Imagine: a report comes in regarding sexually inappropriate behaviour by a manager. The organisation engages an investigation firm with extensive experience in fraud investigations and integrity issues. They should be capable, right? According to RCGOG’s Mariëtte Hamer, that is highly questionable.
Mariëtte Hamer, the Government Commissioner for Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Violence (RCGOG), recently published her advice on investigations into reports of (sexual) misconduct. The key message: the quality of this type of investigation is not sufficiently guaranteed. This is not only problematic for investigation agencies or clients, but above all for the people involved. A poorly conducted investigation can have major consequences for those who report incidents, those accused and organisations alike.
One of the most interesting points in the advice is that investigations into sexually inappropriate behaviour cannot simply be lumped together with other forms of person-centred investigations. Yet in practice, this happens frequently.
Not every investigation requires the same level of expertise
Under the current Private Security Organisations and Investigation Agencies Act, many forms of person-centred investigation are treated more or less the same. An investigation into shoplifting, expense claim fraud, a breach of integrity or sexually inappropriate behaviour quickly falls under the same legal framework.
That is strange. A fraud investigation often involves documents, transactions, authorisations and factual actions. In contrast, investigations into sexually inappropriate behaviour, power dynamics, dependency, trauma, group dynamics and social safety often play a major role.
That does not mean that the facts are any less important. On the contrary. Precisely because the consequences for everyone involved can be so significant, establishing the facts must be done with extra care. However, the way in which you conduct interviews, weigh up statements and draw conclusions does require different knowledge and skills when dealing with this type of report.
Hamer therefore advocates for greater specialisation within the field of investigation. Not every investigator should automatically be expected to be able to carry out every type of person-centred investigation. Additional requirements should apply to complex investigations, including those involving sexually transgressive behaviour.
The Integrity Coordinator actively contributed to the RCGOG’s investigation. We therefore agree with the recommendations.
We consider it perfectly normal in other professions that specialisation matters. A lawyer is not automatically an employment lawyer. An accountant is not automatically a forensic accountant. Why, then, should we expect every researcher, with a general basic training, to be an expert in the field of sexually transgressive behaviour?
Integrity investigations can learn from this
Hamer’s advice primarily concerns sexual misconduct, but the lessons are more widely applicable. In integrity investigations, too, significant interests are often at stake. Consider reports of conflicts of interest, abuse of power, harassment, discrimination, fraud, corruption or abuse of position.
Here too, an investigation must not only be legally sound, but also thorough, justifiable and proportionate. The whistleblower must be able to trust that a report will be taken seriously. The accused must be able to defend themselves effectively. The client must receive a report on which they can base a responsible decision. And the organisation must ensure that an investigation does not actually undermine confidence in the reporting system.
A thorough preliminary assessment is crucial
That is why the preliminary assessment proposed by Hamer is particularly interesting. Before an investigation is launched, an assessment must first be made as to whether an investigation is indeed the appropriate course of action. What exactly is the report? What is the relevant question to be investigated? Are there less intrusive alternatives? Does the agency possess the necessary expertise? And are there any special circumstances, such as a criminal law dimension or vulnerable parties involved?
These questions are not only relevant in cases of sexual misconduct. They are, in fact, part and parcel of any serious integrity investigation.
In practice, we still see all too often that organisations are quick to call for ‘an independent investigation’ to be carried out when under pressure. That sounds decisive but may not always be wise. Sometimes a proper triage is needed first. Sometimes a culture review is more appropriate. Sometimes a report must be handled via the whistleblower procedure. And sometimes an external investigation is indeed necessary, but it must be carried out by people with the right expertise.
The Integrity Coordinator helps organisations with precisely these kinds of questions. What is the best course of action following a report? Should an investigation be launched? If so, what should the scope of the investigation be? Which investigators are best suited to carry out such an investigation? What are the alternatives? How do we inform those involved?
The report is not an end, but a warning
Hamer’s advice should therefore not be read solely as a report on sexually inappropriate behaviour. It is also a warning to anyone involved in integrity, reporting procedures and internal investigations.
An investigation is not a neutral tool that you simply pull off the shelf. It can contribute to recovery, establishing the truth and social safety. But if it is used incorrectly, it can also cause harm. To the complainant who feels they have not been heard. To the accused who is not given a fair chance to respond. And to the organisation which, after a costly investigation, finds itself even further from its goals.
The key question is therefore not just: who will conduct the investigation? The key question is: what problem are we trying to solve, what type of investigation is appropriate for that, and what expertise is required?
This is perhaps the most important lesson for integrity professionals. The preliminary assessment is crucial. Not every investigation is the same. And not every investigator is suited to every investigation. Furthermore, investigators must be properly managed.
Want to know more?
Would you like to know whether your reporting procedure, investigation protocol or integrity function is adequately equipped to deal with these kinds of situations? Please feel free to contact the Integrity Coordinator. We’d be happy to help you develop a thorough and practical approach.
