HR internal investigations are typically initiated when the employer becomes aware of credible indications of employee misconduct, compliance breaches or other risks that may give rise to legal liability. Most commonly, such indications arise from suspected violations of internal rules or codes of conduct. In these circumstances, employers initiate investigations to clarify the facts, preserve relevant evidence and assess whether disciplinary action or unilateral termination may be lawfully supported.

Investigations are frequently triggered where serious breaches of work discipline or employee conduct rules are alleged, particularly if unilateral termination is contemplated. Typical scenarios include serious policy violations, gross negligence, corruption, falsification of employment materials, failure to meet hiring conditions or other misconduct falling within the scope of Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law.

Internal investigations are also commonly initiated in response to suspected criminal conduct or major compliance risks, such as embezzlement, bribery, trade secret leakage, unfair competition or non-compete violations, in order to assess potential legal exposure and determine appropriate internal or external responses.

In addition, allegations involving discrimination, sexual harassment, workplace violence or other serious employee relations issues generally require prompt investigation, given employers’ statutory and general duties to take reasonable preventative and protective measures while safeguarding confidentiality and personal rights.

Finally, investigations may be triggered by external regulatory or law enforcement inquiries, whistle-blower reports or internal audit findings. In cross-border operations, employers may also initiate investigations at an early stage where overseas regulatory scrutiny is reasonably anticipated.

Under PRC law, the legal bases for HR internal investigations can be broadly divided into mandatory investigations and investigations that are permitted but not legally required, both of which remain subject to overarching legal constraints.

Mandatory investigations arise only in limited statutory scenarios. These include cases where employee complaints or trade union objections concern internal rules directly affecting employees’ interests, sexual harassment complaints that require prompt investigation and handling, and workplace accidents or major safety risks that must be investigated under work safety legislation. In addition, in labour disputes, employers bear the burden of producing evidence under their control, which in practice makes internal fact-finding indispensable.

Permitted but non-mandatory investigations are primarily grounded in the employer’s management authority. Although labour law does not expressly require investigations in all cases, employers must conduct adequate fact-finding to substantiate serious misconduct, gross negligence or corruption before imposing disciplinary measures or unilateral termination. Employers may also investigate suspected breaches of internal rules, conflicts of interest, trade secret leakage or unfair competition in order to determine appropriate employment or compliance responses.

All internal investigations are subject to general legal constraints, including personal information protection, non-discrimination requirements and, where applicable, democratic management and trade union supervision. Failure to conduct appropriate fact-finding or to observe these constraints may expose employers to procedural and compliance risks.

PRC law does not impose a uniform obligation on employers to establish a specific internal reporting or whistle-blowing channel. However, taken as a whole, employment and trade union law expect employers to provide effective and accessible means for employees to raise concerns and report misconduct.

This expectation is reflected in requirements for employee participation, democratic management and trade union supervision, as well as in the statutory right of individuals to report labour law violations. Although these rules do not mandate a particular reporting mechanism, they presuppose the existence of internal channels through which concerns can be raised and addressed in a timely manner.

In regulated areas such as labour supervision and work safety, statutory reporting rights to authorities further reinforce this expectation by encouraging early internal identification and handling of risks, even though the reporting obligations themselves are primarily external.

PRC law generally permits anonymous reporting and does not allow reports to be rejected solely because they are anonymous. While employers are not universally required to provide anonymous internal channels, accommodating both anonymous and named reports is widely regarded as good practice, particularly in sensitive matters involving power imbalance or personal rights.

PRC law does not prescribe who must be responsible for conducting an HR internal investigation. The allocation of responsibility is primarily a matter of corporate autonomy and is usually determined by the employer’s internal governance, compliance or audit framework. There is no legal requirement for trade unions or employee representatives to lead investigations, nor is there a general requirement that investigators be independent of the respondent’s reporting line.

Although labour authorities have supervisory powers, such external oversight does not replace the employer’s own responsibility to investigate internal matters. Regulatory supervision presupposes that employers are able to conduct internal investigations in a professional and documented manner.

In practice, investigation leadership is risk-driven. Routine misconduct matters are commonly handled by HR, legal or compliance teams; cases involving financial misconduct, asset risks or trade secrets are often led by internal audit functions; and matters involving senior management or heightened regulatory or reputational risk are frequently handled by board-level committees or external professionals.

Employers may engage external counsel at any stage of an investigation, and often do so to enhance procedural compliance, confidentiality and overall risk control.

Under PRC law, employers are required to conduct HR internal investigations in certain circumstances and may not remain passive.

Mandatory investigations arise mainly in three situations.

• Where sexual harassment complaints or serious workplace safety incidents occur, employers have a statutory duty to investigate and take corrective measures under the Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests and work safety legislation.
• Where employers intend to terminate employment for serious misconduct, gross negligence or corruption, internal investigation becomes a procedural necessity, as Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law places the burden of proof on the employer.
• Where the legality or implementation of internal rules or democratic procedures is challenged by authorities or trade unions, employers must verify the relevant facts to fulfil statutory compliance obligations.

In addition, internal investigations may be required in response to government enforcement demands or major compliance incidents as part of risk mitigation.

Overall, mandatory HR internal investigations arise from the combined effect of statutory duties, procedural requirements and the employer’s evidentiary burden, rather than from a single legal trigger.

Under PRC law, HR internal investigations may not be carried out, or must be suspended, in certain circumstances.

