This article was originally published at provokemedia.com
If there’s one thing the most damaging corporate crises in the second quarter of 2025 had in common, it’s that the problem wasn’t just bad luck or bad press: it was bad culture. From Moët Hennessy’s alleged retaliation against a whistleblower, to BCG’s ethical blind spots in Gaza, to Shein’s performative ESG efforts, Q2 made clear that reputational risk is increasingly rooted in internal behaviours and organisational values.
Across the ten cases featured in this global review, the red thread is unmistakable: culture isn’t just a backdrop to crisis, it’s often the cause. The cost of ignoring toxic leadership, weak oversight, or tone-deaf communication was on full display, whether in the form of legal action, public backlash, or long-term brand erosion.
It was also a quarter where leadership silence spoke volumes. Absent or overly scripted responses – from Qantas’ data breach to Air India’s near-verbatim messaging – amplified public distrust. Meanwhile, companies that responded with clarity, empathy, and visible leadership (like M&S) fared better, even amid operational chaos.
As pressure mounts for brands to live their values, this quarter’s review – with analysis by our editors and commentary from crisis and corporate communications experts – is a sharp reminder: crisis readiness is not just about response plans. It’s about the culture you build long before the spotlight hits.
1. BCG’s Gaza Crisis
What began as a pro bono effort to support humanitarian aid in Gaza has mushroomed into what The Wall Street Journal calls the most significant crisis in Boston Consulting Group’s 60-year history, raising alarms over governance failures, ethical blind spots, and the blurred lines between private consulting and public consequence.
The firm says the trouble started in October 2024, when a team of US-based partners began advising on the creation of a new aid group meant to operate in Gaza. That effort eventually became the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US and Israeli-backed food distribution network that has since been widely condemned by international aid groups and human rights organizations. BCG now says two of its partners went on to conduct unauthorized, off-the-books work, including modeling the cost of relocating portions of Gaza’s population, without the firm’s knowledge or approval.
BCG has fired the two lead partners and removed its chief risk officer and head of social impact from their roles. It insists it was never paid for the work and has disavowed all ties to it.
“Even if this was not in any way, shape, or form a formal BCG project, our association with it is real — deeply troubling, and reputationally very damaging,” CEO Christoph Schweizer said in a letter.
Save the Children, one of BCG’s most prominent nonprofit clients, cut ties with the firm in June, citing its reported involvement in the population displacement modeling as “utterly unacceptable.” That work, the organization said, was “devoid of humanity” and “disregards fundamental rights and dignity.”
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, meanwhile, has been accused by Amnesty International of operating in ways that endanger civilians and contribute to what it calls ongoing war crimes in the region. The controversy has raised pointed questions about how the work advanced so far without top leadership intervening. One partner reportedly defied a direct order not to proceed, and the financial modeling took place outside BCG’s formal systems and oversight.
“This very well may have started off with the best of intentions,” said Elie Jacobs, founding partner of Purposeful Advisors. “But it clearly backfired in spectacular fashion.”
Naomi Naik, a crisis comms expert and former FGS leader, said BCG’s most urgent need now is structural. “Publicly acknowledging governance failures and reinforcing internal controls is essential,” she said. “They need to show that this was a breakdown in oversight, not a reflection of company values.”
Jacobs added that the situation highlights the dangers of reputational and operational misalignment. “When your brand and reputation are out of sync, that’s when bad things happen—internally and externally,” he said. “BCG has long positioned itself as the ‘good guys’ in a consulting industry full of ethically questionable players. That’s what makes this sting.”
Also damaging, Jacobs said, was the firm’s slow, staggered public response. “The drip-drip of revelations allowed the narrative to get away from them. Instead of immediately owning the failure and launching a credible external investigation, BCG pushed blame onto specific individuals. That rarely works in a case like this.”
In the wake of the fallout, the firm has launched an internal review of its controls and compliance systems. A new interim leadership group has been tasked with overseeing risk and ethics processes. BCG says it has already taken steps to ensure similar lapses do not happen again.
But as scrutiny grows, so do the questions. Some former BCG employees have expressed shock that the firm would wade into such a politically charged and high-risk environment at all. Others have raised concerns about the firm’s lack of clearly communicated guardrails for work in conflict zones.
