September’s Reputation Report examines three very different stories that highlight the fragility of trust and the lasting consequences of poor judgement.
From Sarah Ferguson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, to the downfall of Nestlé’s chief executive over an undisclosed relationship, and Disney’s clash between free speech and corporate values, each case in this month’s reputation report offers powerful lessons in reputation risk and crisis management.
For a quick overview of this month’s Reputation Report, you can also watch our video recap here.
Sarah Ferguson’s Epstein email scandal destroys public trust
Neil McLeod, Divisional Managing Director, Corporate
Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, has long been known and loved for her questionable judgement and fondness for getting into a scrape or five. Despite that, the errors of her ways have never completely washed away the goodwill she enjoyed since those heady days as a Royal bride.
Until now.
The unearthing of her bombshell email apologising to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein soon after publicly denouncing him in 2011 is beyond poor judgment. It smacks of hypocrisy and cover-up in one jarring hit. It is the most severe, serious test of her bounce-back-ability.
Her words are now seen as hollow, an attempt to recover her public image from the heat of a scandal. Since then, she has continued to enjoy a reputation as an energetic charity campaigner, writer and mother. Charities she once had associations with have now stepped away from her with haste, a development which is devastating to her as a person and public figure.
It is reported she only sent her apology to the convinced billionaire paedophile because of threats he made, including the (what seems unlikely) potential of defamation proceedings.
Risk analysis is vital in any crisis. Strategy must always weigh up what might happen, and what will almost certainly happen – and how that is viewed – if you choose a certain path. Perhaps Fergie thought it would all go away with a carefully crafted quote.
But private actions which contradict public statements rarely bring good outcomes – even when a crisis is 14 years in the making.
One strike and you’re out – the new rules about unsanctioned office romances
Tim Jotischky, Divisional Managing Director, Reputation
Nestlé chief executive Laurent Freixe, a four-decade lifer at the Swiss business, was sacked after lying about an affair with a colleague.
Allegations of preferential treatment were first made on an internal whistleblower channel, but he denied them. After an initial investigation, the board concluded they were unsubstantiated. The rumours were then published on a finance blog, prompting a second externally led investigation, which uncovered the truth.
The scandal also led chairman Paul Bulcke to leave his position, following the botched investigation. Albeit that wasn’t the official reason given…
Nestlé is a famously conservative 159-year-old company in a country with a very traditional business culture. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned for any company.
First, there are no longer clear dividing lines between the professional and personal. There is a “One strike and you’re out” rule for any senior executive in an undisclosed relationship with a junior colleague reporting to them. Former BP chief executive Bernard Looney lost his job in similar circumstances.
Secondly, any investigation into a leader’s conduct needs to be credible – and seen to be credible. Simply commissioning one is not sufficient. When Red Bull Racing investigated misconduct allegations against former Team Principal Christian Horner in 2024, there was media scepticism about its independence, compounded by the team’s failure to publish the findings.
The Nestlé scandal cost the company’s two most senior figures their careers. Shareholders evidently decided the mishandling of the situation, and the public embarrassment it caused, was as damaging as the affair itself. As highlighted in this Reputation Report, credibility in a crisis depends not just on action, but on how that action is perceived.
How Disney’s battle over free speech shook Mickey’s reputation
Robin Brant, Associate Director, Reputation
Mickey Mouse has had a contemplative fortnight. His reputation as an institution of American wholesomeness has come in for a kicking. It’s also exposed the battle in Disney – the behemoth parent company – between values and actual value.
The Mouse House, as it is affectionately known, also owns ABC, the storied TV network. In the last two weeks, it’s swung from purveyor of ‘offensive and insensitive’ comments, to capitulator to White House censorship, to recanting champion of First Amendment free speech rights. That’s quite a rollercoaster. DisneyWorld-esque, you could say.
Crises test people and corporate structures. They expose who you are and what they believe in. And if you are true to the latter.
Jimmy Kimmel is back on the tele, after an ‘indefinite’ break that lasted just days and ‘thoughtful discussions’ with his Disney bosses. There were many moving parts in this confrontation. But there is a trend. This was the latest face-off between a massive media entity that claims to be the universal storyteller of America, and a thin-skinned president and his MAGA movement that seems to have conditions when it comes to Free Speech.
You can take what you want from this – and critics and supporters will do just that. ABC/Disney/Mickey have tried to please or placate all the interested parties at various points since Kimmel was taken off air for saying people around Donald Trump were ‘working very hard to capitalise on the murder’ of Charlie Kirk. That was either a necessary strategy or plodding prevarication.
The show goes on, with Kimmel at the helm still. He said the stations that took him off air were ‘un-American’. Un-Mickey, you might say.
Beyond September’s reputation report review, our Reputation Management team helps organisations and individuals navigate crises, protect their credibility, and rebuild trust. Get in touch today to find out how our team of specialists can support you.