• Internal investigations must not replace or interfere with administrative or judicial investigations. Employers have no law enforcement powers and must avoid actions that prejudice official evidence preservation or fact-finding. Where matters fall within the statutory jurisdiction of competent authorities, internal investigations may need to be suspended.
• Investigations must comply with personal information protection requirements. Excessive data collection, unlawful monitoring, unauthorised access to personal accounts or devices, or processing of sensitive personal information without a legal basis is prohibited.
• Investigations must not involve discrimination, retaliation or infringement of employees’ lawful rights, including personality, reputation, privacy or participation rights, and may not be used to suppress lawful complaints or trade union activities.

Where employers lack lawfully adopted investigation procedures or basic safeguards on confidentiality and data handling, investigative actions should be limited or deferred. In all cases, internal investigations must remain within management authority and applicable legal boundaries.

Where an HR internal investigation is neither legally required nor prohibited, the decision to proceed is primarily a matter of risk, necessity and proportionality.

As a threshold issue, employers should consider whether a lawful and workable internal basis exists. Investigations should be grounded in lawfully adopted and disclosed internal rules. In the absence of such a framework, initiating a formal investigation may create procedural and evidentiary risks and should be approached with caution.

Employers should also assess whether fact-finding is genuinely necessary and can be conducted lawfully and proportionately. Investigations should not proceed where evidence collection would require unlawful personal data processing, excessive intrusion into privacy or disproportionate interference with employee rights.

Conversely, where allegations may affect disciplinary or termination decisions, regulatory responses, or significant compliance or reputational risks, internal investigations are often appropriate and practically indispensable, serving to preserve evidence and support defensible decision-making.

Where issues are minor, information is vague, or concerns can be addressed through routine management or informal clarification, employers may reasonably refrain from initiating a formal investigation or limit their response to a preliminary review.

Under PRC law, neither the reporter nor the respondent has an automatic statutory right to be informed that an HR internal investigation has been opened. Employment laws do not impose a general obligation on employers to notify any party at the initiation stage of an investigation.

PRC law does not prescribe any mandatory notice timing, form or content. Whether to notify the reporter or the respondent is largely a matter of internal rules and case-specific judgment. In practice, early notification is often avoided to reduce risks of evidence interference, collusion or retaliation.

Where employers choose to provide notification, it is typically limited to confirmation that an investigation has commenced and to basic co-operation or confidentiality requirements, without disclosure of sensitive details or the reporter’s identity. Any voluntary notification must comply with personal information protection principles and be limited to individuals with a legitimate need to know.

Regardless of whether notification is given at the investigation stage, respondents must be afforded an opportunity to explain or defend themselves before any disciplinary action, job adjustment or termination decision is made, in order to satisfy procedural fairness requirements.

Under PRC law, the initiation of an HR internal investigation does not, by itself, trigger a general obligation to report to government authorities. Reporting obligations arise only where specific statutory risks are involved, and internal investigations may not delay or replace such reporting.

Mandatory reporting applies in limited scenarios. Most notably, production safety accidents must be promptly and truthfully reported under Article 83 of the Work Safety Law, and internal investigations cannot substitute statutory accident reporting. Mandatory reporting also applies where investigations uncover actual or suspected harm to minors, which must be reported to public security authorities.

In labour law matters, there is generally no obligation to proactively report internal investigation findings to labour authorities. However, where investigations reveal serious or systemic violations, early communication with competent authorities is often treated as a practical compliance measure. Similar reporting obligations may arise in cases involving data security or cybersecurity incidents, depending on the nature and severity of the risk.

Outside mandatory scenarios, PRC law permits voluntary reporting where public safety, data security or significant compliance risks are involved. Any such reporting should be limited to necessary factual information and remedial measures, and must comply with personal information protection requirements.

Employers are generally permitted to require parties involved in an HR internal investigation to comply with confidentiality obligations, including through the signing of NDAs. This practice is common in misconduct, fraud, harassment, data incident and audit-related investigations. The legal basis lies in Article 23 of the Labor Contract Law and Article 22 of the Labor Law, which allow employers and employees to agree on confidentiality obligations relating to business secrets and intellectual property. In practice, confidentiality undertakings may be required from investigation subjects, witnesses, internal personnel and external advisers to prevent information leakage.

Confidentiality arrangements are subject to clear legal limits. NDAs must be specific and proportionate, and may not be drafted so broadly as to disguise non-compete obligations, restrict personal freedom, suppress lawful reporting or circumvent personal information protection requirements. NDAs cannot legitimise unlawful evidence collection or override employees’ statutory rights.

Confidentiality duties may also arise even without a separate NDA, including from employment contracts, employees’ duties of loyalty and good faith, and statutory protections of trade secrets and personal information. An NDA therefore clarifies and reinforces confidentiality obligations, but is not a legal prerequisite for their existence.

Under PRC law, employers are generally permitted to conduct a limited preliminary review or initial fact-checking exercise before deciding whether to launch a formal HR internal investigation. Such reviews fall within the employer’s management authority and are commonly used to assess whether alleged misconduct, disciplinary issues or compliance risks warrant a full investigation.

Preliminary reviews are narrower in scope and subject to basic legal constraints. Where personal information is accessed, processing must have a lawful basis and be limited to what is necessary. Preliminary inquiries must not involve unlawful monitoring, coercive measures, restrictions on personal freedom, or investigative steps that themselves result in adverse employment consequences.

In practice, many employers adopt a staged approach, with HR, legal, compliance or internal audit functions conducting initial assessments to evaluate credibility, risk level and scope, and to determine whether escalation to a formal investigation is required. Findings are typically documented internally for decision-making purposes.

