Home / Capabilities
IEC plugs into the channel your company already has and runs the full cycle: intake, triage, investigation, decision and remediation.
Every referred complaint (from the ethics line, email or mailbox) is classified by conduct type, severity and legal urgency, with retaliation risk and evidence preservation assessed. Within 48 hours your company has a route signed by an investigator: formal investigation, intervention, mediation or documented closure. 60–70% of what enters a channel does not require formal investigation; triage separates noise from signal and prevents both overreaction and improper dismissal.
Harassment, conflict of interest, retaliation, executive conduct and internal fraud. Every investigation follows the ICHR™ framework: a plan with explicit scope and standard of proof, Wicklander-Zulawski protocol interviews, evidence preservation with chain of custody, timelines and cross-testimony consistency analysis. Key interviews are conducted by a professional investigator; IEC’s analysis infrastructure compresses weeks of work into days.
The report is not the end of the case: it is the document the company will have to defend. Findings with an evidence matrix, a reasoned determination under the DDA™ methodology (mapping each element of the conduct against the evidence that proves it) and proportional recommendations. A poorly documented termination is a lawsuit won by the other side; a solid case file is the difference between liability and closure.
Before the case: jurisdiction-specific protocols and policies, certificate-backed training (the kind that without documentary evidence “does not exist” in court) and a maturity diagnostic of the reporting system. After the case: post-crisis analysis when a matter escalated or was mishandled, identifying systemic failures and rebuilding trust in the channel. Always: periodic committee reporting with cases by type, cycle times and patterns by site.
All within a single domain: how people behave at work. Specialization is not a limitation, it is the reason every case file holds.
Unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, across hierarchical or peer relationships, on or off the worksite.
Systematic hostility that degrades a person’s or a team’s working conditions or environment.
Unequal treatment on protected grounds in hiring, evaluation, promotion, compensation or termination.
Adverse action against those who report, testify or cooperate with an investigation, the conduct that fastest turns one case into two.
Personal, family or third-party interests that compromise the impartiality of decisions made in the role.
Improper exercise of hierarchical power: from favoritism to intimidation as a management style.
Appropriation or diversion of the organization’s resources, expenses, inventory or assets by its own people.
Aggression, threats and intimidation (physical, verbal or digital) among or against people in the organization.
Confidential information, personal data or company property used outside its authorized purpose.
Breaches of codes of conduct and policies whose sanction requires proven facts, not suspicion.
What we don’t do, we say upfront: IEC does not litigate, does not provide courtroom representation, and does not conduct complex financial or digital forensics. When a matter requires it, we refer it to trusted specialists; the client is never left alone with the problem.
This is how a case runs inside IEC. Every phase has written criteria, a named owner, and a file that grows with complete traceability.
The complaint arrives through any client channel and the clock starts. Same-day acknowledgment, a documented evidence-preservation instruction, and a chronology recorded from the first minute.
Classification under written criteria: matter, severity, legal urgency, retaliation risk. An investigator signs the route (formal investigation, intervention or reasoned closure) and the interim measures the case demands.
Investigation plan, interviews in methodological order, documentary evidence verified against its source. Every piece enters the file with traceability: who provided it, when, and how it was validated.
Each element of the conduct is tested against the evidence supporting it, under a standard of proof declared in the report itself. Substantiated, unsubstantiated or partial: what the evidence supports, nothing more.
A report signed by the person who answers for it, actionable recommendations, closure communication where due, and data aggregated into the committee’s quarterly dashboard. The case ends; the system learns.
Every quarter, your governing body receives concrete artifacts: the report for each closed case and the pattern dashboard. Sample with illustrative data:
Someone reports misconduct by their boss, harassment, retaliation or abuse of authority. The company needs an impartial investigation no internal actor can provide, because everyone reports to someone.
Raise a matter → Reporting channelA sensitive report was mishandled: leaked, ignored, or escalated into open conflict. Leadership needs an independent review of the case and remediation of the system to restore trust.
Raise a matter → EscalationAn internal investigation triggered retaliation claims, leadership tension or reputational exposure. A third party with method is needed to establish facts and order the response.
Raise a matter →These capabilities are engaged as an annual package (investigations included, 48-hour SLA and committee reporting) or per event, at project pricing.
See packagesThis site sets no tracking cookies and no advertising analytics. The only thing stored, in your own browser, is the record that you read this notice. Consistent with our privacy notice.