This article originally appeared in LinkedIn Pulse, authored by Louise Vella.
Introduction
In September 2025, Nestlé confronted a dramatic leadership crisis. Its CEO was summarily dismissed for conduct violations, and the chairman accelerated his own departure. This moment was not just about replacing a leader; it was about restoring trust, enforcing values, and managing change under high stakes.
For organisations seeking to strengthen their readiness, the Nestlé case offers a vivid lesson: emergency succession is inseparable from accountability and change management.
What Happened: A Cascade of Dismissals
To ground our discussion, here are the confirmed, factual events, no conjecture.
On 1 September 2025, Nestlé’s Board removed Laurent Freixe as CEO with immediate effect. The cause: an internal investigation concluded he had an undisclosed romantic relationship with a direct subordinate, in breach of Nestlé’s Code of Business Conduct.
The investigation was overseen by Chairman Paul Bulcke and Lead Independent Director Pablo Isla, with the support of external counsel.
After the investigation’s conclusion, Freixe denied the relationship to the board until the evidence was confirmed.
He was dismissed without an exit package.
Philipp Navratil, formerly head of Nestlé’s Nespresso segment, was appointed CEO immediately.
Navratil joined the Executive Board as of 1 January 2025.
In mid-September 2025, Bulcke announced that he would step down early (on 1 October 2025) rather than staying until the originally planned date. He ceded to Pablo Isla, who thus became Chairman ahead of schedule.
The company emphasised that Freixe’s removal was “necessary” and insisted that the strategy would not change under new leadership.
Shares of Nestlé fell following the announcement, reflecting investor concern about instability.
Press commentary later referred to this as a “double dismissal” scenario: both the CEO and the Chairman changed in rapid sequence, underscoring the accountability dimension.
This chain reaction is rare in a large multinational, especially one with a reputation for stability. The fact that the chairman himself stepped down early under pressure adds a potent layer of leadership accountability to the narrative.
Why This Case Demands Attention: Key Themes
Below are the major themes this case surfaces, especially relevant if your organisation is reviewing emergency succession or preparing for disruption.
1. Accountability at the Top Level
This event was not a “business-as-usual” CEO change; it was a morality-based removal. That means leadership accountability cannot be delegated or overlooked. In turn:
Emergency succession plans must assume that top leaders, including chairs, might be implicated in crises.
Boards must be prepared to act decisively, even against a sitting CEO or chairman, when standards are violated.
The credibility of governance is on the line; stakeholders will test whether accountability is real or symbolic.
The fact that Bulcke, as chairman, accelerated his exit underscores that accountability extended upward: the board leader could not remain untouched in the turmoil.
2. Emergency Succession in Practice
The removal of a CEO for misconduct is a textbook emergency scenario. What makes this case instructive:
Speed matters: The board acted immediately once evidence was confirmed, minimising leadership vacuum.
Internal pipeline utilisation: Navratil was already a senior, known figure inside the company. Having an internal leader ready to step in reduces disruption risk.
Multiple leadership shifts: The chairman’s accelerated exit shows that emergency succession often cascades beyond a single role. Plans must anticipate simultaneous transitions.
No golden parachute: Freixe’s dismissal occurred without a severance package, sending a strong message that violations of conduct are non-negotiable.
For organisations, this reinforces that emergency succession is not just about continuity but about preserving trust and enforcing boundaries.
3. Change Management Under Scrutiny
Executing leadership change in extremis is also a test of change management. Nestlé’s response highlighted:
Clear communication & transparency: The board publicly explained the process, reasoning, and appointments. Silence would have fuelled rumour.
Reasserting values: By invoking code of conduct violation and saying that “this was a necessary decision,” the leaders positioned the change as fidelity to values, not panic.
Maintaining strategic continuity: While making leadership changes, they declared that strategy would not change, a calming statement to stakeholders.
Cultural reinforcement: Leadership actions (e.g. dismissals without protection, board accountability) are stronger than words in signalling what is acceptable behaviour.
Stakeholder confidence as metric: The market’s response, investors’ scrutiny, and media attention all become part of the change equation. Managing reputation is essential.
In sum: leadership transition in crisis is not simply “fill the seat.” It involves restoring institutional legitimacy, realigning culture, and stabilising perceptions.
4. Governance Reset & Oversight Rebalance
Because the chairman’s exit was tied to investor pressure and perceived mishandling of the crisis, governance had to be reset.
