Given senior management seemed to get away with unethical behaviours for many years with impunity, and were personally benefiting from it, it may be that a focus on the rights of and impacts on others (such as their shareholders and the commitments made to them, the environment and communities they were operating in, the family of the Chinese person killed), might have caused them to reflect more deeply on their actions and rethink how they went about their business. In addition, it may have prompted them to consider the long term impacts of their current practices on their personal reputations (integrity and professional standing) as well as that of the company’s (performance against mission).   

Reflecting on the case, I believe the question, “Am I prepared to have my decision and the reasons for it made public?” would have been particularly influential. Other ethical safeguards appear to have been dismissed or rationalised. For instance, justifying bribery as a means to achieve broader benefits, such as improved water quality. The publicity test forces leaders to directly confront the reputational and personal consequences of their decisions. It moves the focus from abstract ethical principles to tangible accountability and integrity, making it far more difficult to excuse unethical conduct. If Phoslock’s leadership had genuinely considered how their actions would be perceived if made public, it is likely they would have chosen a different path and avoided the resulting scandal.

The company possessed a genuinely innovative and beneficial technology that attracted a few investors as the core product was designed to safely strip polluting phosphorus from waterways. However, the corporate entity built around this product completely collapsed under the weight of systematic malpractice and ethical compromises.

Regarding all the Markkula Center questions, I believe all of them would have raised awareness and potential red flags around the doing of the company and its leaders. 

Q1: The main course of action that could have been questioned was the heavy expansion in China, a country known for its bribery and corruption schemes. Other countries may have been more suitable, should the leadership have considered the benefits versus the harms of that decision.

Q2: The dump of highly polluted wastewater or the workplace safety failure would have been actions that involve risk or harm for people, environment etc 

Q3: Allegations of foreign bribery to secure contracts within China, directly violating international and Australian anti-corruption laws. 

Q4 & Q5: The breakdown of internal controls and undisclosed related party transactions by former senior executives are direct breaches of professional codes of ethics, as well as not treating everyone the same. 

Q6: All the ethical compromises uncovered during the investigation have demonstrated that the senior leadership and their actions lacked virtues such as integrity and honesty.

But for me the questions that would have been the most impactful in addressing the ethical issues at Phoslock was the last one. The leadership would never have made public any of their decisions to allegedly bribe Chinese public officials or cover up a wrongful death as it would have engaged their personal and professional credibility, accountability and responsibility.

The question of benefits versus harms is particularly relevant. While improper payments or concealment of issues may have appeared to provide commercial advantages in the short term, a broader assessment would have recognised the potential for significant harm if the conduct was exposed. Those harms included financial losses for investors, regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, loss of trust, and ultimately the decline of what had once been a highly valued ASX-listed company. The eventual impact on shareholders demonstrates that any perceived short-term benefit was outweighed by the long-term consequences.

From a fairness, integrity, and transparency perspective, the Markkula questions become even more powerful. A decision-maker acting consistently with values such as honesty, accountability, and integrity would be expected to reject conduct that could not be openly explained to shareholders, regulators, or the public. The question, "am I prepared to have my decision and the reasons for it made public?" is especially relevant here. Much of the public concern arose because allegations surfaced through internal communications and subsequent scrutiny. Had decision-makers considered whether they would be comfortable defending their actions in front of shareholders, regulators, or the media, they may have recognised much earlier that those actions were inconsistent with good governance and ethical decision-making. The same analysis applies to legality, i.e. if a decision requires decision-makers to justify conduct that may constitute bribery, corruption, or misleading disclosure, the legal risks alone should have prompted reconsideration of the proposed course of action.