Nestlé, the Swiss food giant, dismissed his first executive – the CEO, Laurent Freixe this week – for secretly maintaining a romantic relationship with a direct subordinate. The dismissal, sounded, took place after a single year in the position, after several anonymous complaints in the internal channel of complaints of the company for treatment of favor, and two investigations in which Freixe did not get tired of denying the alleged romance with the person in question, a marketing directive that the company has also left. The case turned on the memory of the recent one in July, which cost Andy Byron, the chief of Astronomer.
Able to form marriages and break them, to encourage the days in the office or to turn them into a horror, the romances in the office are more than material of proves or crowds of personal heads. In a company, they can lead to conflicts of interest, favoritism and distrust of work teams. They even arrived at Nestlé’s shareholders meetings and the repeated and deliberate concealment of the first executive questioned the governance of a company that, for more inri, does not pass its best moment: sales loosen, the shares have depreciated 40% since 2022 and, only in the last year, it has had three CEOs.
The debate on emotional relationships in the company has nothing to do with puritanism, but with the good piloting of institutions. In the United States, historically, the codes of conduct that prohibit them, advise them or, if the impossible to put doors to the field is assumed, it is claimed at least that the link is made public. Europe, more lagging, is also beginning to take measures: last year BP claimed its staff to inform their family and intimate relations in the company and last January resigned the CEO of the Portuguese Galp following an investigation for a relationship with a person in charge. Spain, although in diapers, also has some large companies that have raised the matter.
For example, the Santander Bank establishes that if the employee has any family relationship with a management member of the group whose capacity for influence in the employment situation is significant, it is necessary to communicate it to both parties to the person responsible for the employee, and the compliance departments & behavior and human resources. “This will help ensure that the processes of contracting, promotion or improvement of working conditions (including salary) are meritocratic and free of conflict of interest,” emphasizes the text.
This details situations to avoid for possible conflicts of interest by relations with family members, defined as “those immediate relatives in an analogous relationship of affectivity as parents, children, brothers, grandparents, uncles, nephews or cousins”, as well as the couples that belong to the political family. Among the advice, four recommendations stand out to the employee. “Do not participate in transactions made by our entities in which you have their own interest or have any person linked to you. Do not participate or influence procedures for contracting products or services with societies or people with whom you have some economic or family link. Do not proply a treatment of favor or special conditions of working to people with whom you have a relationship of friendship, family or economic and abstaining to influence any process of contracting, promotion or improvement process working conditions of a person with whom you have a family or friendship relationship. ”
Finally, it establishes the measures that the company will take in the case of detecting conflicts of interest with family members. If an employee depends hierarchically or functionally directly or indirectly from a relative, the financial entity will transfer one of the two to another department within a maximum period of one year. Additionally, if the unit is indirect, the case will be analyzed by human resources to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest.
Inditex also has an extensive ethical code to avoid these conflicts of interest, understood as “those situations in which our personal interest is opposed or can contravene into the company’s interest, compromising our necessary objectivity or professionalism in the performance of our functions in the group”. Like the entity chaired by Ana Botín, the fashion giant also establishes previous recommendations. First, it dictates that “if conflicts of personal interest or in your family environment arise that may compromise your objectivity or professionalism, communicate this circumstance in writing and in an honest, transparent and complete way through your person in charge, human resources or the ethical channel.” The code of good behavior also establishes that “while there are doubts about the possible existence of a conflict of interest, any employee must refrain from representing the Inditex group or to intervene in the deliberations or influence the decision making on behalf of the Inditex Group.”
Guido Stein, professor of the Department of Organization of Persons and Director of the Negotiation Unit at the IESE Business School, points out that the affair Between a manager and a subordinate or equivalent partner he puts companies in “a brete”: “That situation is not desirable in a company, in a school or in an operating room, since it can affect the quality of the decisions of the manager or boss, to their objectivity, and endangers the business efficacy,” explains, although also alert of the “hypocrisy” that wraps this debate, since nepotism or Favoritism “can occur without a love relationship.” For Stein, the vital is not settled in a regulation, but in a prior education of managers.
From the legal angle, it is not so easy to impose norms of behavior on these matters in Spain. “A general and absolute prohibition could be considered discriminatory (article 17 of the Workers’ Statute expressly prohibits discrimination based on kinship ties with people belonging to the company), as well as contrary to the right to privacy of workers (article 18 of the Spanish Constitution guarantees the right to personal and family privacy),” Aoy Castañer, a partner responsible for the work of Garrigues, responds in writing.
This does not imply, Castañer clarifies that the need to evaluate certain situations that could generate conflicts of interest or certain risks in the company cannot be regulated in these codes. Does it make sense that the director of a bank branch becomes a close friend of a client? Will the risks value the same when granting a loan? “If the company concludes that the affective relationship can generate such conflicts, it could assess the adoption of labor measures (sanction, dismissal, transfer or change of position …) provided they exceed the triple judgment of necessity, suitability and proportionality,” says the expert.
The law firm itself has a code that puts black on white what should and what not a partner (normally holder of the office) in their personal, family or sentimental relationships with other partners, professionals or workers at the service of the office. “Garrigues members assume the obligation to inform the existence of this type of relationships immediately to be able to adopt the appropriate measures that mitigate any interference of that relationship in the development of the professional activity of the dispatch.”
The examples are multiple. And varied. The Pharmaceutical Roche also attracts attention to any complementary activity that their employees accept due to the potential conflict of interest that may assume with the company and, given any doubt, it requires that the worker communicate the situation. Telefónica points out that if the personal interest of a worker – proposal or its environment – “influences, can influence or give the impression of influencing their professional decisions, the person must communicate it.” In the PWC consultant, information about personal relationships is also claimed. KPMG, another of the big fourhe is working to develop a policy in this regard.
The Repsol oil company, meanwhile, takes into account the relationships of affectivity between employees when there is a hierarchical line or when one of them may have influence and decision -making capacity on professional aspects related to the other in order to avoid conflicts of interest. “In those cases, employees have the obligation to inform so that the company can adopt the necessary measures to avoid the possible conflict, for example, the reallocation of one of the people to another position or the transfer of the processes and decision making about the employee/AA a third independent person,” he says.
But one thing is the theory and, another, practice. Nestlé’s code of behavior made it very clear that any relationship between employees should communicate to avoid conflicts or to manage them. And Freixe, 63, who had been in the company for 40 years, a lifetime, knew it. It is not an isolated case. In 2005, Aeronautics and CEO, Harry Stonecipher, for their alleged relationship with another group directive. Mark Hurd, first HP executive in 2010, also ceased for its history with a company contractor, which was also entertained with expenses by the company. And Steve Easterbrook dismissed him as in 2019 for the relationship with an employee.
The list could continue. Against wind and tide, in bullish and bassist cycles, between scenes and despite norms, codes and regulations. From what happened later between them, there is no news.