Pablo Isla, an independent director and former Inditex CEO, stepped in as chairman earlier than planned, bringing fresh oversight.
The board had to regain credibility with shareholders concerned about accumulated leadership turnover (two CEOs in two years) and strategic direction.
Bulcke’s earlier-than-expected exit signals that boards sometimes must (and should) absorb responsibility when leadership failures emerge.
Emergency succession and change management in this setting aren’t just operational challenges; they are existential for governance integrity.
Practical Recommendations for Organisations
If your organisation is assessing its own readiness, here is a practical blueprint inspired by Nestlé’s experience:
Design governance structures that empower decisive accountability
Ensure the board (especially chair and independent directors) can initiate investigations, oversight, and removal if necessary. Embed clarity in bylaws or charters about who leads probes, how external counsel is used, and how conflicts are managed.
Prepare for cascading leadership changes
Don’t assume only one role is at risk. Emergency plans should include the CEO, chairman, and possibly senior officers. Map dependencies: who reports to whom, who must act in a chain of succession.
Maintain and exercise a robust internal leadership bench
Develop executives with cross-functional, cross-geographic breadth so they can step into crisis roles credibly. Conduct scenario drills (e.g. what if the CEO is removed tomorrow) to test responsiveness.
Embed accountability in conduct and ethics policies
Codes of conduct must be explicit about relationships, disclosures, violations, and sanctions. Turn “reporting hotlines” (like internal whistleblower systems) into trusted mechanisms for early warning. Make it clear there is no immunity for top leaders.
Plan crisis communication frameworks
Prepare statements, escalation paths, media strategies, and stakeholder notifications in advance. Be transparent about investigations, process, and rationale (within legal constraints). Anticipate market reaction, have analysts, investors, and media in mind.
Prioritise values signalling through action
Actions (dismissals, promotions, no severance, board accountability) often speak louder than words in restoring legitimacy. Reinforce desired cultural norms in follow-up communications and behaviour.
Use transitions to reset strategy or culture if needed
A crisis is also a moment of opportunity: you can reset priorities, accelerate transformation, or reinforce new norms. But do so carefully — too many changes at once may compound instability.
What to Watch Going Forward
While it is impossibly early to render a final verdict on the success of Nestlé’s approach, the next months and years will test the legitimacy of its emergency succession. These are the indicators to monitor:
Performance under Navratil: Will he stabilise growth, manage costs, and restore margins?
Investor confidence & share performance: Does the stock recover or further decline?
Board reputation and governance moves: Will the new chairman and board enact structural reforms, refresh memberships?
Culture, conduct and recurrence: Are there further misconduct scandals? Or does the tone from the top shift behaviour?
Stakeholder trust metrics: Employee morale, media sentiment, and customer loyalty will all reflect the success of the change management effort.
Conclusion
Succession planning must be understood as more than selecting a successor. It must encompass accountability, culture, crisis readiness, governance, and legitimacy. The Nestlé 2025 case teaches us that when conduct breaches occur, leadership transitions are not just operational; they are moral imperatives.
If your organisation is reviewing its succession planning, use this as a case study: audit your values, stress-test your leadership bench, prepare for cascading transitions, and make accountability non-negotiable.
In business....as in life.....the unexpected often arrives unannounced. But those who prepare, with clarity and courage, are best positioned to withstand not just turbulence, but reputational fractures.
📌 Sources:
Reuters. “Nestle abruptly removes CEO Freixe over undisclosed relationship with subordinate.” 1 September 2025.
Reuters. “Nestle dismisses CEO Laurent Freixe after code of conduct breach.” 1 September 2025.
Nestlé press release. “Nestlé Board appoints Philipp Navratil as CEO following the dismissal of Laurent Freixe.” 1 September 2025.
Reuters. “Nestle Chairman Paul Bulcke will step down early.” 16 September 2025.
El País. “Pablo Isla toma la presidencia de Nestlé con la tarea de poner orden …” 1 October 2025.
Reuters. “Nestle investors face more turbulence after another CEO ousted.” 2 September 2025.
Reuters. “Nestle’s new CEO faces full plate of problems.” 2 September 2025.
How I Can Help: Leading Through Change with Confidence
Nestlé’s 2025 story is a powerful reminder that disruption can arrive without warning. The difference lies in how prepared you are in your leadership, your governance, and your ability to manage change with clarity and courage.
To explore how we can strengthen your succession planning, governance, and change management approach, so you’re ready to lead through uncertainty and protect what you’ve built.