HR Internal Investigations 2025 Comparisons

The submission of a complaint by an employee, former employee or even a third party through the company’s reporting channels typically gives rise to an HR internal investigation. These complaints most often relate to issues within the work environment, such as harassment, discrimination or fraud (“matters subject to HR internal investigations”).

HR internal investigations may also be initiated as a result of labour lawsuits filed by employees, investigations or audits conducted by competent authorities (such as the Labour Prosecutor's Office, Ministry of Labour and Employment, unions or tax authorities), due diligence processes or other situations where the company becomes aware of potential violations of laws or internal policies.

There are no legal requirements for conducting internal HR investigations, except for companies obligated to establish an Internal Commission for the Prevention of Accidents and Harassment (CIPA). According to Law 14.457/2022, these companies must have reporting channels to receive, monitor and investigate complaints involving sexual harassment or any other form of workplace violence.

However, from an organisational perspective, it is recommended that companies investigate complaints regarding alleged irregular, illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent conduct brought to their attention. Such investigations help mitigate legal and reputational risks and enable the implementation of disciplinary actions and improvement measures.

It is worth noting that the applicable collective bargaining agreement covering employees’ contracts may include additional rules regarding HR internal investigations, which the company must follow.

Furthermore, if the HR internal investigation pertains to anti-corruption matters, the procedure must comply with the Brazilian Anti-Corruption Act, its associated decree and other relevant regulations.

For reference, the obligation for companies to establish a CIPA depends on the number of employees and the business’s risk level, as stipulated by a regulation of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

There are no specific requirements regarding the types of channels employees may use to report concerns.

However, companies required to establish a CIPA , financial institutions and organisations under the authority of the Central Bank of Brazil must provide a reporting channel that ensures the anonymity of the reporter for matters subject to HR internal investigations. The applicable laws for these companies and institutions do not specify further details about the types of reporting channels they must offer.

It is also worth noting that the collective bargaining agreements applicable to employees’ contracts may include additional rules regarding complaint reporting channels.

There are no specific rules governing who should conduct an HR internal investigation. Companies can decide whether the investigation is carried out internally (by members of compliance, HR, legal, the board or specialised investigation committees), externally (by law firms or consulting companies) or through a combination of internal and external resources.

For sensitive matters, it is advisable to engage external counsel to ensure legal privilege. This approach also enhances the confidence of witnesses and parties in the independence and impartiality of the investigation process, particularly when allegations involve high-level employees.

There are no specific rules mandating when an HR internal investigation must be conducted, except for certain companies. Organisations required to establish a CIPA must have reporting channels and internal procedures for receiving, monitoring and investigating complaints involving sexual harassment or other forms of workplace violence. Similarly, financial institutions and organisations regulated by the Central Bank of Brazil are required to provide reporting channels to address potential legal violations, which include matters subject to HR internal investigations.

From an organisational perspective, it is recommended that companies investigate complaints regarding alleged irregular, illegal, immoral, unsafe or fraudulent conduct. Conducting such investigations helps mitigate legal and reputational risks while enabling the implementation of disciplinary actions and improvement measures.

Additionally, collective bargaining agreements applicable to employees’ contracts may include specific rules regarding internal investigations, which companies must comply with.

Due to the lack of statutory rules governing HR internal investigations, unless there is any restriction in the internal rules of the company limiting the investigation, there are no circumstances in which an HR internal investigation may not be carried out (whether temporarily or at all) if the complaint is related to the workplace and company’s employees.

Except for the specific requirements outlined herein mandating certain companies to establish reporting channels ‒ and the resulting obligation to investigate reports submitted through them ‒ legislation imposes no additional obligations or limitations on the circumstances warranting an HR internal investigation. Nevertheless, companies often choose to investigate irregular, illegal, immoral, unsafe or fraudulent conduct in the workplace, guided by their general duty to ensure a safe work environment and adherence to internal policies and codes of conduct.

There is no legal requirement to notify the reporter as to whether an HR internal investigation will be opened. There is no legal restriction for the reporter to be informed if this is the case, as determined by the company’s internal regulations.

There is no legal requirement to notify the respondent of the initiation of an HR internal investigation. However, such notification may be provided if stipulated by the company’s internal regulations. This communication can occur at the start of the investigation or at any point during the investigation process.

From an employment point of view, there is no legal requirement or recommendation to communicate the opening of an HR internal investigation to the authorities.

