Republished with permission from Forbes. The original article appeared in Forbes on September 8, 2025
On the face of it, there seems to be some sort of unhappy coincidence in the appearance of the latest Code of Conduct Report from the ethics and compliance company LRN Corporation in the same week that Nestle’s chief executive was fired and the U.K.’s deputy prime minister resigned for breaching such codes.
But, in reality, such episodes are still all too frequent. In May, the U.S. retailer Kohl’s fired its chief executive, Ashley Buchanan, who had only been in the post since the beginning of the year, for two breaches of its code of conduct involving a woman with whom he had an undisclosed personal relationship. Few will need reminding of the “kiss cam” incident at a concert in July by the rock band Coldplay that led to the departure of Andy Byron as chief executive of the software company Astronomer, followed shortly afterwards by Kristin Cabot quitting as chief people officer. Then there was Bernard Looney, who resigned as chief executive of the oil company BP almost exactly two years ago after accepting that he had not been “fully transparent” in his disclosures of relationships with colleagues. And … and … The list goes on.
Now, there is much research suggesting that politicians are particularly prone to scandal — often of a sexual nature — because of certain character traits, such as narcissism and a propensity for risk taking. So it is perhaps less of a surprise when they are found wanting in the area of ethics. Even, if like former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, they represent a party that has set out to differentiate itself from others. Indeed, Rayner was a loud voice calling out other politicians for not paying sufficient tax. And that was why she had no choice but to go once she was found to have broken the ministerial code.
But why do so many senior executives seem to be falling into the same traps? Well, one key reason is that more organizations have codes of conduct, ethics or principles against which they can measure behavior, and so it is easier to make executives accountable for their conduct. As the LRN report finds, companies are strengthening reporting and accountability, with 98% providing clear reporting resources and 77% including details of helplines. “These updates suggest stronger protections for whistleblowers and clearer guidance for raising concerns,” it says.
Indeed, it appears it was a whistleblower who brought about Laurent Freixe’s departure as CEO. Ty Francis, chief advisory officer at LRN, said in an interview late last week that Nestle deserved “a lot of credit” for the speed with which it handled the matter. As soon as the board received the report, it launched an internal investigation, which ended with Freixe denying the claim. When a second inquiry found it was true, the board fired him immediately, with no compensation package. Francis added that in acting this way Nestle was effectively telling the company “if you are the CEO or the mailroom clerk” makes no difference when it comes to breaking the code of conduct.
Another factor, though, must be the presence of many more women in the workforce — with increasing numbers of them reaching senior levels — making it incumbent upon organizations not to appear to condone poor behavior. Combine this with changing social attitudes, as typified by the #MeToo movement, and it is no longer acceptable for boards to “turn a blind eye” to executives’ misconduct, even if they are high performers. Like Freixe, Looney, for example, has lost a significant amount of remuneration, which he probably would not have done if he had simply left over poor performance.
But, although the rise in dismissals of this sort may be more a product of the greater likelihood of them being reported rather than an outright increase, there may also be a sense in which some chief executives are behaving badly because of their status. With their huge pay packages and other perks combined with, in many cases, a certain amount of fame, they have been transformed from the faceless corporate men of previous generations into something approaching rock stars.
As such, there are certain similarities with erring politicians who some believe become undone by a mixture of various traits that tends not to exist in the wider population. In an article in Psychology Today, Joel Weinberger set these out as narcissism, power motivation, high risk taking and a false self. The last attribute is a result of having to be careful about what you say in order to avoid offending people (perhaps less of a requirement these days), but it could increasingly apply to executives who are now constantly required to show empathy and to be authentic (which often requires the opposite).
The hope must be that these high-profile incidents send a message to executives and companies around the world. But, as Francis says, there is also a clear need for organizations to ensure that their cultures do not enable inappropriate behavior of whatever kind and to back up their codes with training that is more thorough than just ticking boxes once a year. Those in charge of compliance also need to be aware of relevant developments. For instance, everybody is only too conscious of the arrival of AI in the workplace, so how can it be that 85% of codes do not address it?
