ENGLISH VERSION:
Compliance and integrity training is maturing. Yet a very recent global study shows that many programmes still fail to focus sufficiently on what truly matters: effectiveness.
Nine years ago, I wrote about this same issue, the difference between training that is merely delivered and training that demonstrably works (CLICK HERE to read that blog in Dutch).
Unfortunately, the gap between activity and impact still exists.
Below, I summarise the key findings of that global survey and translate them into practical suggestions for Compliance and Ethics Professionals who want their programmes to move beyond good intentions.
- Measure behaviour, not attendance
Most organisations primarily report on training activity: completion rates, test results and participant feedback. Far less attention is paid to whether employees actually understand the content, can apply it in practice and make better decisions as a result.
This could create a dangerous illusion of success. Misconduct, weak ethical reasoning and near incidents may remain invisible beneath such dashboards. Moreover, supervisory boards increasingly expect insight into behavioural impact and risk reduction , not just statistics about attendance (CLICK HERE to read my article on this subject, written together with 5 compliance and ethics experts).
A first step is to replace the question “Have they completed it?” with “Can they apply it in their daily work?” Look at trends in code of conduct breaches, near misses, speak-up data, disciplinary measures and the quality of ethical decision-making. Link training data to cultural indicators and start pragmatically: select a small number of behavioural metrics, establish a baseline and evaluate progress annually (e.g. employee motivation survey or cultural survey).
Most importantly, use these insights to refine your learning portfolio. Decide what can be shorter, what requires more depth and what may no longer add value, instead of automatically expanding content year after year.
- Time pressure is real, design accordingly
Across organisations, lack of time and competing priorities remain the greatest barriers to engagement. Many employees perceive compliance training as something ‘on top of’ their work, rather than as practical support to help them perform to work safely and with integrity. It is telling that a significant minority (one in five) experience such training as irrelevant or uninspiring.
If time pressure is structural, the design must change.
Microlearning, short, focused modules of five to ten minutes, can significantly lower the threshold for participation and increase acceptance. Equally powerful are short nudges, practical checklists and brief scenario-based videos embedded into existing workflows. ‘Just-in-time’ support, available at the moment a risk arises, is often more effective than a lengthy annual module delivered months before a real dilemma occurs.
It is also essential to coordinate with other second-line functions. Overloading the first line with overlapping training sessions, surveys and interviews undermines both engagement and appreciation.
A nice experiment could be to redesign one traditional annual training into a year-round series of small, well-timed learning moments, and then compare behavioural and engagement data. In many cases, shorter and better-aligned interventions deliver more sustainable impact.
- Move beyond one-size-fits-all
Nearly one in three organisations still uses the same, generic training for all employees, including managers, regardless of role or risk exposure. Yet the evidence for role- and risk-based customisation is compelling.
Not every employee faces the same dilemmas, nor do they carry the same level of responsibility. High-risk functions, employees in sensitive operational processes (like sales) and, in particular, managers require targeted and deeper training.
For managers, this includes training on how to discuss ethical dilemmas with their teams, how to respond to misconduct and how to handle formal reports. Leadership behaviour has a disproportionate influence on organisational culture; generic content rarely equips them adequately for that responsibility.
A sensible starting point is a clear risk assessment: where could poor judgement genuinely harm the organisation? Align the depth and intensity of training with those risks, using modular content that can be adapted to different roles.
- Make cross-functional collaboration truly effective
Compliance training has become a multidisciplinary endeavour, involving Compliance, Risk, Legal, Learning & Development, Operations, Audit and often HR. This breadth of expertise is valuable, but without clear coordination it can lead to blurred ownership, fragmented design and inconsistent quality.
Skill gaps are common. Compliance professionals may have deep regulatory knowledge but limited didactic expertise. Learning specialists may excel in design but lack detailed understanding of legal nuances. Operational experts know the realities of the business but may struggle to translate them into credible learning scenarios.
To avoid fragmentation, establish a structural cross-functional forum with a clear mandate and shared objectives. Map capabilities and identify where additional development is needed. Consider developing a light “learning house style”: shared terminology, consistent formats and a logo. This strengthens coherence and recognisability across programmes.
- Approach AI with both caution and intent
Almost half of organisations express concern about the use of AI in training. Issues of accuracy, bias, privacy and employee trust are legitimate and should not be dismissed lightly.
At the same time, AI offers meaningful opportunities: personalised learning pathways, improved data analysis and adaptive content, provided human judgement remains central.
A prudent approach is to begin in lower-risk applications, such as drafting scenarios, generating variations of assessment questions, summarising policies or analysing anonymised data. For sensitive topics, cultural nuance and legal interpretation, human oversight is indispensable.
Transparency is critical. Employees should understand where AI is used, what its limitations are and how their data is protected. The goal is not to replace human judgement, but to enhance it.
- A practical roadmap for the next 12 months
Revisit your reporting and develop effectiveness indicators that are clearly linked to risk. Redesign at least part of your learning portfolio into shorter, better-timed interventions that respect employees’ time constraints. Shift decisively towards role- and risk-based customisation, beginning with managers and high-risk functions. Formalise cross-functional ownership and address the most pressing capability gaps, including the ability to make training not only informative, but genuinely engaging. Finally, experiment thoughtfully with AI as a supportive tool under human guidance.
When approached in this way, compliance and integrity training evolves from an annual box-ticking exercise into a strategic instrument that measurably strengthens ethical behaviour and sustainable value creation.
The original global report can be requested via the following LINK