Judicial and administrative practice generally recognises the legitimacy of preliminary reviews, provided that any subsequent disciplinary action or termination is supported by a procedurally sound and lawful formal investigation.

In HR internal investigations, interviewees are typically selected from individuals directly involved in the alleged conduct and those with relevant knowledge through reporting, decision-making or oversight functions. Investigations usually begin with the employee concerned and may extend to managers, colleagues or other employees with first-hand knowledge of the relevant facts.

Where allegations involve internal controls, financial matters or compliance risks, interviews may also include personnel responsible for relevant processes, such as management, HR, finance, audit, legal or compliance functions. In sensitive or high-impact cases, senior management may be interviewed.

PRC law does not prescribe the number of interviewees. The scope of interviews depends on the complexity of the matter and the need for corroboration.

Interview records are typically documented in writing and reviewed and confirmed by interviewees for evidentiary purposes.

Where an internal investigation is conducted pursuant to lawfully implemented company policies and relates to employment management, employees are generally expected to provide reasonable co-operation. A refusal to participate, or selective non-cooperation, may give rise to disciplinary consequences where company rules expressly require co-operation.

In practice, employers usually inform employees of the purpose and scope of the investigation and document any refusal to co-operate. Such refusal does not require suspension of the investigation, and employers may continue fact-finding through other lawful means, including document review and system records within the employer’s control.

Where internal rules provide that non-cooperation constitutes misconduct, it may be assessed together with the underlying conduct and, in serious cases, may support disciplinary action or termination. Refusal to co-operate does not prevent escalation in matters involving significant compliance, safety or legal risks.

Interviews in HR internal investigations may be conducted remotely, such as via Teams or Zoom, provided that such methods are permitted under duly implemented company policies.

Remote interviews are valid so long as basic procedural safeguards are observed, including identity verification, proper documentation, and review and confirmation of interview records. The use of audio or video interviews does not, in itself, undermine evidentiary value if authenticity and traceability are ensured.

Where remote interviews involve the processing or transmission of personal information, employers must comply with applicable data protection and cybersecurity requirements. Interview records may be confirmed by handwritten or reliable electronic signatures, which have equivalent legal effect under PRC law.

In HR internal investigations, interviews are commonly conducted by two interviewers, typically with one leading the questioning and the other responsible for note-taking. This is an established practice rather than a legal requirement.

PRC law does not prescribe the number, seniority or professional background of interviewers. In practice, interviewers are selected based on authorisation, competence and absence of conflicts of interest, and may come from HR, legal, compliance, internal audit functions or external advisers.

There is no legal requirement regarding interviewer gender. However, in sensitive matters such as sexual harassment or cases involving minors, employers often arrange for gender-sensitive interviewer composition as a matter of good practice.

Interviewers must remain objective and observe procedural boundaries. Interviews may not involve coercion, intimidation or unlawful data collection, and interview records must be accurately documented and properly retained.

Under PRC law, there is no requirement that interviews in an HR internal investigation be witnessed by an independent third party. Internal investigations are part of the employer’s management function, and the absence of a third-party witness does not affect the validity of the interview or the investigation.

PRC law does not extend statutory neutrality or witness requirements applicable to administrative or regulatory procedures to corporate HR investigations.

In practice, employers may voluntarily involve neutral or semi-independent participants in sensitive or high-risk cases, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, senior management investigations, or matters involving potential termination or litigation risk. Such involvement is a risk-management choice rather than a legal requirement.

Under PRC law, interviewees in HR internal investigations do not have an automatic or statutory right to be accompanied by another person. Whether accompaniment is permitted depends on the employer’s lawfully implemented internal rules and management discretion.

As a general rule, interviewees do not have the right to require the presence of personal legal counsel. The right to lawyer accompaniment applies to administrative or criminal proceedings and does not extend to internal corporate investigations.

In practice, employers often restrict accompaniment to protect confidentiality, personal data and investigation integrity. In limited and sensitive cases, such as sexual harassment or heightened employee vulnerability, accompaniment may be allowed as a prudential measure rather than a legal obligation. Refusal of accompaniment in accordance with internal rules does not affect the validity or evidentiary value of the interview.

In HR internal investigations, interviewees should be provided with basic procedural information at the beginning of the interview and, where appropriate, at its conclusion. This is regarded as good practice and, in certain respects, required to support procedural fairness and evidentiary reliability.

At the start of the interview, interviewers typically explain the purpose and scope of the interview, identify themselves, clarify that the interview forms part of an internal fact-finding process, and inform the interviewee of the interview format, including any recording and confidentiality requirements.

Where personal information is processed, interviewees should be informed, at a general level, of the purpose of processing and their right to review and correct interview records. At the conclusion of the interview, the interview record is usually reviewed and confirmed, including by signature or reliable electronic means.

In HR internal investigations, interviews must not infringe the interviewee’s dignity, health or lawful rights. Where an interviewee requests suspension, the interview should generally be suspended, with the time, reason and circumstances recorded in the investigation file. PRC law does not specifically regulate interview suspension but interviews may be suspended and later resumed for legitimate reasons, provided procedural continuity and record integrity are preserved. During suspension, employers should not exert pressure or impose adverse consequences. Once the reasons for suspension no longer exist, the interview may be resumed, with the continuation clearly noted in the interview record.

