AI Is Changing Workplace Harm Faster Than Employers Can Respond
From manipulated images to synthetic video, deepfakes are no longer a distant or theoretical risk. They are already beginning to show up in workplace contexts, creating new forms of harassment that are harder to detect, harder to prove, and significantly more damaging for those targeted.
Our CEO and Co-founder, Gemma McCall, recently explored this issue in Personnel Today, following growing concern around the misuse of AI-generated content in professional environments. Here is a taster of what Gemma discussed:
“Deepfakes raise serious legal and compliance concerns for employers. HR should treat the risk as high where deepfakes are used to humiliate, control or punish.”
For employers, this shifts the conversation. This is no longer about whether something happened in a physical workplace or online. The distinction is disappearing, and so is any protection that distinction once offered.
Legislation is already catching up. The Online Safety Act has expanded how online harm is defined, and expectations around employer responsibility are evolving alongside it. If an organisation fails to respond appropriately to AI-enabled harassment, the consequences are not abstract. They include reputational damage, loss of trust, and the very real possibility of tribunal claims.
“How HR teams respond to the emerging threat of AI-enabled harassment will be a test of culture, not just compliance.”
This is where many organisations will be exposed. Policies written for a pre-AI world will not stand up to incidents involving synthetic content. Investigations will be more complex. Evidence will be harder to interpret. And the impact on individuals can be severe, particularly where content is designed to humiliate or undermine.
Under the Worker Protection Act, the steps an organisation takes to prevent harassment are already under scrutiny. In the context of deepfakes, those steps will be judged not just on process, but on intent. Waiting until an incident occurs is no longer a defensible position.
Read our full article in Personnel Today to understand what this shift means for your organisation and how HR leaders should be preparing now.
.png)
What we're reading
Latest insights from the front lines of workplace culture.
The Junior-Senior Speak-Up Divide: What the Data Reveals About Hierarchy and Silence
Speaking up about workplace misconduct shouldn’t depend on where someone sits in the organisational chart. But as shown in The Culture Shifters Annual Report 26/27, it does. Junior employees are twice as likely as senior leaders to believe that speaking up is "pointless," with 54% holding this view compared to just 27% of senior leaders.
Why Collecting Misconduct Data Isn't Enough to Meet the New All Reasonable Steps Duty
Our co-founder and CEO, Gemma McCall, has written a piece for The HR Director exploring one of the most persistent gaps in workplace misconduct management: the space between collecting data and actually using it.
%20(1).png)
The NDA Ban Under the Employment Rights Act: What It Means for HR
When you can no longer buy silence, you have to invest in safety. That's the shift HR teams now need to plan for. Some organisations have historically leaned on settlement agreements and non-disclosure agreements to resolve harassment complaints quietly, keeping the details contained and the reputational risk low. The Employment Rights Act 2025 closes that option down. Once the NDA ban comes into force, a culture of silence stops being something the law will let you enforce.
Feeling inspired?
Take the first step toward preventative misconduct management with a demo of our Report + Support™ platform. We can show you how to breakdown reporting barriers with anonymous 2-way messaging, and how to act before things escalate with name-matching and pattern-spotting across our analytics dashboard.
