What is Misconduct? Issues That Trigger Investigations
In the first article of this series, we examined Nestlé’s leadership crisis and how the integrity of an investigation shapes trust across an organization and with its stakeholders. The next question is equally important: what kinds of issues should rise to the level of an investigation?
The Range of Misconduct
Workplace misconduct takes many forms. Some issues are rooted in law, others in culture or ethics, but all have the potential to erode trust if left unaddressed. The list below is not exhaustive, but it highlights some of the most common triggers for investigation.
Harassment or hostile environment. This involves unwelcome conduct tied to a protected class such as race, sex, or national origin. It becomes unlawful when severe or pervasive enough to interfere with work or when abuse alters the terms of employment.
Bullying or toxic behaviors. This involves repeated mistreatment such as intimidation or verbal abuse. Though not tied to a protected class, it weakens morale and performance. Employees often describe these workplaces as “toxic.”
Conflicts of interest. This includes undisclosed relationships, outside business dealings, or other situations that compromise neutrality.
Fraud or financial impropriety. This includes misuse of funds, falsified expenses, or theft of resources.
Misuse of company assets. This includes improper use of technology, data, intellectual property, or equipment.
Retaliation. This occurs when employees are punished for raising concerns. It may be overt, like termination or demotion, or subtle, like exclusion or gossip.
Ethics violations. This includes favoritism, breaches of confidentiality, or acceptance of inappropriate gifts.
Safety violations. This occurs when safety protocols are ignored or hazardous conditions are created.
Labels matter, but leaders’ interpretation of concerns and their choice of response ultimately matter more.
Why It Matters
Not every issue requires the same level of formality. Some concerns can be resolved through coaching, a direct conversation, or corrective action. Others call for a structured inquiry or a full investigation. And ignoring misconduct only magnifies the risk.
Compliance issues that go unaddressed become legal liability.
Cultural issues that are left unchecked grow into morale problems, disengagement, and attrition.
Ethical breaches that are minimized or dismissed damage investor and stakeholder confidence, as Nestlé’s experience shows.
Takeaways for Leaders
Independence is non-negotiable. An investigation carries weight only when employees and stakeholders believe it was conducted without bias. Neutral investigators, and in some cases outside experts, reinforce that the process rests on fairness rather than convenience. Nestlé’s second review gained credibility because it was conducted outside the executive’s chain of command and supported by an external expert.
Consistency earns credibility. When similar issues are addressed with uneven rigor, employees notice. Applying the same standards across cases, regardless of role or seniority, signals that accountability is real. Nestlé’s decision to revisit an earlier unsubstantiated finding showed that standards would not be lowered at the top.
Response defines leadership. Employees remember both the decision and how it was delivered. Timely, fair, and transparent action signals integrity. Delay, silence, or minimization often causes more damage than the original misconduct. Nestlé’s second investigation underscored this truth: concealment and misconduct, carries consequences.
What to Expect from This Series
In the coming articles, Faro Point will examine how organizations can respond to misconduct. We will explore the principles that guide strong investigations, from framing the scope to weighing evidence and credibility. Each step builds on the last with one goal in mind: helping leaders protect their people, their culture, and their credibility.
