An elaborated response because this deserves just that  - Absolutely, yes all organisations should conduct regular independent workplace culture audits (not just self-flagellating ‘surveys’ and share the results with an action plan to self-correct. In my experience, regular independent culture audits are non-negotiable if organisations genuinely care about the wellbeing of their people. Here’s some incredibly pertinent reasons why -  and how they should be done right:

1. Surface Hidden Systemic Issues
   – Independent auditors bring fresh eyes, free from internal politics, so they can spot patterns of bullying, discrimination or abuse that in-house teams might miss or ignore.
   – By surveying across all levels—from the C-suite to front-line staff—they reveal pockets of toxicity before they metastasise.

2. Reduce Fear of Retaliation
   – When a truly external party collects feedback under guaranteed anonymity, employees feel safer raising concerns about powerful peers or managers.
   – Clear communication that the audit is confidential and that reprisal is prohibited builds trust in the process.

3. Signal Genuine Leadership Commitment
   – Commissioning audits on a fixed schedule (annual or biennial) shows culture isn’t just a checkbox after a scandal, but an ongoing priority.
   – Publishing high-level findings and action plans publicly holds leadership accountable for real change.

4. Embed Continuous Improvement
   – Culture audits shouldn’t end with a report gathering dust. They must feed into targeted interventions—training, policy reforms, mentorship programmes—and be tracked with measurable outcomes.
   – Follow-up mini-surveys or pulse checks ensure that initiatives are working and allow for course-correction.

5. Safeguard Against Audit Fatigue
   – To avoid survey overload, integrate audits with other touchpoints—performance reviews, exit interviews or quarterly pulse surveys—so feedback becomes part of the rhythm, not a disruptive one-off.

In short, regular independent audits cane be a powerful tool to unearth and address the very behaviours organisations fear to admit exist. But their impact hinges on genuine and authentic desire to addressed the issues found and actual follow-through: visible sponsorship from the top, transparent reporting of results, and swift, meaningful action. Without that, audits risk becoming a well-intentioned ritual that fails to move the needle.

To turn things around, Nine needs a dedicated culture sponsor at the executive level, regular anonymous feedback loops with transparent action plans, targeted bystander-intervention and bias training, and truly independent channels for reporting misconduct.

I want to share an elaborated reply I have prepared - as this case study - and it’s detail is close to a personal professional experience I have had both amongst it and then coming in to ‘clean it up’ form a project compliance perspective.  

As a (female) senior delivery leader, here’s how I see such a toxic culture flourishing at Nine Entertainment despite its public profile:

1. Diffused Accountability Across Legacy Divisions – With nearly two centuries of newspaper, radio and TV arms, plus back-to-back mergers (Fairfax in 2018, Macquarie Media in 2019), created silos where no one leader owned culture, and if anyone did attempt to own or try to change the culture it was thwarted by constant leadership and ownership changes, never gaining traction much less establishment. Therefore, without a single, visible culture sponsor, bad behaviours hid in the gaps between Publishing, Radio and Broadcast.

2. Executive Distraction and High Turnover – With contracts and often M&A’s occurring the financial strategy of the organisation was centre front, rather than culture and therefore without a view on culture -boards (could only) fixated on integration targets and share-price performance, relegating cultural health to the back burner. Frequent leadership changes—illustrated by the CEO departing just before the review’s release—undermined accountability for fixing deep-seated issues.

3. “Tough Newsroom” Ethos normalising Abuse (from the case study notes)
   – A prized “hard-charging” mentality rewarded resilience under pressure but blurred the line between rigorous journalism and aggressive management.
   – Staff feared being branded “soft” if they spoke up, even as 62% experienced power abuse and 57% endured bullying or harassment. (per the case study notes)

4. Scale-Induced Blind Spots
   – As Australia’s largest media group, problems in one business unit rarely reached headquarters.
   – External reporting on other organisations’ failings bred a false sense of immunity at home: “That only happens over there.” (from the case study notes)

5. Fear of Reprisal and Under-Reporting (from the case study notes)
   – Despite a 30% sexual harassment rate among broadcast staff, many incidents went unreported.
   – Weak, fragmented reporting channels meant perpetrators faced little consequence.

6. Entrenched Gender Power Imbalances
   – Women consistently reported higher rates of inappropriate behaviour, reinforcing an environment where male-dominated (‘boys club’) leadership felt untouchable. (from the case study notes).

   
   

In short, Nine’s own success—its scale, rapid M&A growth and industry bravado—created the perfect storm for toxic behaviours to entrench, even as the company publicly scrutinised similar issues elsewhere.

Without clear accountability, sustained leadership focus and safe avenues for redress, damaging cultures can thrive anywhere, regardless of profile.