“Just because you have expertise in one area doesn’t mean it translates to another,” Jacobs said. “And in today’s environment, firms need to look not just at the work they’re doing, but how it’s perceived—globally, politically, and morally. Especially in a place like Gaza.”
BCG maintains that the project was never formally sanctioned and says it halted all work related to GHF as soon as leadership became aware of the unauthorized activity. But in the eyes of many, the damage is already done.
“This has turned into a case study in what not to do,” Jacobs said. “And then what not to do once you’ve been caught doing it.” — Diana Marszalek
2. Moët Hennessy’s Reputation On The Rocks
In recent months, Moët Hennessy, the drinks arm of France-based luxury conglomerate LVMH, has found itself embroiled in a high-profile legal battle that reveals alleged sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and a toxic corporate culture within its ranks. The case centres on Maria Gasparovic, a former chief of staff in the company’s global distribution division, who filed a lawsuit after being dismissed in June 2023. Her case, which is currently pending in a Paris employment tribunal, has sparked a broader discussion on how the company has handled sexual harassment claims, and the extent to which these allegations reflect a systemic problem at the €6 billion champagne and spirits firm.
Gasparovic’s allegations are serious and multifaceted. She claims she was fired after raising concerns about misconduct by senior colleagues, including allegations of sexual harassment. According to Gasparovic, after raising concerns with the company’s human resources and management, the response was not only dismissive but also retaliatory. She was allegedly told to undergo “anti-seduction” training, an offer that Moët Hennessy claimed was intended to help her develop professionally. However, for Gasparovic, this was a clear example of the systemic sexism embedded within the company’s culture.
Moreover, her dismissal came shortly after her whistleblowing report, in which she detailed allegations of harassment and discrimination. Moët Hennessy cited “personal conduct” as the reason for her firing, claiming she made threatening remarks to colleagues, an accusation that Gasparovic has vehemently denied. The company’s failure to conduct a formal investigation into her claims further compounds the situation, and she is now seeking €1.3 million in damages.
The company’s response has been strong denial; it has even filed a retaliatory defamation suit against Gasparovic after she made her accusations public on social media. This has backfired somewhat, raising further questions not only about the specific incident but also about the wider culture at Moët Hennessy, which has been described by some as a toxic environment marked by bullying, discrimination, and a “boys club” mentality.
Gasparovic’s case is not an isolated one. A dozen people familiar with Moët Hennessy’s operations told the Financial Times that her dismissal was part of a broader pattern of departures linked to a toxic workplace environment. Bullying and mismanagement have been pervasive issues within the company, with many employees going on long-term sick leave due to stress and harassment. In fact, at least four other female employees have lodged complaints about harassment and bullying, and three of them took their cases to employment tribunals.
This pattern points to systemic issues that go beyond individual cases of misconduct. It suggests that Moët Hennessy, and potentially its parent company LVMH, has failed to address deep-rooted cultural problems.
Kate Hartley, co-founder of Polpeo and author of ‘Communicate in a Crisis’, provides sharp insight into the way Moët Hennessy has handled the Gasparovic case. In her assessment, she emphasises the importance of businesses listening to whistleblowers rather than retaliating against them. “When will businesses learn not to fire their whistleblowers but to listen to them?” she says. “If one of your employees tells you they’ve experienced sexual harassment at work, you need to take it seriously. What you really, really shouldn’t do is refuse to investigate their claims, recommend they go on ‘anti-seduction’ training, fire them, and then sue them for defamation.”
As Hartley observes, this is not a case of isolated bad actors: “This is starting to look like a pattern of behaviour, enabled by a company’s culture. Moët Hennessey’s response has been to deny the allegations, protect its own reputation, and go after Gasparovic rather than to address the underlying issue.
“It’s a depressingly familiar story. An allegation of abuse is ignored by line management and then HR. A legal team defends against the allegation and agrees to create a counter claim. All this is endorsed by leadership. Harassment and bullying can only thrive when they are enabled by a whole team of people and embedded in a company’s culture.”
