Watching the Detectives : B3Sixty

B3Sixty is an Human Resources (HR) consultancy firm that focuses on investigations, mediation and resolving workplace issues. The firm is led by senior HR practitioners (usually former HR directors) with backgrounds in universities and public bodies. They are often used by universities and public bodies to provide external investigations into workplace disputes.

Universities, who are their clients, view them as independent, experienced and useful for sensitive cases. People on the receiving end of their investigations often view them as aligned with the institution or as part of a process they distrust.

There are no easily accessible published financial accounts for B3Sixty. It appears to operate under a different registered company name and within a small group structure (called Direct Reports Ltd or Viewpoint HR). In practice, this means its turnover and profit aren’t publicly disclosed.

Even without hard numbers, we can make some estimates. The size of the team is given as ~2–10 staff on LinkedIn. The typical revenue range for this type of consultancy is between £1m – £5m per year. Workplace investigations firms typically charge £800–£2,000 per day per consultant. Depending on complexity, cases can run from between several days to several weeks. So, a single investigation might bring in between £5k and £60k (see for example here for investigations commissioned by the Nursing and Midwifery Council). Profit margins are healthy (20% to 40%) in such low budget environments.

The small size of the staff means that the B3Sixty investigator is often an “associate” of the company or even a freelancer or subcontractor from another HR consultancy. This pool of people is larger — maybe 10–30. It includes former University HR Directors/business managers, senior employee relations specialists and freelance mediators. A partial list of B3Sixty associates and investigators extracted from a LinkedIn search is here.

In our opinion, the “independence” of investigations conducted by any company such as B3Sixty is questionable. A better word is “external”.

What is clear is that any investigator from B3Sixty is drawn from the same professional milieu as the HR business manager commissioning the report. Given that shared background, the commissioner and investigator are unlikely to be strangers. In such circumstances, the distinction between independence and alignment begins to look thin. And after all, as the adage goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune“. Of course, B3Sixty depends on a steady stream of commissioned investigations. HR can easily indicate their desired outcome. A company that persistently delivered awkward reports would go out of business.

Strong criticism also comes from people affected by investigations. For example, B3Sixty is listed among firms paid for investigations by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (which has been engulfed in difficulties). The overall system of outsourced investigations was criticised for lack of fairness, lack of neutrality and poor outcomes despite huge spending. B3Sixty is grouped with other firms (law firms, consultancies) and the generic claim is that investigations were not always conducted in a balanced or impartial way. Critics of the Nursing and Midwifery Council were ultimately vindicated in 2024 when an independent review led by Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor for North West England, highlighted safeguarding concerns and found that people working in the organisation have experienced racism, discrimination and bullying for years (unsurprisingly, mainly by senior management). “Good nurses,” Afzal warned, “are finding themselves being investigated for years over minor issues and bad nurses are escaping sanction“, as reported in The Times here.

The 21 Group has acquired a number of B3Sixty Reports on investigations into matters at universities. As might expected from a broad pool of investigators, the quality is very variable, though the Reports almost always support the university’s position. There are however some exceptions. One B3Sixty Report overruled an earlier internal investigation by a Cambridge University Professor. Another Report did find the actions of a Head of Department amounted to bullying (though this conclusion was ignored by the HR Business Manager).

Reports more commonly exhibit, in our view, a troubling lack of independence between the investigator and HR, or allow HR to exert excessive influence over the conclusions. One striking example at Cambridge University’s School of Physical Sciences involved the HR Business Manager commissioning the Report, assisting in drafting its Terms of Reference and subsequently giving evidence as a witness —an arrangement that represents an unmistakable and huge conflict of interest.

Here is another example. The black text is an investigator from B3Sixty, the red text is from the Director of HR at a UK university. Many would regards this level of collusion and direction as to the content of a Report as unhealthy, and potentially giving rise to miscarriages of justice. (Redactions are by the 21 Group).

As matters at the Nursing and Midwifery Council showed, the model of an “independent” investigator commissioned by an HR department is a recipe for excessive spending and poor outcomes.

Workplace investigation reports (whether internal or external) regularly get criticised or challenged in UK Employment Tribunals. Reports often reflect bias or too‑close ties to the employer — for example, when: conclusions seem predetermined, interviews are conducted unfairly and key witnesses aren’t properly questioned. This is a systemic problem of many practitioners in the field.

We are interesting in acquiring more B3Sixty Reports into matters at universities — if you have one and are willing too share, please send to contact@21percent.org