In HR internal investigations, interviews are typically documented through interview minutes, which serve as key evidence, particularly where the employer bears the burden of proof. PRC law does not require verbatim transcripts. Summarised minutes are acceptable provided they accurately reflect the substance of the interview, including basic interview information and key questions and responses. Interviewees are generally allowed to review the minutes. A signature is not legally required; refusal to sign does not invalidate the minutes and may be recorded. There is no requirement for minutes to be taken by external parties. Minutes may be prepared by authorised internal investigators and must comply with applicable personal information protection requirements.

Interviews in HR internal investigations may be audio-recorded, provided the interviewee is informed in advance and consents. PRC law does not prohibit recording, but covert recording or surveillance that infringes personal privacy may undermine evidentiary value and create legal risk.

Recording is commonly used in complex or high-risk investigations. A verbatim transcript is not required. In practice, written interview minutes are prepared and reviewed, with recordings used only as supplementary materials. Recordings or transcripts are generally shared on a strict need-to-know basis.

Where recording is not used or not permitted, employers typically ensure reliability through procedural safeguards such as having two interviewers present, contemporaneous note-taking, and confirmation of interview minutes, including in remote interviews.

Interviews are not the only fact-finding method in HR internal investigations. Employers commonly rely on document and record review, electronic data within lawful control, and evidence preservation to establish relevant facts.

Typical materials include the following, collected in accordance with internal rules and legal requirements:

• employment records;
• approval and payment documents;
• expense claims;
• internal policies;
• work emails;
• messaging records; and
• system logs.

Evidence is usually preserved to ensure integrity and traceability.

Background checks or third-party inquiries, where used, are limited to lawful public information or voluntary co-operation and may not involve coercive measures. Employers may not restrict personal freedom, engage in covert surveillance, access personal devices without authorisation, or fabricate or destroy evidence.

All fact-finding must comply with personal information protection laws, and unlawful collection may undermine the investigation and its evidentiary value.

PRC labour law does not provide a standalone statutory regime for protecting reporters in private-sector internal investigations. However, employers owe a general duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm in the course of employment, which extends to employees who report misconduct in good faith and may face retaliation or other adverse treatment.

In practice, employers typically adopt proportionate protective measures based on the risk profile, such as safeguarding confidentiality, limiting access on a need-to-know basis, enforcing non-retaliation rules, and, where necessary, adjusting work arrangements or issuing no-contact instructions.

Although more formal protection mechanisms exist in public-sector reporting frameworks, similar principles of confidentiality and risk prevention are generally regarded as reasonable benchmarks for private employers.

Failure to take reasonable protective measures may expose employers to civil liability and adverse labour dispute outcomes, while proportionate and documented measures help demonstrate procedural fairness and mitigate legal risk.

Employers must take reasonable measures to protect the respondent during an internal investigation. Regardless of the outcome, the respondent is entitled to protection of the following:

• personality rights;
• reputation;
• privacy and personal information under the Civil Code;
• labour law; and
• data protection rules.

In practice, this is mainly achieved through confidentiality and information-control measures, such as:

• limiting access on a need-to-know basis;
• avoiding dissemination of unverified allegations; and
• refraining from treating allegations as established facts before verification.

Respondents should also be given a reasonable opportunity to explain or supplement their statements.

Failure to adopt reasonable protective measures may expose employers to civil liability, data protection risks and adverse labour dispute outcomes, while proportionate confidentiality and fairness safeguards help support the defensibility of investigation results.

An employer may take interim or disciplinary measures before an HR internal investigation is concluded, provided that such measures are based on duly implemented internal rules, supported by reliable preliminary facts, and proportionate. PRC law does not require employers to wait for a final investigation report; the key issue is whether a sufficient factual and procedural basis exists.

During an investigation, employers may adopt interim measures such as:

• warnings;
• suspension of sensitive access or authority;
• contact restrictions; or
• removal from specific duties.

Where preliminary evidence already meets the statutory threshold for termination – such as serious violation of company rules – termination may be effected without awaiting the investigation’s conclusion, subject to statutory compliance.

Both premature action and undue inaction carry legal risks. Measures taken without adequate factual support may be held unlawful, while failure to act despite clear indications of serious misconduct may increase compliance and liability exposure. Timing and severity should therefore align with evidentiary maturity, internal rules and procedural compliance.

Where an internal investigation creates foreseeable risks to other employees, employers may, and in some cases must, take protective measures before the investigation is concluded, based on their duty to provide a safe workplace and prevent foreseeable harm under PRC law.

In practice, employers may adopt proportionate preventative measures such as the following:

• separating individuals;
• adjusting work arrangements;
• suspending sensitive access or authority; or
• issuing no-contact instructions.

Such measures must be protective rather than punitive and should not amount to disguised disciplinary action or unlawful changes to employment terms.

Failure to take reasonable protective measures despite known risks may expose employers to liability, while excessive or improper measures may be found unlawful. Employers must therefore balance timely risk prevention with legality and proportionality.

PRC law does not impose a uniform set of procedural guarantees on HR internal investigations comparable to administrative or criminal proceedings. Internal investigations are exercises of managerial authority, and employees do not enjoy statutory rights such as silence or mandatory legal counsel. However, investigations must comply with certain mandatory procedural requirements, failing which disciplinary action or termination may be invalidated.

At a minimum:

• internal rules relied upon must be lawfully adopted, democratically consulted where required, and properly disclosed;
• employees’ personality and reputation rights must be respected, and unverified allegations must not be treated as established facts;
• where unilateral termination is contemplated, the trade union must be notified and its opinions considered; and
• evidence must be lawfully obtained, without coercion or unlawful data access.

