Following the Oxfam scandal in Haiti and initiatives linked to #metoo and #blacklivesmatter, civil society and third sector organizations themselves have become more aware of the need to improve standards, practices, and culture to prevent and respond to exploitation, abuse, and sexual harassment (PSEAH for its acronym in English) as well as any other interpersonal behavior (abuse of power, discrimination, harassment, bullying, revictimization, and retaliation) that may negatively impact the well-being of the individuals receiving their services or their own employees. The social calling, responsibility to people, and the need to safeguard institutional prestige, image, and reputation have led international organizations to implement prevention and safeguarding policies, as well as systems for managing and investigating complaints, which have helped shed light on a problem that is not exclusive to this sector.

Currently, the majority of reports of interpersonal violence and other unwanted behaviors are received through the reporting mailbox of certain organizations and are managed through an internal investigation process that establishes conclusions and recommendations for closing the case in accordance with safeguarding policies and the codes of conduct established by each organization.

Through our research, we saw that the vast majority of safeguarding processes adopt a disciplinary approach. The measures applied as part of this approach aim to reestablish the balance within the organization by imposing some level of punishment to the offender or transfering the problem to another part of the organization. As Kidder (2007) mentions, the main issue with this type of action is that the punishment harms the offender, but it does not provide any measure to help the victim repair the undergone harm.

However, there are several issues in addressing aggressions and other unwanted behaviors with this punitive approach. On the one hand, the person who has received the harm may not necessarily feel repaired by the punishment applied towards the offender. On the other hand, the offender often feels resentment instead of remorse due to being penalized, thus, they externalize the offense (Retzinger and Scheff, 1996; cited by Kidder, 2007). Furthermore, from a systemic perspective, the opportunity to work with the offender to prevent these situations from happening again in the future in other contexts and with other people is lost.

How could safeguarding processes deal with wrongdoings differently?

We looked into restorative justice as a framework that could possibly change the way wrongdoings are managed inside organizations. Restorative justice programs have their roots in the ancestral practices of some indigenous cultures such as the Maoris, Native Americans Navajos, or the First Nations of Canada. From the perspective of these communities, aggression was considered in terms of the harm caused to the victim, rather than solely as a violation committed against social order. The modern development of restorative practices began in the 1970s, spurred by various social and criminological movements that questioned the effectiveness and legitimacy of punitive, incarceration-based justice and raised concerns about the insufficient attention given to the needs of victims. Over time, the programs demonstrated their ability to reduce recidivism, increase
satisfaction among parties involved, and strengthen social bonds, leading organizations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the Australian Ministry of Justice to formally incorporate them into the judicial sphere for all types of crimes, from domestic violence to crimes against humanity. In Catalonia, the Restorative Justice program has also been in place in the justice system since 1998.

The fundamental premise of restorative practices is that harm constitutes a breach of the victim's and the community's integrity, that violations create obligations, and that the central obligation is to repair the damage caused, restore relationships, reintegrate the offender, and rebuild balance within the community (Menkel-Meadow, 2007; Paul, 2017). Given that restorative justice has proven to be beneficial in addressing harm within the justice system, we looked into the possibility of including the restorative framework in the safeguardin processes within organizations in order to improve the wellbeing of everyone involved in a wrongdoing situation. Based on the analysis conducted throughout our research and the contributions of experts in safeguarding, human resources, and restorative practices, we have developed an algorithm to manage reports of exploitation, harassment, sexual abuse, and other unwanted behaviors, which includes restorative practices as a complementary option to the current processes in place.

Within the protocol’s to address sexual abuse, harassment and other violent situations, withing organizations,, restorative practices constitute a complementary option that does not necessarily replace the investigation or disciplinary measures currently carried out in organizations as part of safeguarding processes. The restorative process to repair the harm to the victim, restore relationships, and facilitate the safe reintegration of the offender, will only take place when there are conditions of voluntary participation from all parties and there is a minimum acknowledgment of responsibility by the offender.

The assessment of the suitability to conduct the restorative process can be made by safeguarding authorities at two key moments in the process: prior to the formal initiation of the investigation when there is some basic level of recognition from the offender of the damage or once the investigation has concluded, just before punitive measures are decided for the perpetrator in cases where they have been found guilty of the accusations.

With this paradigm shift, the organization's objective is no longer exclusively to prove the guilt of the alleged offender and apply exemplary disciplinary measures, but to repair the harm to the victim and restore trust relationships among those affected.

We concluded our investigation with some key findings from experts participating in 3 focus groups:

1. In the realm of organizations, restorative practices offer an opportunity for the person whohas suffered harm to express their needs and participate in a process of repair that contributes to healing their wounds.
    
2. Restorative practices are the preferred option when there is willingness from all parties and acknowledgment of the facts by the perpetrator.
    
3. Restorative justice theorists have begun to explore options for repair when one of the parties decides not to participate in the process that might be interesting to consider within the organizations.
    
4. Implementing a restorative culture in organizations based on restorative practices to care for individuals and repair relationships damaged by exploitation, harassment, sexual abuse, and other unwanted behaviors is a shared responsibility among management, the human resources department, and safeguarding/ethical behavior references.

As a result of this investigation, we have identified significant interest among individuals who work for international organizations in learning about and applying alternative methodologies to disciplinary and retributive justice processes to address complaints of unwanted behaviors. Therefore, we are currently developing a business proposal based on the cooperative model to support organizations willing to implement restorative practices as a fundamental part of a broader restorative culture.

Bibliography

• Kidder, D. L. (2007). Restorative justice: Not" rights", but the right way to heal relationships at work. International Journal of Conflict Management.
• Menkel-Meadow, C. (2007). Restorative justice: What is it and does it work?. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci., 3, 161-187.
• Paul, G. D. (2017). Paradoxes of restorative justice in the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 380-408.
• Retzinger, S., Scheff, T. (1996): “Strategy for community conferences: emotions and social bonds”, en B. Galaway and J. Hudson (eds.): Restorative Justice: international perspectives, Criminal Justice Press. New York, Monsey.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the individual collaborators and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of our University or any organization we may be affiliated with.]