The Organisation as the Cure for Its Own Ailments: Corporate Investigators in The Netherlands

Abstract

Public/private relations in the field of security attract considerable academic attention. Usually, the state is central to the analysis, focusing on the diminishing role of a previously dominant state. The role that organisations themselves play in the investigation and settlement of their internal norm violations is, however, much less researched. An emphasis on the role of the state downplays the importance of such actions. This research paper, based on qualitative data from the Netherlands, highlights the role of the organisation as the principal actor in corporate investigations and corporate settlements. The legal constraints upon and day-to-day activities of corporate investigators are considered and the consequences of the distance between public law enforcement actors and corporate security are reflected upon. The paper arrives at the conclusion that the limited insight into the measures taken by organisations in response to internal norm violation can be considered problematic from a democratic, rule-of-law point of view. The freedom of action enjoyed by organisations within the private legal sphere makes oversight and control quite challenging.

Private and Corporate Investigations: Internal Security Governance Within Organisations

“…These corporate settlements fall, in broad terms, within the categories of action based on internal regulations, on labour law, on private/civil law and on criminal law (Meerts 2018). In addition, it may be decided that no further action is necessary-for example when the investigations yielded no definite results or when the problem has already been solved in another way (e.g.…”

“…Because of the uneasy fit between the objectives and processes of the criminal justice system and the interests of (commercial) organisations, some other form of corporate settlement is often used as well (Meerts and Dorn 2017). As mentioned above, one option is to make use of internal regulations within the organisation itself (Meerts 2018). The options provided here often range from minor (such as a warning) to severe (such as termination of the labour contract).…”

Corporate Investigations: Beyond Notions of Public–Private Relations

“…In addition to the abovementioned “strategic benefits,” corporate investigators have the option to work independently from law enforcement agencies (Meerts, 2018). Corporate investigators lack formal powers of investigation, which are only bestowed upon law enforcement.…”

Toezicht en governance in de open samenleving

“…De samenwerking tussen ondernemingen en publieke toezichthouders in de uitvoering van het toezicht wordt door governance wetenschappers misschien te weinig geproblematiseerd. Horizontaal toezicht, zelfregulering en systeemtoezicht kunnen het schadelijke karakter van organisatiecriminaliteit verhullen (Meerts, 2018) en bijdragen aan morele ambiguïteit, en daarmee ook tolerante regulering in de hand werken (Nelken, 2012). Waar governance in theorie betekent dat meerdere actoren op meerdere niveaus reguleren, betekent het in de praktijk vaak dat de overheid een stapje terug doet.…”