Failure to meet these procedural requirements may lead to civil liability, administrative consequences or adverse outcomes in labour disputes, making procedural compliance a prerequisite for enforceable investigation outcomes.

Employers may adopt internal regulations that impose standards exceeding statutory minimums, provided they do not conflict with PRC law, administrative regulations or mandatory labour standards. Where such rules directly affect employees’ interests, they must comply with democratic consultation and disclosure requirements to be legally effective.

Substantively, internal rules may tighten conduct or compliance requirements but may not reduce statutory protections or override labour or collective contracts. Once lawfully adopted and communicated, internal regulations are binding on both parties, and employers must comply with their own procedures when investigating, disciplining or terminating employees.

Failure to follow self-imposed internal rules may render disciplinary action or termination unlawful, even where misconduct is established, effectively raising the employer’s own compliance threshold.

In HR internal investigations and subsequent labour dispute proceedings, the general principle of “he who asserts must prove” applies. In practice, where the relevant facts, evidence or records are under the employer’s management or control, the evidentiary burden primarily rests with the employer, and failure to produce such evidence may result in adverse consequences.

Accordingly, in disputes involving employee misconduct, disciplinary action, remuneration, performance management or termination, employers are generally required to prove:

• the factual basis for the action taken;
• the legality and effectiveness of the internal rules relied upon; and
• procedural compliance.

Where evidence is objectively difficult for one party to obtain, arbitral tribunals may allocate the burden of proof based on fairness and evidentiary capacity.

As to the standard of proof, labour disputes apply civil evidentiary standards. For ordinary employment-related facts, the applicable standard is a high degree of probability. Where evidence on both sides is evenly balanced, the party bearing the burden of proof will bear the adverse outcome. A higher standard applies only in exceptional cases involving serious allegations such as fraud or coercion, and does not apply to routine disciplinary or employment management disputes.

PRC law does not set a mandatory deadline for concluding HR internal investigations. As internal management processes, their timing is primarily determined by internal rules and the scope of fact-finding required.

In practice, an investigation may be concluded once relevant facts are sufficiently clarified and evidence is adequate to support subsequent management decisions and the employer’s burden of proof. Although no statutory time limit applies, evidentiary sufficiency is the practical benchmark. Investigation outcomes are usually documented in a written report, and any disciplinary action must comply with applicable statutory and procedural requirements.

Premature closure may undermine the legality of disciplinary action, while undue delay may infringe employees’ interests and increase dispute risks. Employers are therefore expected to conclude investigations within a reasonable timeframe, balancing evidentiary adequacy and procedural fairness.

PRC law does not impose a standalone or uniform procedure solely because an HR internal investigation has ended. Post-investigation obligations arise only if the outcome leads to employment actions regulated by labour law.

As a general matter, employers should formalise the investigation outcome in writing, typically through an investigation report or conclusion memo, to preserve evidentiary integrity. Where internal rules require notification or follow-up, those requirements must be followed. Absent such rules, there is no general obligation to disclose outcomes beyond a need-to-know basis, and excessive disclosure may create reputation or personal-information risks.

If an investigation is suspended or discontinued without a factual conclusion – for example, due to insufficient evidence or pending external proceedings – the employer should clarify that no disciplinary assessment has been made and that the matter may be revisited. Suspension cannot serve as a basis for sanctions.

Where an investigation concludes with findings supporting disciplinary action, job adjustment or termination, applicable statutory procedures must be observed. In particular, disciplinary measures must be based on lawfully adopted internal rules, and unilateral termination requires prior notification to the trade union. Failure to comply may invalidate subsequent actions regardless of the investigation’s substantive merits.

In summary, ending an internal investigation does not itself trigger mandatory procedures. Procedural duties arise only when investigation results are used to support legally regulated employment measures, and compliance with notice, confidentiality and statutory safeguards is essential to the enforceability of those measures.

PRC labour and employment laws do not prescribe a mandatory form for concluding an HR internal investigation, nor do they require a written investigation report. The legal focus lies on the legality of internal rules, the lawfulness of subsequent disciplinary or termination decisions, and the admissibility of evidence.

In practice, however, HR internal investigations are usually concluded through a written investigation report or conclusion memo. This reflects common governance and compliance practice and serves to document the following:

• investigation scope;
• process;
• evidence reviewed; and
• factual findings.

While not legally compulsory, written conclusions are often critical in labour arbitration or litigation. Employers bear the burden of proof, and the absence of written investigation records may weaken the evidentiary basis for disciplinary action or termination.

Accordingly, finalising investigations in writing represents prevailing best practice and the practical standard for closing HR internal investigations and supporting subsequent employment decisions.

PRC labour and employment laws do not prescribe mandatory content requirements for written HR internal investigation reports. There is no statutory checklist. The legal focus is whether the employer can substantiate its decisions, comply with required procedures, and meet its burden of proof, rather than the formal structure of the report.

In practice, report content is shaped by lawfully adopted internal rules and common investigative practice. Although not legally required, a structured report has become the prevailing standard for ensuring defensibility.

Investigation reports typically:

• summarise the background and trigger of the investigation;
• identify the respondent(s);
• outline the investigation scope and methods; and
• set out factual findings with reference to supporting evidence.

Relevant materials are often appended or cross-referenced to ensure traceability.

Reports may also include recommended follow-up actions, such as:

• disciplinary measures;
• remediation; or
• case closure.