Parties involved in an HR internal investigation may be asked to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Such agreements are more commonly used in investigations involving sensitive topics. However, even without an NDA, there is a general obligation for parties to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation. In cases of a confidentiality breach, companies typically have the right to discipline employees who violate this obligation, particularly if internal policies explicitly state that participation in investigations and any related matters must remain confidential.

A preliminary investigation can be conducted to assess whether a full HR internal investigation is warranted. This typically involves reviewing the information provided by the reporter to determine the feasibility of proceeding. For instance, if a report is made anonymously without sufficient details ‒ such as the identity of the respondent or victim, the department/location or specific incidents (eg, “a manager is poorly treating their subordinates” without further context) ‒ the company may decide not to initiate a broader investigation due to the lack of actionable information.

Typically, the reporter and any individuals who may have witnessed the conduct are interviewed as part of the process. The respondent is also interviewed if the report, interviews or documents provide elements suggesting the conduct occurred, or if the company’s internal regulations require it. There is no set minimum or maximum number of people who can be interviewed in relation to a complaint.

The participation of the interviewee in the investigation/interviews should be voluntary, and the employer cannot take any action to obligate the individual to participate in the investigation.

Interviews of the HR internal investigation can be carried out remotely.

There is no required minimum or maximum number of interviewers, nor are there legal rules mandating specific characteristics such as gender, objectivity or seniority. However, in more sensitive investigations, it is recommended to have two interviewers, with their characteristics chosen based on the nature of the investigation. For example, having a female interviewer may be advisable in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment against a woman.

The only situation in which a neutral third party should be present during interviews is when the interviewed person is underage or is mentally disabled. There is no right for the individuals to be accompanied by their attorneys, union members or any other third party unless the company’s internal regulations or the collective bargaining agreement require it.

A minor or someone mentally disabled has the right to be represented by their parents or legal guardian in a meeting at work, and such a rule could be extended to the interview of an investigation. Besides that, interviewees do not have the right to be accompanied by a support person during the interview, unless the company’s internal regulations or the collective bargaining agreement require it, or the company determines that the specific situation warrants it, in which case the support person is required to sign an NDA.

Unless so determined by the company’s internal regulation, interviewees do not have the right to be accompanied by a lawyer during the interview. Lawyers accompanying the interviewees in interviews is atypical.

There is no statutory requirement specifying the information interviewers must provide to interviewees at the start or end of an interview.

However, it is strongly recommended that interviewers introduce themselves clearly, explain their role in the investigation ‒ emphasising that they represent the employer and not any individual ‒ and provide the following information to the interviewee before the interview begins:

• the objective of the investigation, including a summary of the reported conduct without revealing the reporter's identity;
• the reason the individual is being invited to participate in the interview (eg, as the reporter, a potential witness or the respondent);
• the confidentiality of the process and the expectation that the interviewee will maintain confidentiality if they agree to participate;
• assurance of non-retaliation for participating in the interview or co-operating with the investigation; and
• information that participation in the interview is voluntary, asking the individual to confirm if they are willing to participate in it.

Additionally, interviewers should explain that, once the interviewee agrees to participate, any breach of confidentiality could result in disciplinary measures. At the conclusion of the interview, it is advisable to remind the interviewee of their ongoing duty of confidentiality.

Since participation in the interviews is voluntary, the interviewer must stop the interview if requested by the interviewee. The interviewer should remain available to resume the interview at the interviewee’s request. The interviewer must emphasise that the obligation of confidentiality continues to apply even after the interview is concluded.

There are no specific rules regarding taking minutes during interviews, but it is permitted and recommended for interviewers to take notes of the information provided by the interviewees.

These notes or minutes should be treated as internal records for preparing the final investigation report. Interviewees are not entitled to review or sign the minutes unless required by the company’s internal regulations.

In sensitive cases, it is advisable that only lawyers conduct the interviews and take notes to ensure the protection of attorney-client privilege over the content of the discussion and the notes or minutes.

If the interview is recorded, the recording can be transcribed and the material should be accessed only by those responsible for conducting the interviews. Its use should be limited to the preparation of the final investigation report.

In addition to interviews, HR internal investigations often include the review of corporate emails, computer files, instant messaging tools and mobile phones. Since these are considered the employer’s property, such reviews are generally permitted. However, it is strongly recommended that employees are informed, through their employment agreements and company policies, that corporate equipment may be monitored by the employer.

