- Sources often have sound reasons to ask for anonymity, particularly in restrictive environments, and those reasons deserve respect.
- A finding should not rest on an anonymous source alone, so we establish access and motive and look for independent corroboration.
- Terms with sources are agreed in advance and kept, within what the law allows, and clients are told what rests on anonymous information.
People who share information about organisations or individuals often ask not to be named. The reasons are usually sound. They may fear losing their job, damaging a business relationship or being identified by the people they are speaking about. In restrictive environments, the risks can include legal action, pressure on family members or threats to personal safety. A request for anonymity is reasonable, and in many cases it is the condition on which useful information is shared at all.
Anonymity creates two obligations at once. The researcher must protect the source and must also verify what the source says. Neither can be traded against the other. A source who is protected and never tested can lead a client to a wrong conclusion. A source who is tested carelessly can be exposed.
Testing what the source says
The first question is access. We establish how the source came to know what they describe, and whether they saw it directly, heard it from someone else or are drawing an inference. A former employee describing a meeting they attended is in a different position from one repeating what colleagues said afterwards.
The second is motive. Sources may have grievances, commercial interests or personal loyalties that shape what they say. A source with a motive may still be accurate, and the motive needs to be understood and weighed in either case. We ask about it where appropriate and consider it whether or not the source raises it.
The third is corroboration. We look for independent support in documents, public records and other sources who do not share the same vantage point. The aim is a finding that rests on the evidence as a whole, with the anonymous account as one strand among several. Corroboration also protects the source, because a finding supported by documents draws less attention to the person who first pointed to them.
A finding that rests on one anonymous source alone is a lead, and should be reported as one.
Protecting the source
An accurate description of an anonymous source helps the reader of a report. A phrase such as "a person with direct knowledge of the company's procurement process" tells the client something about access without identifying anyone. Descriptions should be precise enough to be meaningful and general enough to protect. Detail that narrows the field, such as a job title in a small team or the date someone left, is left out.
Identifying records are kept to a minimum. We record what is needed to manage the relationship and assess the information, store it securely with restricted access, and avoid creating records that serve no purpose. Communications are handled in ways suited to the risk the source faces. Where local researchers are involved, the same duty of care extends to them.
Agreeing and keeping terms
Terms should be agreed clearly before information is shared. A source should know how their information may be used, who will see it, how they will be described and whether anything they say could be quoted. Ambiguity at the start causes problems later, particularly if circumstances change.
Commitments must be ones the firm can keep. Confidentiality has legal limits. Courts, regulators or law enforcement authorities may in some circumstances be able to compel disclosure, and protections that exist for journalistic sources in some jurisdictions may not extend to commercial research. We do not promise more than the law allows, and we explain the limits honestly where they are relevant. A narrow promise that can be kept is worth more than a broad one that cannot.
Being honest with the client
Clients need to know what rests on anonymous information. Our reports identify which findings depend on a confidential source, describe that source's access in general terms and grade the finding accordingly. Where a source has been corroborated, we say what the corroboration consists of. Where they have not, the finding is presented as unconfirmed, however credible the source appears.
We treat the protection of sources and the verification of their information as parts of the same discipline. Both depend on care, clear terms and a willingness to say where the evidence stops.
Published 15 September 2026. Last reviewed October 2026. This note describes public records and general research practice, and it does not discuss any client matter. Laws, registers and access to records change, so check the current position before relying on it. It is general information, not legal, financial or investment advice.