While optional, such recommendations support internal decision-making and risk management.

In labour disputes, investigation reports often serve as key evidence. Reports demonstrating lawful procedures, reliable evidence handling and reasoned conclusions are generally more persuasive and therefore widely used in practice.

PRC law does not grant parties a general right to receive the outcome or full report of an HR internal investigation. There is no statutory obligation to disclose investigation results to all involved parties. Disclosure obligations arise only where investigation outcomes affect an employee’s employment rights or obligations.

The respondent (the investigated employee) is the primary rights-holder. Where investigation findings support disciplinary action, job adjustment, pay consequences or termination, the employer must inform the respondent of the key conclusions, applicable internal rules and the main factual basis relied upon. Sanctions may not be imposed without adequate notice of reasons.

By contrast, reporters or complainants have no right to detailed disclosure. In practice, they are usually provided only with high-level feedback, such as whether the allegation was substantiated and whether action was taken. Trade unions are entitled to be informed only in specific statutory scenarios, most notably prior notification before unilateral termination under Article 43 of the Labor Contract Law.

There is no automatic right to access full written investigation reports. Such reports often contain third-party personal information or business-sensitive content. What is protected is a narrower right: access to personal information concerning the individual and evidence directly relevant to a labour dispute. Employers may not refuse such disclosure solely because the material forms part of an internal document.

In labour arbitration or litigation, disclosure is evidence-driven rather than report-driven. Investigation reports may be submitted in whole or in part, with summaries, excerpts or redacted materials commonly used.

In short, PRC law recognises a limited right to be informed, not a general right to full disclosure.

Under PRC law, the conclusions of an HR internal investigation do not in themselves create a general obligation to report to government authorities. Internal investigations are treated as tools of corporate self-governance. Reporting duties arise only in specific statutory scenarios and are triggered by the underlying incident or risk, not by the investigation process or its conclusion.

Mandatory reporting mainly applies to work safety and occupational health. Production safety accidents and suspected occupational diseases must be immediately and truthfully reported under the Work Safety Law and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases. In these cases, internal investigations may not delay, replace or dilute statutory reporting obligations.

Outside these areas, labour and employment laws do not require employers to proactively submit internal investigation findings to labour or social insurance authorities. Employers are required to co-operate with inspections and provide materials upon request, but there is no general duty of voluntary reporting absent an official inquiry.

Voluntary disclosure may be considered in limited circumstances as a compliance or risk-management measure, particularly where timely rectification or mitigation may affect administrative liability. Such disclosure is typically limited to factual summaries and corrective actions rather than full investigation reports.

In short, HR internal investigation outcomes are reportable only in narrowly defined statutory situations. In most labour-management matters, employers have no proactive reporting obligation but must co-operate fully when authorities lawfully request information.

PRC law does not impose a general obligation on employers to communicate the conclusions of an HR internal investigation to witnesses, team members or other third parties. Any disclosure beyond the investigated employee is discretionary and must comply with labour law, personal information protection and confidentiality principles, in particular necessity and data minimisation.

The respondent is the only party with a legally relevant right to be informed. Where investigation findings support disciplinary action, job adjustment, remuneration consequences or termination, the employer must communicate:

• the key conclusions;
• applicable internal rules; and
• basic factual grounds for the decision.

Witnesses, team members and other employees have no right to receive investigation outcomes. At most, they may receive limited, management-level information where necessary to implement remedial or preventative measures, typically in anonymised or generalised form.

Reporters or complainants are usually given only high-level feedback, such as whether the matter was substantiated and whether action was taken. They are not entitled to detailed findings or information relating to other employees. Anonymous reporters generally receive no follow-up.

Trade unions are informed only where required by law, most notably where unilateral termination is contemplated under Article 43 of the Labor Contract Law, and disclosure is limited to what is necessary for statutory supervision.

Full investigation reports are normally restricted to a small internal group, such as HR, legal, compliance, senior management, and, where applicable, the trade union.

In short, disclosure of HR investigation conclusions is limited, purpose-driven and tightly controlled, with no general obligation to inform third parties.

Where allegations are substantiated, the employer may impose disciplinary measures in accordance with lawfully adopted and duly published internal rules that comply with Article 4 of the Labor Contract Law. Disciplinary measures must correspond to the nature and severity of the misconduct as classified under those rules.

Where the misconduct meets the thresholds under Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law – such as serious violation of company rules, serious dereliction of duty, or corruption causing material harm – the employer may terminate the employment contract with immediate effect, subject to sufficient evidence and procedural compliance.

Disciplinary action must be taken within a reasonable time after the employer becomes aware of the misconduct. Reasonable time spent on investigation is acceptable, but prolonged tolerance or delay may result in the termination right being deemed waived.

Before termination or major disciplinary action, the employer must complete necessary procedures, including:

• informing the employee of the factual and rule-based grounds;
• allowing an opportunity for explanation; and
• notifying the trade union in advance where unilateral termination is contemplated.

There is no requirement to conduct a separate or counter-investigation once allegations are substantiated, provided that the facts are sufficiently established, the evidence lawful, and the procedures compliant.

In short, substantiated allegations may support disciplinary action up to immediate termination, with the following controlling factors:

• evidentiary sufficiency;
• procedural compliance;
• proportionality; and
• timeliness.

In practice, employers often adopt organisational or governance-focused measures following an HR internal investigation, regardless of whether allegations are substantiated. Such measures are non-disciplinary and aim to stabilise employee relations, address management or process weaknesses, and reduce future risk.

