceptions, use of AI, speak-up culture, retaliation
protection, transparency
To gauge employee perceptions, the survey included both frequency-based and scale-based questions, with responses to scale-based questions measured on Likert-type scales (typically 1–5). Open-ended (qualitative) responses were also recorded. Data were analyzed for composite scores, cross-national trends, and actionable gaps. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was used to compare means across countries for key variables. Data was collected through online recruitment platforms (i.e., via online survey platforms) with standardized questions across all countries to ensure comparability.
Statistically Significant Results
Compliance communication and reporting behaviors vary notably across countries and organizational cultures, with age and tenure influencing some response patterns, but job level and gender show limited effect.
- Americans report the highest comfort with compliance issue reporting, whereas French respondents are the least comfortable.
- Older respondents tend to report lower compliance communication scores, while longer tenure slightly increases these scores. This trend is consistent across organizational and individual communication measures.
- Gender differences in compliance communication are minimal and mostly non-significant.
- Job level does not predict openness to AI use in compliance contexts, with similar acceptance levels across entry-level to executive positions.
- Organizational sharing of investigation outcomes was rated low across all countries, with the USA slightly higher.
United States
A MATURE COMPLIANCE ENVIRONMENT WITH AN AI FRONTIER
In the United States, the data tells a largely positive story about the maturity of compliance programs. Employees in the U.S. report the highest levels of clarity, confidence, and personal commitment to compliance across all four countries surveyed. This suggests that U.S. organizations have invested meaningfully in embedding compliance as part of their operational culture. Many U.S. employees are embracing AI in compliance with a sense of cautious optimism. They are excited about its potential to dignificantly enhance confidentiality and promote fairness. While they understand that trust in these technologies requires careful consideration, they are hopeful about the advancements in governance, interpretation, and transparency of AI systems. This positive outlook reflects a broader industry trend: the enthusiasm for AI-driven compliance solutions is matched by a strong commitment to ethical standards and openness.
Individual Compliance Behavior
U.S. employees exhibit a strong personal alignment with compliance expectations. This is more than procedural—it’s cultural. Employees report a clear intent to follow policies, high certainty in their ability to do so, and view compliance as a shared ethical standard. For compliance professionals, this individual commitment forms a sturdy base upon which to scale more advanced efforts like behavioral analytics, ethics-driven decision frameworks, and predictive risk models. But high personal standards come with high organizational expectations: employees who take compliance seriously expect their leaders to do the same. The following summarizes responses based on participants’ agreement with the presented statements. The scale is 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”.
Reporting and Trust
Speak-up systems in the U.S. are familiar to employees, but trust in those systems is not universally strong. While most people know how to report, concerns about retaliation and follow-through persist. Perhaps most importantly, transparency around investigation outcomes is lacking. In a compliance environment where perception is as critical as process, trust must be continuously earned. That means building feedback loops, anonymizing outcome summaries, and empowering managers to reinforce procedural fairness at the ground level.
AI Perceptions
U.S. employees hold a cautiously optimistic view of AI in compliance. Many believe it could improve confidentiality and fairness, but trust is still conditional. Concerns about how AI will be governed, interpreted, and explained remain central. This mirrors a broader industry trend: early enthusiasm for AI-powered compliance tools must be tempered with transparency and ethical oversight. Employees won’t embrace AI unless they believe it serves them—not just the company.
Download the report to read our finings on organizational communication & awareness, leadership commitment, and training & communication, as well as recommendations and American participant demographics.
Canada
A STRONG FOUNDATION UNDERMINED BY LEADERSHIP GAPS AND TRANSPARENCY CHALLENGES
Canada’s compliance landscape shows a high level of employee commitment to doing the right thing, but organizational structures—particularly around leadership, training delivery, and transparency—are failing to fully support that intent. For compliance professionals, this reveals a program with strong ethical potential but one that must address foundational blind spots to mature further.
Individual Compliance Behavior
Canadian employees report strong personal commitment to compliance, with an average composite score of 4.40 across key behavioral indicators. Employees not only intend to follow rules—they believe in them and take responsibility for doing so. For compliance professionals, this is encouraging: it means the foundation is there. But it also raises the stakes—when employee commitment isn’t matched by leadership visibility or enforcement consistency, the risk of disengagement grows. The data suggests now is the time to build on employee intent by delivering stronger institutional support and role modeling from above. The following summarizes responses based on participants’ agreement with the presented statements. The scale is 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”.
Reporting and Trust
Canada’s speak-up culture shows signs of strain. Employees generally know how to report misconduct, but they’re less confident about what happens next. Concerns about retaliation and skepticism around follow-through point to deeper issues with transparency, trust, and the perceived seriousness of compliance investigations. These concerns don’t just suppress reporting—they risk eroding the integrity of the entire program. To strengthen trust, organizations must treat transparency as a culture-building tool, not a compliance obligation, and empower employees to see reporting as both safe and impactful.
AI Perceptions
Canadian employees remain cautious about the use of AI in compliance. While there’s some optimism about its potential benefits, there’s also clear hesitation rooted in concerns about surveillance, fairness, and ethics. For compliance teams exploring automation or predictive tools, this means the groundwork isn’t just technical—it’s cultural. Building trust in AI will require education, transparency, and meaningful governance structures that put employee rights and ethical standards at the center of every deployment.
