Boards that rely solely on the “word” of a chief executive run the risk of blind spots. Where conflicts of interest or undisclosed relationships exist, independence and transparency are compromised. Without knowing the detail of how the initial disclosures were managed and how thoroughly they were investigated, it does call into question the effectiveness of the external investigation or the way in which that matter was directed. Potentially both. Given my background and experience, I know what it is like to be in the position of investigating someone very senior who has had serious allegations tabled against them. This is where experienced investigation professionals are tested, and earn their money. It is not uncommon for executives or board members to try and “direct” the scope of an investigation and to be selective about what additional inquiries should be conducted.

I am always very cautious (and quietly alarmed) when an executive or board member, at the outset of a matter, attempts to tell me how we should investigate, what the scope should be, what information we can (and can’t) have access to. I am sure many of my peers and colleagues have experienced similar situations. As an independent firm the one thing I won’t do is compromise the integrity of the investigation by having an individual attempt to curtail or “manage” the investigation in a certain direction. If that happens to you, I suggest you think carefully about how you respond. Document the conversations and if required either walk away (if you can) or escalate your concerns further).

The former employees alleged they were marginalised after speaking up. Unfortunately, this is a VERY common experience, and I have seen it happen more times than I would like to admit. I have even experienced it myself to a certain extent. It should serve as a red flag or warning sign to all and sundry when the initial response from the organisation (or their executives) is to immediately move to discredit the person speaking up without at least attempting to assess and verify the information. In today’s corporate landscape, it is more important than ever that these types of claims are independently assessed and verified to establish if further inquiries are warranted before dismissing the issue out of hand.

Failure to fully disclose material relationships, risks, or workplace issues not only breaches trust—it raises questions of continuous disclosure under ASX rules and broader directors’ duties. Depending on the issues raised, and who it involves, it pays to dig a little deeper. For example, it is not uncommon to have to rely on a CEO or other senior executive for their input on a serious issue. If they are the subject of the allegation, then they should be afforded due process and natural justice. But equally, you should step back and consider what other inquiries you (or your investigator) can undertake to verify their version of events. If the executive hasn’t done anything wrong, then this will come out via your thorough investigation. The real issue I see is where an executive protests too much at the outset of an investigation where allegations have been raised against them. It’s normal to be upset, to be annoyed but ultimately an experienced and professional executive with nothing to hide should be mature enough to welcome a thorough and independent investigation. As the old Shakespear saying goes “he doth protest too much”. I always keep that quote in mind in sensitive matters involving executives.

While the settlement amount is reported to be far lower than first flagged, the damage to Super Retail’s reputation is significant. Will it recover? Yes, but it will take time. The cost to the brand is likely hard to quantify and more importantly, this issue has likely led to a massive loss in confidence for current employees, future employees, institutional investors and potentially some customers.