Where allegations are not substantiated, investigations may still reveal communication gaps or team tensions. Employers commonly respond with non-punitive measures such as mediation, coaching, process review or limited organisational adjustments, provided these are framed as management actions rather than sanctions.

Where allegations are partially substantiated or insufficient for formal discipline, individual handling is often combined with remedial measures, including:

• targeted training;
• clarification of approval authority;
• procedural updates; or
• reinforcement of behavioural standards.

Even where allegations are substantiated and disciplinary action is imposed, employers frequently supplement individual measures with broader responses, such as:

• enhanced supervision of sensitive roles;
• anonymised internal briefings;
• updates to internal rules; or
• strengthened reporting mechanisms.

Although PRC law does not mandate such follow-up measures in every case, they are closely linked to the employer’s general duty of prudent management and risk prevention. Failure to adopt reasonable organisational responses may weaken the employer’s position if similar issues recur.

Accordingly, HR internal investigations rarely end with a purely binary outcome, but are commonly followed by proportionate organisational or cultural measures aimed at preventing recurrence and reinforcing governance.

Employers may collect and process personal data for HR internal investigations, but such processing is strictly regulated under the following:

• Personal Information Protection Law;
• Labor Contract Law; and
• Civil Code.

An internal investigation does not create any exemption from data protection requirements. Processing must be lawful, necessary, purpose-limited and proportionate, and over-collection may lead to administrative, civil or evidentiary consequences.

Personal data may be processed where necessary for human resources management or performance of the employment contract, such as investigating attendance, misconduct, compliance with internal rules or workplace safety, and separate consent is not always required. This basis does not justify exploratory or unrelated data collection.

Employers may generally review work-related data within company systems if relevant to the investigation. By contrast, sensitive personal information, data on personal devices or private accounts, or information unrelated to employment performance may be processed only where strictly necessary and, in principle, with explicit consent.

Investigations must comply with basic safeguards, including lawful internal rules, data security and respect for employees’ data subject rights, and may not involve excessive monitoring or covert access. Unlawfully obtained data may be excluded in labour disputes. Where data is handled by external advisers or transferred overseas, entrusted processing and cross-border transfer rules apply.

In short, personal data processing is permitted for HR investigations, but only within a narrow, tightly regulated and proportionate scope.

When collecting and processing personal data for HR internal investigations, employers must comply with the following:

• Personal Information Protection Law;
• Labor Contract Law;
• Civil Code; and
• Cybersecurity Law.

An internal investigation does not create any compliance exemption. Data processing must be lawful, necessary and proportionate, and unlawful processing may lead to regulatory liability, evidentiary exclusion and invalidation of disciplinary action.

Employers may process personal data where necessary for human resources management or performance of the employment contract, such as investigating attendance, misconduct, compliance with internal rules or workplace safety. Separate consent is not always required where processing is directly connected to employment management and based on lawfully adopted and disclosed rules. This justification does not extend to exploratory or unrelated data collection.

Sensitive personal information, including health data, biometric data or information relating to suspected criminal conduct, may be processed only where strictly necessary and, in principle, with separate and explicit consent. Access to data on personal devices, private accounts or unrelated communications is highly restricted and generally unlawful without voluntary, informed consent.

Work-related data within company systems may be reviewed in accordance with pre-disclosed management rules. Covert monitoring or unauthorised access to private data is prohibited and may render evidence inadmissible.

Where investigation data is shared with external advisers or transferred overseas, entrusted processing and cross-border data transfer rules must be observed, with strict access control and limited retention.

In summary, HR internal investigations permit personal data processing only within narrow and tightly regulated boundaries. Failure to comply may undermine both the investigation and subsequent employment decisions.

Under PRC law, access to personal data in HR internal investigations is role-based and purpose-limited. There is no unrestricted right to full disclosure of investigation materials.

Employees, as personal information subjects, have a statutory right to access their own personal data under the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law. This includes investigation data that directly identifies or affects them, such as interview records or work-related system data. An internal investigation does not suspend this right.

Employers and authorised investigators may access personal data only to the extent necessary for lawful investigation and employment management purposes. This does not extend to private devices, personal accounts or data unrelated to workplace conduct.

External advisers may access data only as entrusted processors within a defined scope. Trade unions have limited access where required to perform statutory functions, particularly in termination scenarios, but have no general right to review investigation files.

Employers may restrict or redact disclosure to protect business secrets, third-party personal data or investigation integrity, provided the restriction is proportionate. In practice, employees receive only data relating to themselves, and full investigation reports are rarely disclosed.

AI is increasingly used in HR internal investigations in China, but only as an auxiliary tool rather than a decision-making mechanism, and its adoption remains cautious. In practice, AI is mainly used to assist with evidence review and processing, such as keyword searches within authorised systems, data correlation or anomaly detection. AI outputs are treated as risk indicators only, with investigation findings and disciplinary decisions remaining subject to human judgement.

The use of AI does not create any legal exemption. Personal data processed through AI remains fully subject to PRC data protection and labour law requirements, including:

• lawful basis;
• purpose limitation; and
• data minimisation.

Employers may not rely solely on automated analysis to impose disciplinary measures.

Where external vendors or cloud-based tools are used, additional data security, processor management and cross-border transfer obligations apply.

Overall, AI is used to improve efficiency in HR investigations, but not to replace human judgement, and its use is tightly constrained by data protection, employment law and evidentiary risk considerations.

China does not have a single, unified whistle-blower protection statute applicable to HR internal investigations. Instead, protection is provided through labour law and sector-specific regulatory regimes.

