Final week, Nestlé, the $244 billion meals conglomerate behind a few of the world’s most beloved sweet and occasional manufacturers, introduced that its CEO, Laurent Freixe, had been dismissed for violating the corporate code of conduct after only one yr on the job.
An investigation had confirmed reviews that he was having an inappropriate relationship with a direct report, the corporate mentioned. Nestlé, a class laggard whose share worth has been slipping, had already put in a brand new CEO, Philipp Navratil, an inner rent who beforehand led the corporate’s Nespresso enterprise. The subtext of the press launch was clear: Nothing to see right here.
Regardless of the dearth of kiss cams and movie star hijinks, nonetheless, the story has continued to carry individuals’s consideration, prompting conversations concerning the moral nuances of consensual workplace romances, altering norms for a way corporations deal with them, and the requirements for private habits that CEOs are held to.
Listed here are some takeaways from Nestlé’s CEO ouster:
The implications for an improper romance will be extreme
Boards have much less tolerance now for CEO misconduct, like workplace romances, in comparison with 20 or 30 years in the past, and are usually shifting rapidly to switch problematic leaders. The exits following a scandal like this may be much more punitive than when leaders are eliminated for efficiency points, usually with “golden parachutes.” As my colleague Eva Roytburg reported, Freixe left Nestlé with none pay bundle.
The shift towards robust enforcement is partly resulting from issues about perceptions of the corporate. “The scrutiny is both internal and external,” says Schloetzer, including that it goes past shareholders. “It’s boards, it’s peers in the C suite, it’s people one level below the C suite. Everybody has a heightened sense of what’s the right thing to do, and the leash for not doing the right thing has become shorter and shorter.”
The satan is within the particulars of disclosure
So would he have been protected if he had come clear?
In all probability not, as a chief government. Most corporations have a zero-tolerance coverage for CEOs relationship workers as a result of regardless of the place they’re on the org chart, the ability imbalance is just too nice for there to not be questions concerning the CEO’s decision-making and ethics. “I mean, human resources and the board would have to go through some pretty serious mitigation to assuage concerns of favoritism or retaliation or harassment,” says Jason Schloetzer, affiliate professor at Georgetown College’s McDonough Faculty of Enterprise.
That mentioned, work has at all times been and remains to be a standard place for individuals to fulfill (even when it’s not the place to begin for one in 5 relationships, because it was within the latter a part of final century). For executives who aren’t CEOs, disclosure of a relationship can generally tackle the issue, together with a reorganization in order that one lovestruck worker doesn’t report back to the opposite.
Boards have been recognized to look previous misconduct by excessive performers
Though star CEOs have been taken down by affairs, it’s additionally true that when a CEO is just not residing as much as expectations, the board would possibly discover a technique to ship that CEO packing utilizing company coverage for canopy, says Schloetzer. Earlier than he turned a tutorial, the professor tells Fortune, he turned conscious that “it is not unusual for companies to do things to get the conclusion that they’re looking for.”
“For instance, I can suddenly decide to audit expense reports just to make sure that everybody’s expense reports are following company practices,” he says. “And lo and behold, this person was not following company practices. Now I have a reason to get rid of them.”
Kabrina Chang, medical professor of enterprise legislation and ethics at Boston College’s Questrom Faculty of Enterprise, agrees, including that on the flip aspect, companies have a method of willfully ignoring poor habits in terms of rainmakers.
However complaints from workers a couple of chief’s habits can generally power motion. “While a hypothetical board member might turn a hypothetical blind eye,” she says, workers don’t have the identical incentive to take action.
In case your partner used to report back to you, you in all probability shouldn’t be a CEO
The Nestlé board missed an necessary element about Freixe when he was first nominated for the nook workplace, argues Guido Palazzo, a professor of enterprise ethics on the College of Lausanne and co-author of The Darkish Sample: The Hidden Dynamics of Company Scandals: In line with reviews, the CEO married a girl he met at Nestlé; the pair disclosed the connection, then she left the corporate.
Nestlé’s board would seemingly have been conscious of that background, and hiring him anyway despatched a combined message. “He should never have become CEO if this behavior was not acceptable at Nestlé,” says Palazzo. “Instead, it was tolerated, and he continued to be promoted.”
Fortune International Discussion board returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and international leaders will collect for a dynamic, invitation-only occasion shaping the way forward for enterprise. Apply for an invite.
