Investigations and Integrity: Lessons from Nestlé
This article opens Faro Point’s series on workplace investigations. Nestlé’s recent leadership crisis illustrates the stakes and serves as a compelling starting point for this conversation.
Concerns were raised through the company’s internal hotline about a possible workplace relationship involving the chief executive. Nestlé conducted an internal investigation that concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated. On paper, that might have been the end of the matter.
Yet reports from employees persisted. In response, the board commissioned a second investigation, this time led by directors with the support of external expertise. The results confirmed that a workplace relationship did exist and that it had been concealed. The concealment itself was a breach of Nestlé’s code of conduct, and the executive was dismissed without an exit package.
Why the First Answer Wasn’t Enough
When an investigation is run by individuals close to the executive under review, the outcome can appear influenced or politically convenient. That dynamic may well have been present in Nestlé’s case, since those conducting the first review likely fell within the chief executive’s chain of command. Independence is what gives an investigation credibility, and without it, trust is undermined.
By commissioning a second, external review, Nestlé demonstrated the difference between an investigation that merely satisfies procedure and one that signals a genuine commitment to accountability.
Risk: Investor Fallout
The announcement of the dismissal reverberated beyond the company’s leadership ranks. Nestlé’s share price dropped roughly 0.7 percent in Zurich the following day, and analysts pointed to broader concerns: high turnover at the top, underwhelming sales, and missed performance targets. For investors, the handling of investigations has now become part of the calculus of confidence in the company.
Takeaways for Leaders
Independence is essential. Sensitive matters require investigators who are neutral. Mishandling an investigation damages both internal trust and external reputation.
Persistence matters. If credible concerns remain after an initial review, leaders must be prepared to re-examine the situation.
Credibility is the standard. An investigation that appears incomplete or compromised will often cause more harm than not conducting one at all. Getting it right requires both rigor and independence.
What to Expect from This Series
Over the coming weeks, Faro Point will explore the life cycle of investigations: how to define issues, frame the scope, gather and weigh evidence, assess credibility, and deliver findings. The goal is straightforward: to help organizations build processes that protect their people, strengthen their culture, and preserve their credibility.