At the labour-law level, the Labor Contract Law recognises the right to report labour law violations and requires authorities to verify such reports. Although it does not expressly use the term “whistle-blower”, this framework provides baseline protection for employees reporting illegal employment practices and implies confidentiality and non-retaliation.

More explicit whistle-blower regimes exist in regulated sectors such as work safety, food and drug safety, and securities regulation. These regimes generally protect insiders who report illegal conduct or major risks in good faith, impose confidentiality obligations, prohibit retaliation, and in some cases provide rewards. Protection typically excludes organisers or principal wrongdoers.

Across regimes, protection focuses on good-faith reporting of illegality or serious compliance risks, rather than ordinary workplace disputes. Confidentiality of identity and prohibition of retaliation are the core safeguards.

Although framed as regulatory duties, these rules directly constrain employers. Once a report involves legally protected subject matter, employers must maintain confidentiality, avoid retaliation, and co-operate with verification, including in HR internal investigations.

China has a multi-layered legal framework addressing sexual harassment and violence, although there is no single statute dedicated to whistle-blowing or HR investigations. Protection is primarily based on the following:

• Civil Code;
• Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests; and
• public security regulations.

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual conduct that infringes personal dignity or creates a hostile environment. The Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests prohibits harassment arising from abuse of power or superior–subordinate relationships and requires employers to establish preventative measures, complaint channels, investigation procedures and confidentiality safeguards. Victims may pursue civil remedies, and courts regularly recognise harassment in unequal power relationships.

Protection also extends to violence, stalking and persistent harassment, including post-relationship conduct. Victims may apply for personal safety protection orders, which judicial practice and local regulations have expanded to cover stalking, threats and repeated harassment.

Employers bear affirmative duties of prevention and response, while stricter rules, including mandatory reporting, apply where minors are involved. Recent local measures further refine employer investigation and privacy obligations.

In summary, although fragmented, China’s framework provides relatively comprehensive protection through the following:

• employer duties;
• investigation and confidentiality requirements;
• civil remedies;
• protection orders; and
• administrative enforcement.

China does not have a single, unified statute governing discrimination, harassment or workplace bullying. Protection is provided through a fragmented but structured framework combining civil law, labour law, women’s rights protection, public security regulation and local legislation, with different types of misconduct regulated through different legal approaches.

Sexual harassment is the most clearly regulated category. It is expressly defined in the Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests, which imposes affirmative prevention, investigation and confidentiality duties on employers, schools and public venue operators. Student bullying has also been incorporated into public security law and is subject to administrative intervention and reporting obligations. By contrast, workplace bullying or mobbing has no unified statutory definition and is primarily addressed through personality rights protection under the Civil Code, supplemented by internal labour rules and tort principles.

China’s anti-discrimination framework follows a general-duty-plus-specific-protection model. General obligations to prevent harassment and protect personality rights apply across contexts, while certain characteristics – most notably gender in employment – receive enhanced protection through administrative supervision rather than direct sanctions.

Overall, China’s approach is differentiated rather than unified:

• sexual harassment is highly institutionalised;
• student bullying is increasingly codified;
• employment gender discrimination is mainly administratively supervised; and
• workplace bullying is primarily addressed through civil liability.

While fragmented, the framework is moving towards clearer institutional duties and more enforceable remedies.

Where an internal investigation reveals suspected criminal conduct, the employer must promptly shift from internal handling to co-ordination with criminal authorities. Internal governance may no longer substitute statutory duties of reporting, evidence preservation and co-operation, and failure to make this transition may expose the employer or responsible personnel to liability.

Under Articles 110–113 of the Criminal Procedure Law, organisations discovering suspected criminal facts must promptly report to the competent authorities and may not conceal, delay or resolve the matter internally. The employer’s role is limited to preserving evidence, preventing further harm and co-operating with law enforcement.

Once criminal proceedings are initiated, employment actions must follow labour–criminal interface rules. Termination is generally permissible only where the employee has been lawfully held criminally liable; suspicion, case filing or detention alone does not justify dismissal. During custody, labour contract performance may be suspended, but termination must await the statutory threshold. Where labour disputes overlap with criminal cases, courts typically apply the “criminal first, civil later” principle.

Internal investigation methods are subject to heightened limits. Employers must avoid coercion, unlawful access to private devices or communications, and evidence destruction or fabrication. Evidence obtained unlawfully may be excluded and undermine subsequent employment actions. Risk-containment measures are permissible only if proportionate and non-punitive.

In short, suspected criminal conduct triggers mandatory procedural escalation: reporting, evidence preservation and co-operation with authorities, coupled with cautious handling of employment measures to avoid obstruction risks and unlawful termination.

Multi-jurisdictional HR internal investigations involving China are subject to the mandatory application of Chinese law and public policy controls. Any investigation involving data collected in China, personal information or security-related matters must comply with Chinese mandatory laws, regardless of foreign law choices or group policies.

The core constraint is data sovereignty. Investigation data collected in China may be transferred overseas only in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Law, and data stored in China may not be provided to foreign authorities without Chinese regulatory approval. Matters involving potential state secrets or confidentiality may not be classified or transferred abroad without prior clearance.

In addition, organisational and labour-law boundaries apply: representative offices may not conduct substantive HR investigations, and information collection must be limited to matters directly related to the employment relationship.

In short, cross-border HR investigations involving China are governed by mandatory Chinese law and data controls, not corporate discretion.