Churches (sexual abuse), political parties (anti-semitism, sexism), armed forces (human right trespasses), companies (sexual abuse, fraud), universities (sexual abuse), etc. So often we find organisations that, according to "the rest of society" (outsiders, the press, the general public), do not take appropriate measures against misconduct by insiders (i.e. they "fail to do enough").
It's only recently, with social pressure from the media and public oversight, that we find a greater alignment between outsiders and insiders in terms of punishment for misbehaviour (just imagine XVIII century... which organisation punished insiders?). Churches expel priests, political parties expel members, armed forces do "internal inquiries", etc. You might argue that some of this actions are considered by organisations as necessary PR against public backlash.
In any case, why this evident disparity of judgment between insiders and outsiders?
I can think of two key reasons:
common biases among insiders (so they can't fully see the severity of the issue)
more information of insiders vis-a-vis outsiders. This is relevant because outsiders are more powerful to disseminate limited analysis with immediate consequences. A headline saying "new abuse allegation" already damages the organisation's reputation, even before an inquiry is even made. So, public is "more visceral", or "more prone to conclude without evidence".
What is the evidence on this?
PS: this question is imo about sociology, which has a lot of questions here, and so I think it's on-topic. Please comment otherwise.