Evidence used to reach a conclusion in the investigation should be preserved by the company. It is advisable to document the collection process and maintain a clear chain of custody, particularly in cases where the conduct could lead to criminal prosecution, such as fraud. The investigation report and evidence should be retained by the company or external attorneys for at least five years from the conclusion of the investigation.

The collection of evidence from personal devices or services ‒ such as personal mobile phones, laptops or personal email or instant messaging accounts ‒ is a more contentious issue. Such actions are particularly problematic if the owner of the equipment or service has not provided prior written authorisation.

As a general rule, employers are not expected to take specific measures to protect the reporter, as the entire investigation process is typically conducted confidentially.

However, depending on the nature of the issue under investigation, the employer may implement exceptional measures to safeguard the reporter. These could include reassigning the reporter to a different work sector, permitting remote work, granting holiday or paid leave, or arranging private transportation to and from work. While there is no legal obligation to take such steps, these measures should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, guided by the employer’s general duty to maintain a safe and healthy work environment and prevent retaliation.

There are no adverse legal consequences for employers who adopt measures to protect the reporter. Conversely, failure to provide reasonable protection in cases of serious complaints could expose the employer to significant risks. These may include labour lawsuits filed by the reporter seeking compensation for pain and suffering, supported by evidence of harm caused by the employer’s failure to take appropriate protective measures.

As a general rule, employers are not expected to take specific measures to protect the respondent, as the entire investigation process is typically conducted confidentially.

However, depending on the nature of the issue under investigation, the employer may implement exceptional measures to safeguard the respondent. These could include reassigning the reporter to a different work sector, permitting remote work, granting holiday or paid leave, or arranging private transportation to and from work. While there is no legal obligation to take such steps, these measures should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, guided by the employer’s general duty to maintain a safe and healthy work environment and prevent retaliation.

There are no adverse legal consequences for employers who adopt measures to protect the respondent. Conversely, failure to provide reasonable protection in cases of serious complaints could expose the employer to significant risks. These may include labour lawsuits filed by the reporter seeking compensation for pain and suffering, supported by evidence of harm caused by the employer’s failure to take appropriate protective measures, such as if there is a breach of confidentiality about the investigation and the respondent is exposed as being accused of misconduct before their peers during the investigation, and no misconduct is evidenced.

Disciplinary measures against the respondent may be applied by the employer before the conclusion of an HR internal investigation if the misconduct is unrelated to the investigation or if the respondent attempts to obstruct or jeopardise the investigation process.

However, it is generally advisable to wait until the investigation is completed before taking disciplinary action related to the matter under investigation.

As a general rule, employers are not expected to take specific measures to protect the other employees co-operating with the investigation, as the entire investigation process is typically conducted confidentially.

However, depending on the nature of the issue under investigation, the employer may implement exceptional measures to safeguard such individuals. These could include reassigning the reporter to a different work sector, permitting remote work, granting holiday or paid leave, or arranging private transportation to and from work. While there is no legal obligation to take such steps, these measures should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, guided by the employer’s general duty to maintain a safe and healthy work environment and prevent retaliation.

There are no adverse legal consequences for employers who adopt measures to protect any person that contributes to the investigation. Conversely, failure to provide reasonable protection in cases of serious complaints could expose the employer to significant risks. These may include labour lawsuits filed by the individual seeking compensation for pain and suffering, supported by evidence of harm caused by the employer’s failure to take appropriate protective measures.

There are no statutory procedural requirements for conducting HR internal investigations, and companies typically establish their own procedures through internal policies. For guidance on best practices, refer to section 3. Interviews and Fact-Finding. However, failure to adhere to voluntary guarantees or best practices may weaken the company’s defence if the investigation or any event related to it is challenged in court by any person involved in the investigation.

Although uncommon, collective bargaining agreements applicable to employees’ contracts may include specific rules governing HR internal investigations. In such cases, non-compliance with these obligations can result in penalties for breaching the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

Because there are no statutory procedural requirements that must be put in place in the investigation, procedural requirements, if any, will derive from the employer’s internal regulations. Failure to comply with such voluntary internal regulations can weaken the company’s defence if the investigation or any event related to it is challenged in court by any person involved in the investigation.

Rules on burden of proof do not apply to HR internal investigations since it is a more inquisitive process than an adversarial process.