The Gasparovic case is emblematic of broader cultural issues at Moët Hennessy, and potentially at LVMH itself. The FT’s reporting indicates that the company’s leadership, including CEO Philippe Schaus, attempted to address the company’s male-dominated, “nightlife-oriented” culture when he took over in 2017. Yet, despite these efforts, employees continued to face a hostile work environment marked by sexism, gossip, and bullying. One former employee likened the company to an “old-fashioned royal court,” where those who don’t play the game are either pushed out or forced to leave.
In addition to the allegations of harassment and bullying, Gasparovic has also raised concerns about Moët Hennessy’s handling of shipments to Russia. Despite LVMH’s public stance on halting operations in Russia in 2022, Gasparovic claims that Moët Hennessy continued to dispatch products to Russia via intermediaries, raising questions about the company’s commitment to ethical business practices.
In the aftermath of Gasparovic’s allegations, Moët Hennessy’s response has been defensive and dismissive. In a company-wide email, executives reassured staff that all cases had been handled “thoughtfully, fairly, and in line with a commitment to confidentiality and our values.” They also emphasized their commitment to protecting the company’s reputation. However, this message did little to assuage employee concerns, and it ultimately failed to address the core issues raised by Gasparovic and other employees.
As the crisis continues to unfold, Moët Hennessy’s leadership must confront the deeper cultural issues that have allowed harassment and discrimination to thrive. Failing to do so risks further damage to both the company’s internal culture and its public reputation.
The case of Maria Gasparovic serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of ignoring employee complaints and failing to address systemic cultural problems within an organization. Moët Hennessy’s refusal to engage with the underlying issues – from bullying to sexual harassment – has escalated the crisis, turning what could have been a manageable situation into a full-blown reputational disaster.
As Hartley says, “When businesses plan for a crisis, they often plan for things they’re broadly comfortable talking about. We need to start widening the risk register to include things like harassment, discrimination and poor culture. Once you’ve identified the threat, then you can take steps to put right the underlying problem.”— Maja Pawinska Sims
3. Johnson & Johnson Faces Renewed Scrutiny
For generations, Johnson’s No More Tears shampoo, baby powder, and pink baby lotion were staples in American households, unassuming bathtime basics that became fixtures of late-20th century Americana. But that image began to fray in the 1990s, as growing concern over toxic ingredients in the company’s iconic white baby powder unleashed a wave of consumer distrust and lawsuits linking talc-based products to cancer.
Over the decades, Johnson & Johnson has faced tens of thousands of claims, billions of dollars in settlements and verdicts, and sustained public scrutiny over a range of products. Most recently, a federal bankruptcy judge in April rejected the company’s proposal to pay $9 billion to settle remaining talc-related claims, a decision that came just weeks before the release of No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson by longtime health reporter Gardiner Harris.
The book, described by The New Republic as “a blistering exposé of a trusted American institution,” casts new light on J&J’s decades-long pattern of alleged misconduct. Harris chronicles how the company’s practices, from its handling of the talc-cancer link to the marketing of the antipsychotic Risperdal and its role in the opioid epidemic, undermined its longstanding image as a health care brand synonymous with safety and trust.
The book’s publication has reignited scrutiny of J&J at a time when the company had appeared to distance itself from its most damaging legal entanglements. No More Tears has received coverage in outlets including The New Republic, NPR, and The Washington Post, with journalists highlighting the breadth of Harris’ reporting and the cumulative reputational damage.
While few of the allegations are new to regulators or legal observers, the book packages them for a mainstream audience, potentially reaching a generation of consumers unfamiliar with the company’s legal history.
“This story is fascinating because it reveals how hard-earned trust can become a liability when it masks internal issues,” said Cyndee Harrison, founder of Detroit-based agency Synaptic, which specializes in helping companies manage reputational challenges.
“I believe that what’s happening with J&J right now isn’t just about talc or opioids — it’s about the collapse of a brand that symbolized safety for generations,” she said. “When a company builds its reputation on emotional trust — especially in health and caregiving — the fallout cuts deeper. And it all gets pretty personal when most of us recall their products on our childhood homes’ shelves or bathtubs.”
Read the full article at PRovoke Media: https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/q2-crisis-review-when-culture-is-the-crisis