In the corporate world, a year is supposed to be enough time to at least learn where the executive washroom is located.
For Laurent Freixe, Nestlé’s now-former CEO, it was apparently long enough to forget where the company’s Code of Business Conduct was filed.
Yesterday’s bombshell dismissal of Freixe—fired after just 365 days for concealing a romantic relationship with a subordinate—marks yet another chapter in what’s becoming an uncomfortably familiar story for the Swiss food giant.
But this isn’t just about one executive’s poor judgment. It’s about whether a $300 billion company can continue weathering leadership storms without losing investor confidence, market share, and the trust that took over 150 years to build.
The Pattern Problem
Nestlé’s leadership revolving door isn’t exactly squeaky clean. The company has faced its share of controversies over the years, from water rights disputes to infant formula marketing scandals.
What makes Freixe’s dismissal particularly damaging isn’t the nature of his misconduct—it’s the timing and context.
Here’s a CEO who was supposed to bring stability after being promoted from within. He knew the rules, understood the culture, and presumably had the institutional knowledge to navigate complex global challenges.
Instead, he became a cautionary tale about how quickly corporate careers can implode when personal judgment fails.
The markets have already spoken, with Nestlé shares experiencing volatility in the immediate aftermath of the announcement.
But short-term stock fluctuations are just the surface ripple of a much deeper question: How many leadership disruptions can a company endure before stakeholders lose faith in its governance?
The Governance Reckoning
Corporate boards worldwide are grappling with an uncomfortable reality: The era of turning a blind eye to executive misconduct is definitively over.
Freixe’s dismissal sends a clear signal that even the most senior leaders aren’t immune to consequences, regardless of their tenure or perceived value to the company.
This represents a seismic shift in corporate accountability. Twenty years ago, a CEO might have survived this scandal with a quiet reprimand and a promise to “do better.”
Today, zero tolerance has become the only defensible position for boards who understand that their own reputations are on the line.
But here’s the catch: While swift action protects the company’s moral authority, it also creates operational chaos. Nestlé now faces the challenge of reassuring global partners, employees, and investors that leadership instability won’t translate into strategic drift.
The Philipp Navratil Factor
Enter Philipp Navratil, Nestlé’s new CEO and the man tasked with steadying a ship that’s taken on more water than anyone anticipated.
His appointment raises intriguing questions about corporate succession planning and crisis management.
The transition appears remarkably smooth on paper—almost suspiciously so.
This suggests that either Nestlé’s board had contingency plans in place (concerning, if they anticipated problems with Freixe) or they’re moving with the kind of decisive speed that only comes from having few alternatives.
Navratil’s challenge extends far beyond typical CEO responsibilities. He must rebuild confidence while managing a global workforce that’s just witnessed their leader’s dramatic fall from grace.
He needs to reassure investors that Nestlé’s strategic direction remains unchanged while potentially implementing the very changes that his predecessor’s misconduct made necessary.
The Bigger Business Question
The real test for Nestlé isn’t whether it can survive this scandal—multinational corporations with diversified portfolios and established market positions are remarkably resilient.
The question is whether repeated leadership disruptions will begin affecting the company’s ability to execute long-term strategies.
Consider the operational reality: Major strategic initiatives typically span multiple years. When CEOs change frequently, whether due to performance issues or personal scandals, institutional memory fragments and strategic continuity suffers.
Partners become wary of making long-term commitments when they’re unsure who will be honoring them.
For Nestlé, this timing is particularly challenging. The food industry is undergoing massive transformation, with sustainability pressures, changing consumer preferences, and supply chain complexities requiring sustained leadership attention.
Leadership musical chairs isn’t exactly the ideal backdrop for navigating these challenges.
The Market’s Memory
Here’s what makes this situation genuinely precarious: Markets have long memories for governance failures, but surprisingly short attention spans for individual scandals.
Nestlé’s challenge is ensuring this incident falls into the latter category rather than the former.
The company’s response strategy appears focused on transparency and swift corrective action—exactly what crisis management textbooks recommend.
But textbook responses don’t always account for the cumulative effect of repeated crises on stakeholder psychology.
If investors begin viewing Nestlé as a company prone to leadership instability, that perception can become self-fulfilling.
Talented executives might hesitate to join an organization where career prospects seem uncertain. Board members might become risk-averse in their strategic thinking.
Partners might hedge their bets with competitors offering more predictable leadership.
The Recovery Roadmap
So can Nestlé recover? The answer depends largely on what “recovery” means.
If recovery means returning stock prices to pre-scandal levels and maintaining operational efficiency, then yes—almost certainly.
Large corporations have remarkable institutional momentum, and Nestlé’s fundamental business remains sound.
But if recovery means restoring the kind of stakeholder confidence that enables bold strategic moves and long-term thinking, that’s a more complex challenge.
It requires not just competent leadership, but visible leadership that rebuilds trust through consistent performance over time.
Navratil’s honeymoon period will be brief but crucial. His early decisions will signal whether Nestlé learned the right lessons from this crisis or merely survived it.
The difference between those two outcomes could determine whether this becomes a footnote in the company’s history or the beginning of a more troubling pattern.
The Verdict
The $300 billion question has a nuanced answer: Nestlé will almost certainly recover in the traditional business sense, but the nature of that recovery depends entirely on execution over the next 12-18 months.
Corporate scandals are rarely fatal for well-established companies, but they can be transformational—either catalyzing positive change or accelerating decline.
For Nestlé, the choice is stark: Use this crisis as an opportunity to strengthen governance and rebuild stakeholder confidence, or risk becoming a case study in how even giants can stumble when leadership accountability becomes a recurring theme rather than an isolated incident.
The clock is ticking, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. In corporate terms, $300 billion isn’t just a valuation—it’s a responsibility that extends far beyond any individual executive’s personal choices.
Also Read
What ArcelorMittal’s Plant Closures Mean for South Africa’s Workers and Economy
Dow Jones Slides as Yields Climb and Tariff Worries Mount