However, in the case of a legal dispute involving the result of the investigation and disciplinary measures applied by the company, the company will have the burden of proof to evidence the validity of measure applied to the plaintiff. Usually, terminations for cause due to the result of an investigation trigger the filing of labour lawsuits against the employer. 

There is no statutory degree of proof, but since the employer will have the burden of evidence to support the decisions related to it, the employer must be confident that the evidence is strong enough to convince a judge. Usually, preponderance of evidence is sufficient in employment-related matters, but ideally the evidence should be beyond reasonable doubt, especially if the disciplinary measure was to terminate the employment agreement for cause under the accusation of improbity or sexual harassment.

There are no rules governing when an HR internal investigation may be ended. However, it is recommended that the investigation has a reasonable and justified duration because, as a rule, possible disciplinary measures, including a termination of employment agreement for cause of the respondent and other people involved, should be processed by the company immediately after the company becomes aware of the employees’ misconduct or concludes the investigation, and taking unreasonable time for the conclusion of the investigation can harm the company’s ability to terminate the employment agreement for cause, even if the misconduct is characterised.

There are no rules governing procedures that must be followed once the decision to end an HR internal investigation is made.

Normally, and unless the internal policy governs otherwise, the investigation ends with the drafting and delivery of the written report to the individual(s) that will act based on its findings.

There are no rules governing the form that the conclusion of the investigation must take, but the standard procedure is to issue a written report.

There are no rules governing the requirements of information that must be included in the written report. It is advisable that this document contains the following information:

• a summary or transcription of the accusation presented by the reporter with a clear determination of the scope of the investigation;
• an executive summary of the conclusions, informing whether each of the investigated conducts is substantiated or not;
• the methodology, including a description of each of the investigative steps (interview, review of communications and documents, etc); and
• a detailed description of the findings preserving the anonymity of the witnesses where possible.

Recommendations of disciplinary measures (if applicable) and other actions to be taken by the company as next steps are often included, unless otherwise determined in the employer’s internal regulations.

The report should contain facts, avoiding speculation or generalisations, and be written in clear, accessible language for an audience unfamiliar with legal terminology. Any legal opinions should be contained in a separate, confidential document.

Unless mandated by internal rules, the company is not obligated – and is strongly recommended not ‒ to share the outcome of an HR internal investigation or the corresponding final report with the reporter, respondent or interviewees. In practice, companies typically refrain from sharing the written report or any detailed findings, providing only general updates on the investigation’s status (eg, pending or closed).

From an employment perspective, there is no legal requirement or recommendation to voluntarily report the conclusion of an HR internal investigation to the authorities.

However, if the investigation involves a potential crime or regulatory violation, the company should carefully weigh the pros and cons of notifying the police or relevant authorities, such as the Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) or the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE). In certain cases, such communication may lead to the cancellation of the state’s punitive claim in the criminal sphere or a reduction of fines in the administrative sphere.

The company is not required or advised to disclose the HR internal investigation to parties who will not be responsible for the decision regarding any actions to be taken by the company as a result of the investigation.

If the allegations in the complaint are substantiated, the company may choose to impose disciplinary measures on the individuals involved, depending on the severity of the misconduct. Possible actions include issuing written warnings, suspensions or terminating employment agreements for cause.

Alternatively, the company may opt for termination without cause, which requires statutory severance payments, provided the individual is not protected against termination and termination for cause is deemed inconvenient.

Additional measures may involve reviewing policies, updating operational protocols, or introducing new or revised training programmes.

Case law establishes that disciplinary measures must be applied promptly after the company becomes aware of the misconduct or, following an investigation, concludes that misconduct occurred. As such, it is recommended that HR internal investigations are conducted within a reasonable and justifiable timeframe. Failure to do so risks having the disciplinary measure invalidated by a labour judge in the event of a legal dispute.

It is common for employers to take additional measures regardless of whether the allegations in the complaint are substantiated. These actions may include reviewing policies, updating operational protocols, or implementing new or revised training on topics related to the complaint, such as harassment.

Mediation is generally not applicable in HR internal investigations in Brazil.

From a data protection perspective, employers are permitted to collect personal data for the purpose of an HR internal investigation, provided they have a lawful basis for processing such data. Lawful bases include the data subject’s consent, compliance with a legal or regulatory obligation, performance of contracts or pre-contractual steps at the data subject’s request, regular exercise of rights and legitimate interests.