Download the report to read our finings on organizational communication & awareness, leadership commitment, and training & communication, as well as recommendations and Canadian participant demographics.
Germany
ETHICAL ALIGNMENT MEETS CULTURAL CAUTION AND STRUCTURAL AMBIGUITY
Germany presents a complex compliance picture. Employees show strong personal ethical standards and a desire to do the right thing—but their confidence in program structure, transparency, and leadership support is inconsistent. There’s also a distinct tone of institutional reserve: scores across multiple domains are neither dramatically high nor low, suggesting a culture that is quietly compliant but lacks conviction in how policies are enforced or modeled. For compliance leaders, this creates an opportunity: to clarify the rules, reinforce accountability, and communicate not just what the program is, but why it matters.
Individual Compliance Behavior
German employees demonstrate solid behavioral alignment with compliance expectations. While not the highest-scoring country, Germany reflects a culture of principled behavior and personal accountability. These values—deeply embedded in Germany’s corporate and regulatory landscape—are a valuable baseline for any compliance program. The following summarizes responses based on participants’ agreement with the presented statements. The scale is 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”.
Reporting and Trust
Germany’s speak-up culture reveals a tension between procedural clarity and emotional safety. Employees clearly know how to report misconduct—the highest knowledge score in the study supports this—but they hesitate when it comes to actually using those channels. Confidence in retaliation protection and in how concerns will be handled remains lukewarm. The most troubling signals come from the transparency data: employees receive very little information about investigations and feel dissatisfied with what is shared. This lack of visibility not only breeds suspicion but also suppresses future reporting. In a country where due process and procedural fairness are core workplace expectations, this gap is more than a cultural misalignment—it’s a compliance liability. For professionals in Germany, the path forward includes reinforcing psychological safety, communicating investigative outcomes (even in anonymized formats), and ensuring that follow-through is seen as both fair and respectful.
AI Perceptions
German employees are skeptical about the role of AI in compliance. In a culture that highly values worker autonomy, data privacy, and procedural fairness, the idea of algorithms making decisions about risk, reporting, or monitoring raises expected concerns. While there is mild optimism about AI’s potential benefits, comfort levels remain low and trust even lower. These perceptions reflect not just a fear of technology, but a broader cultural resistance to opaque systems and perceived surveillance. For compliance leaders seeking to responsibly implement AI-powered tools, the takeaway is clear: don’t assume acceptance. Instead, adopt a transparent, participatory approach that includes clear ethical guardrails, governance structures, and communication plans. AI adoption in compliance must be framed not as cost-saving or oversight-enhancing—but as a way to better protect employees, surface misconduct fairly, and reduce human bias.
Download the report to read our finings on organizational communication & awareness, leadership commitment, and training & communication, as well as recommendations and German participant demographics.
France
STRONG ETHICS AT THE EMPLOYEE LEVEL—BUT TROUBLING SIGNS OF STRUCTURAL FRAGILITY
French employees bring a strong sense of individual accountability to their organizations’ compliance programs. Scores across behavioral and ethical alignment questions are among the highest in this study. However, organizational support—particularly from leadership, training structures, and transparency practices—lags behind. Compliance professionals in France face a complex paradox: a workforce that is personally aligned with compliance values but feels structurally unsupported. This creates a fragile foundation that could falter without a renewed focus on leadership visibility, communication cadence, and retaliation protection.
Individual Compliance Behavior
French employees exhibit some of the strongest ethical intent in the study, signaling a deeply ingrained sense of personal responsibility. Compliance isn’t just tolerated—it’s actively supported at the individual level. These scores position France as a market with powerful ethical foundations. However, without institutional scaffolding—such as consistent leadership support or procedural fairness—this individual integrity can be eroded over time. For compliance leaders, the takeaway is clear: don’t take employee intent for granted. Build infrastructure that supports it. The following summarizes responsesbased on participants’ agreement with the presented statements. The scale is 1-5 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5being “Strongly Agree”.
Reporting and Trust
Despite strong personal ethics, French employees are among the least likely to report misconduct—and among the most skeptical that their concerns will be taken seriously. Confidence in retaliation protection is alarmingly low. Even more troubling is the near-complete lack of transparency around investigations, which may create a chilling effect on reporting. In a legal environment where whistleblower protections are expanding, this transparency vacuum is a major risk. Compliance professionals must build systems that demonstrate procedural fairness, emphasize anonymity protections, and show outcomes whenever possible.
AI Perceptions
French employees remain cautious—if not outright skeptical—about the role of AI in compliance. Scores here are the lowest across all countries, particularly regarding ethical trust. Cultural concerns about surveillance, privacy, and centralized decision-making may contribute to this resistance. However, this isn’t an outright rejection—it’s a call for clearer governance, better communication, and transparent implementation. If AI is to be used in compliance functions, it must be introduced with clear ethical guardrails, employee engagement, and oversight that respects France’s strong labor and data rights frameworks.
Download the report to read our finings on organizational communication & awareness, leadership commitment, and training & communication, as well as recommendatons and French participant demographics.
About the Researcher
Dr. Rene Arseneault is an assistant professor of human resources at the University of Laval. His research focuses include recruitment and selection, personality, job design, and cross-cultural differences in the workplace. He has published over a dozen academic, peer-reviewed articles and presented his work at top-tier conferences worldwide.
