The recent processing of the dosimetry PL raised debates that touch on an essential discussion for the universe of compliance: management of consequences for the practice of misconduct.
A robust compliance program is based on the pillars of prevention, detection and remediation. Much of the corporate energy tends to focus on the former, implementing policies, reviewing controls and conducting training. But it is the pillar of detection that assumes the critical role of identifying and investigating misconduct when they occur. And, based on these factual conclusions, it is the pillar of remediation that comes into play, applying disciplinary or corrective measures that strengthen the integrity of the system. These pillars do not operate in isolation. They feed each other back, adjusting guidelines, redefining priorities and improving controls based on each real case.
Preventing, detecting and remediating is an infinite cycle towards a healthy corporate environment. And it is precisely because remediation requires applying proportional and objective consequences that the fair measure of a sentence becomes crucial for any ethical system.
Continues after advertising
Consequence management policy: the antidote against arbitrariness
The so-called dosimetry PL refers to a bill that changes criteria set out in the Penal Code relating to the dosimetry of sentences, that is, the way in which sentences are calculated when the same person commits more than one crime in the same factual context. The proposal approved by the Chamber of Deputies this month intends that, in these cases, only the penalty for the most serious crime be applied, with a possible fractional increase, but without adding the penalties in full (as is done today). This technical change in the calculation methodology opens the door to reducing sentences, with a strong political and legal impact, including for public figures.
In companies, we are not talking about managing a penal system for employees. Even though the logic is different, the question remains uncomfortable: what guarantees that the rules do not change according to the convenience of whoever decides? Can the penalty vary depending on the position of the person committing the diversion? What factors are taken into account when calculating the total penalty? From verbal guidance, to a freeze on promotion and merit, or dismissal with just cause, what determines which penalty should be applied?
Every organization needs objective criteria that define how to treat internal infractions. Without these criteria, two risks are created that can destroy the compliance program: subjectivity and inconsistency. A clear and widespread consequence management policy functions as a moral contract between the organization and itself and establishes the system of the “corporate Penal Code”.
Continues after advertising
After all, when employees don’t know how consequences are defined, it also opens the door to internal legal uncertainty, demotivation and a feeling of injustice, real (or perceived) risk of arbitrary decisions… and the famous peon radio.
Consequence matrix: horizontal and vertical coherence
If company policy defines principles, the consequences matrix defines the “how”. If we take criminal law as a reference, dosimetry is not an act of will, but a technical calculation. First, the base penalty is defined, based on the circumstances of the incident and the profile of the criminal. Then, aggravating and mitigating factors come into play, and, finally, reasons for increasing or reducing the sentence are applied. The dosimetry PL’s discussion is not about “being more or less strict” in punishing a crime, but about which ruler to use to reach the final sentence. In the corporate environment, the dilemma is similar. It is not about punishing each misconduct more or less individually, but about calculating the consequence in a structured and coherent way. This is exactly where the consequences matrix stops being a pretty picture in politics and starts to fulfill its true role: to function as compliance dosimetry.
A well-designed matrix of consequences evaluates the fact before judging the person. It considers the seriousness of the conduct, the risk or damage actually caused, the existence of recurrence, the level of influence of those who committed the misconduct and the reputational impact involved. It also distinguishes between error, negligence/recklessness and intent (intention), taking into account whether the employee knew the rules, whether they had been trained, whether they obtained a personal advantage or whether they tried to hinder the investigation. These elements are essential to ensure that the consequence applied is coherent, proportional, and objectively calculated.
Continues after advertising
It is this rationale that transforms the matrix into a true mechanism of organizational coherence. By organizing variables objectively, it reduces impulsive decisions, avoids unequal treatment and prevents the hierarchy from acting as a shield or scapegoat. The matrix guarantees horizontal (between areas) and vertical (between hierarchical levels) equity. Furthermore, it strengthens governance by connecting consequences to culture and not to the emotion of the moment.
Compliance does not judge, but influences. And a lot
I often say that working with compliance investigation is, to a certain extent, playing God. The way compliance conducts, documents, analyzes and recommends can direct the entire final decision. And this decision is not abstract. It can change a person’s life, impact a family and reverberate in the culture of an entire corporate environment. That’s why taking care of the process matters as much as the result.
Compliance should not act as a police officer nor occupy the role of a judge. Its true role is to be the guardian of the smoothness of the process. This means ensuring that the facts are investigated with technical rigor, that the criteria are previously defined and that the recommendations are supported by evidence, not by hierarchical pressures, political convenience or emotions of the moment.
Continues after advertising
The public debate surrounding the dosimetry PL highlights this point. Making penalty calculation criteria more flexible may even serve specific interests, but it comes at a high price in terms of institutional trust. In the corporate environment, the risk is even greater. Companies that investigate well, but decide poorly, create cultures in which ethics become discourse, the courage to speak decreases, cynicism grows and deviations become normalized.