Stricter requirements apply if the processing involves sensitive data, such as information on racial or ethnic origin, religion, political opinions, trade union or organisational membership, health, sexual orientation, genetic data or biometric data related to an individual. In these cases, legitimate interest cannot be used as a basis for processing.

All processing of personal data must adhere to the general principles and requirements of the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD), as summarised in section 7.2 Specific Rules.

The LGPD is Brazil’s primary privacy legislation and applies to:

• data processing activities conducted in Brazil;
• processing of data collected in Brazil or related to individuals located in Brazil; and
• data processing activities aimed at offering goods or services to individuals in Brazil.

Although the LGPD does not provide specific guidelines for internal investigations in private organisations, its general principles and requirements apply to any personal data processing for such purposes.

Companies must ensure compliance with the LGPD by:

• providing a privacy notice to data subjects in a clear, appropriate and visible manner;
• processing only the personal data necessary for the investigation;
• establishing a lawful basis for processing personal data (particularly sensitive data);
• adopting security, technical and administrative measures to protect personal data;
• maintaining records of the relevant processing activities; and
• meeting all other obligations set forth in the LGPD.

Under the LGPD, data subjects have the right to easily access information about the processing of their personal data. This information must be provided in a clear, appropriate and visible manner, typically through a privacy policy or notice. Data subjects also have the right to request confirmation of the existence of processing activities and access to their personal data, among other rights.

The confirmation of data processing or access to personal data must be provided by the controller upon the data subject’s request either:

• immediately, in a simplified format; or
• within 15 days, in a clear and complete declaration specifying details such as the data’s origin and the purpose of its processing.

When granting access to data, the employer may tailor its response to safeguard the company’s commercial or industrial secrets that could otherwise be disclosed.

The exercise of data subject’s rights is not yet fully regulated by Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD), though it remains a priority topic. Additional requirements or limitations may arise as new regulations are implemented.

In Brazil, whistle-blowing is addressed in the Brazilian Anti-Corruption Act and there is no legal definition of a whistle-blower. From the employment point of view, the is no statutory protection guaranteed to the whistle-blower, but internal policies of the companies or applicable collective bargaining agreements can bring such protections.

There is no specific legal protection for reporting sexual harassment and/or violence, but internal policies of the companies or applicable collective bargaining agreements can bring such protections.

Companies required to establish a CIPA must implement an internal policy outlining the procedure for receiving and monitoring complaints related to sexual harassment and other forms of workplace violence. They must also provide a reporting channel that safeguards the reporter’s identity, should they wish to remain anonymous.

From a criminal perspective, sexual harassment is defined as: “Coercing someone with the intent of obtaining sexual advantage or favour, exploiting the perpetrator’s position as a hierarchical superior or authority inherent to their role, position or function.” Another crime is defined as: “Engaging in a lewd act with someone without their consent, with the intent to satisfy one’s own lust or that of a third party.”

However, not all conduct classified as sexual harassment under internal regulations meets these legal definitions. Employers should exercise caution when labelling misconduct of a sexual nature as “sexual harassment” to avoid the risk of civil or criminal liability for slander.

Companies required to have a CIPA must have an internal policy providing the procedure for receiving and monitoring complaints involving sexual harassment and any other violence in the workplace, and a reporting channel that must protect the reporter’s identity, should they wish to remain anonymous.

Also, employment law prohibits the adoption of any discriminatory or restrictive practices for the purpose of access to employment or if its continuity is prohibited on grounds of sex, origin, race, colour, marital status, family situation, disability, professional rehabilitation or age.

Racial, sexual orientation, religious and disability discrimination is also classified as a crime by law or case law.

There is no specific legal protection for allegations concerning bullying and/or mobbing, but they are usually deemed as types of harassment.

The employer is not legally required to communicate with the relevant authorities if the allegation is also criminal in nature. The employer may only be obliged to provide information to the authorities if required to do so by means of a written request by the relevant authority.

There are no special procedures that an employer should follow in HR internal investigations that are multi-jurisdictional.

However, although there are no legal restrictions on foreign employers conducting HR internal investigations in their jurisdiction and/or employers in their jurisdiction conducting HR internal investigations abroad, it is recommended that investigations related to employees based in Brazil are conducted locally and in the native language, to ensure that the investigation complies with Brazilian legislation and case law. If this is not possible, the recommendation is that there is an interpreter in the interview to avoid any miscommunication or inaccuracies in fact-finding during the interview, and that the presence of the interpreter is noted in the final report of the investigation.