A single compliance incident rarely tells the whole story.
The same type of violation can carry different levels of risk depending on its impact, whether the behaviour has occurred before, and the level of responsibility associated with the person’s position. Looking at every case separately makes it difficult to recognise recurring behaviour, compare similar incidents, or understand whether risk is concentrated within a particular team.
Ethicontrol’s Violation Scoring and Risk Profiling introduces a structured approach for turning case information into measurable risk indicators.
The scoring engine combines relevant case attributes, maintains cumulative scores for individual personages, and provides managers with an aggregated view of risk across their teams.
Case management systems are usually good at answering questions about an individual incident:
However, risk oversight requires a broader view.
An organisation may need to understand whether the same person has been involved in several confirmed violations, whether the seriousness of those violations is increasing, or whether similar patterns are appearing among employees reporting to the same manager.
Without a consistent scoring model, this analysis often depends on manually reviewing multiple cases and comparing them one by one. Different investigators may also interpret similar incidents differently.
Violation scoring does not replace investigation or professional judgement. It provides a consistent structure for comparing relevant case data and identifying patterns that may require closer review.
Violation scoring assigns configured point values to selected attributes of a confirmed case.
Depending on the organisation’s scoring model, the calculation can include:
The calculated result becomes part of the personage’s risk profile and remains available in their Profile/Dossier.
Managers can also receive an aggregated score based on the calculated scores of their direct subordinates. This provides authorised users with a broader view of behavioural risk across a reporting line or team.
The scoring engine combines several layers of case data into one calculation.
| Scoring factor | What it reflects | How it affects the score |
|---|---|---|
| Violation sub-category | The type and seriousness of the violation | Different sub-categories can be assigned different point values, allowing organisations to distinguish between minor procedural breaches and more serious issues such as fraud, data misuse, or workplace violence. |
| Incident impact or severity | The consequences created by the incident | Two cases within the same sub-category may receive different scores when one has limited consequences and the other creates significant operational, financial, legal, or reputational exposure. |
| Position grade severity | The level of responsibility, authority, or access associated with the person’s role | A violation involving a critical or highly sensitive position may contribute more points than the same behaviour involving a role with limited organisational exposure. |
| Recurring violations | Whether similar relevant violations have occurred before | The platform can count previous recurrences and apply an additional configured bonus, helping distinguish an isolated incident from an emerging behavioural pattern. |
Consider a confirmed workplace safety violation.
The organisation’s scoring configuration assigns:
The base score is calculated as:
10 sub-category points + 5 impact points + 0 position severity points = 15 points
In this example, no previous relevant violations have been recorded. The number of recurrences is therefore zero, and no recurrence bonus is added.
The final score remains 15.
The score details remain visible in the personage’s Dossier, including the related case, role, sub-category, individual score components, scoring method, total score, and calculation date.
A personage’s risk profile is not limited to the latest case.
Each calculated violation score is added to the personage’s scoring history. This creates a cumulative view across multiple confirmed incidents and makes repeated or increasing risk easier to identify.
Filters can be used to examine specific periods, categories, or case roles.
This gives compliance and risk teams more context than a simple list of past cases.
Individual behaviour can also reveal patterns at the team level.
Ethicontrol calculates a manager score using an aggregated average based on the scores of linked subordinates. Unlike the cumulative personage score, the manager score is designed to provide an overview of the team rather than add every violation together.
A manager score does not automatically mean that the manager caused or participated in the violations. It provides an oversight indicator that can help the organisation decide where further analysis, support, training, or control improvements may be needed.
Visit our Help Center to learn how scores are calculated and how to review personage and manager risk profiles.
The main value of scoring is not the number itself. It is the context the number makes easier to see.
More consistent case evaluation |
|
Earlier visibility of recurring behaviour |
|
Configured values help teams assess similar violations consistently while leaving room for professional judgement. |
|
A cumulative score makes repeat incidents more visible without requiring users to manually reconstruct the person’s full case history. |
Scores help teams decide where closer monitoring, training, additional controls, or management attention may be needed. They support review but do not replace it.
Better team-level oversight |
|
A clearer audit trail |
| Aggregated manager scores help organisations identify whether risk may be concentrated within a particular reporting line, department, or operational area. |
Each score remains connected to its case data and calculation details, showing what influenced the result and when it was calculated.
|
There is no universal formula that suits every organisation.
A financial institution, manufacturer, technology company, and public-sector body may evaluate the same types of behaviour differently. Their critical roles, impact levels, repeat-violation rules, and internal risk appetite may also vary.
Ethicontrol therefore allows the scoring logic to be configured at the organisation level.
Configuration can cover:
This makes the feature adaptable to an organisation’s policies rather than forcing every customer into the same scoring model.
Violation scoring works as part of the broader Ethicontrol case management environment.
It can use information from:
This connection matters because risk profiling is only useful when the score can be traced back to the underlying cases and organisational context.
Rather than creating a separate risk register disconnected from investigations, the platform builds the profile from information already documented during the case process.
Ethicontrol’s Violation Scoring and Risk Profiling connects individual incidents with a wider view of recurring behaviour and organisational exposure.
By combining configurable case attributes, cumulative personage scores, manager-level aggregation, and transparent calculation details, the platform helps compliance teams identify patterns earlier and focus on where they are most needed.