The KPMG fallout will generate significant commentary from governance lawyers, accounting bodies, and regulatory specialists. That commentary is necessary and most of it will be correct.
What it will largely miss is the dimension IGI has been working in for over three decades and the dimension that, in the aftermath of a scandal of this nature, determines which directors emerge with their authority intact and which do not.
The Reputation Dimension Nobody Is Discussing
When a major audit firm’s conduct comes under scrutiny, the immediate conversation is technical. Independence frameworks. Audit quality standards. Committee oversight obligations. Regulatory response.
Meanwhile, The conversation that happens more quietly in nomination committees, in investor relations calls, in the informal networks that determine who gets appointed to the next board seat, is a different one entirely.
It is about individual director judgment. About whether the people sitting on Audit and Risk Committees asked the hard questions or let them pass. About whether their personal reputation for rigour and independence is clearly established enough to survive the association with a governance failure, even one they did not cause and could not have prevented.
This is the ledger dimension. And for many directors right now, the entries in that ledger are being read with a level of attention they have not previously experienced.
What IGI’s Work Addresses Directly
1. The gap between a director’s actual capability and their perceived authority.
Many of the most technically capable people on Australian audit and risk committees are largely invisible outside the specific boardrooms they occupy. Their judgment is respected by the people who have worked alongside them. It is unknown to the broader governance community, to institutional investors, and to the public record.
In normal conditions, invisibility is a choice that carries limited cost. In the wake of a governance scandal affecting the profession, it becomes a vulnerability. The director whose authority is clearly established, whose thinking on governance, independence, and audit quality is documented, published, and publicly associated with genuine expertise, is in a fundamentally different position than the equally capable director who has never made that expertise visible.
IGI’s Authority Personal Branding™ work exists precisely for this moment. Not as a marketing exercise. As the infrastructure that ensures a director’s genuine capability is legible to the audiences whose confidence matters most, when the scrutiny arrives unexpectedly, and the window to establish credibility has already closed.
2. The communication obligation that comes with a governance role.
Directors on Audit and Risk Committees have historically operated under a culture of institutional silence, the convention that governance happens in the room and is not discussed outside it. That convention was always partially a protection against the communication obligations the role carries. It is now, in the current environment, a reputational liability.
The institutional investors, the regulators, the stakeholder communities, and the talent pipeline that governance-quality organisations depend on are all asking the same question: do the people in these rooms have the independence of mind, the communication capability, and the personal authority to say the difficult thing when saying the difficult thing is what the moment requires?
A director who cannot demonstrate that capability publicly, who has no visible track record of considered governance commentary, no established voice on the issues their committee is responsible for, no public evidence of the thinking that happens behind closed doors, is increasingly difficult to defend when the question is being asked about everyone in the room.
IGI works with directors and senior executives specifically on developing the communication capability and the visible authority that these roles now require. Not performative visibility. Substantive, credible, earned presence in the conversations that matter.
3. The personal reputation recovery and repositioning work.
For directors who are directly associated with the KPMG fallout, whether through firm affiliation, committee membership, or professional proximity, the reputational challenge is specific and immediate.
The instinct in these situations is to go quiet. To let the legal process work. To avoid saying anything that could be construed as commentary on an active matter. This instinct is legally understandable and yet strategically costly. Silence in a reputational crisis does not protect a director. It cedes the narrative to the most hostile available interpretation.
IGI’s crisis reputation advisory is built on a specific understanding of this dynamic: the leaders who emerge from governance crises with their authority and reputation intact are the ones who manage the communication dimension with the same rigour they bring to the technical dimension. Not by saying more than they should. By ensuring that what they do say is deliberate, considered, and calibrated to protect and rebuild the specific reputational assets that the crisis has put at risk.
The Three Questions Every ASX Director Should Be Asking Right Now
Is my personal reputation for governance rigour clearly established, or is it assumed?
The assumption that a director’s reputation speaks for itself is exactly the assumption that makes reputation architecture necessary. In a normal market the assumption holds adequately. In a market where governance credibility is under active scrutiny, the assumption is not sufficient. The director whose rigour is documented, visible, and associated with their specific name is in a demonstrably stronger position than the director whose rigour is real but invisible.
Does my public presence reflect the quality of my thinking,or does it misrepresent it?
Many directors’ public profiles on LinkedIn, company bios, and media presence significantly underrepresent the depth and quality of their governance thinking. The profile was written for a different purpose at a different time and has not been updated to reflect either the seniority of the current role or the specific expertise the current environment demands. In the wake of a governance scandal, that underrepresentation has a cost. The audience making judgments about director quality is not doing so from direct observation of boardroom behaviour. They are doing so from the available signals. If the available signals are inadequate, the judgment will be unfavourable regardless of the underlying reality.
Have I built the relationships and reputation that would protect my position if my association with this situation became more direct than it currently is?
The KPMG situation will move. Associations will widen or narrow. New names will enter the public record. The directors who are best protected are not necessarily the ones with the cleanest technical position, though that matters. They are the ones whose broader governance reputation is sufficiently established that their association with a difficult situation is read in context rather than in isolation.
The Bottom Line for ASX Directors
The technical response to the KPMG fallout is necessary, and most directors are already engaged with it. The governance frameworks will be reviewed. The independence standards will be tightened. The committee processes will be examined.
None of that addresses the personal reputation dimension, the question of whether the individuals in these roles are known, trusted, and credible to the audiences whose confidence determines their continued ability to serve at the level their capability warrants.
That dimension is IGI’s specific territory. And the directors who address it proactively, preferably before the next crisis, before the next scrutiny, before the next moment when the question is asked, and the answer needs to already exist, are the ones who will continue to attract the board appointments, the institutional confidence, and the professional authority that their experience and judgment deserve.
Reputation is a ledger, not a moment. The entries being made right now, in the governance community’s collective assessment of who handled this well and who did not, will be read for years.
The question for every ASX director is not whether those entries are being made. They are. The question is whether they are being made deliberately with the strategic intent and the reputational infrastructure that ensures they reflect the reality of who you are and what you bring or whether they are being made by default, shaped by the most available narrative rather than the most accurate one.
IGI exists for the former. The work begins before the crisis. That is precisely when it is most valuable.
Note: This article reflects information available at the time of writing. The situation remains ongoing, and developments may continue to evolve. As further facts emerge, the context, interpretation, and implications may change accordingly.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1: What is the difference between a governance reputation and a personal brand for a director?
A governance reputation is what happens inside the boardroom. A personal brand is what makes that reputation visible outside it. Most directors have the former and have never built the latter. In a governance crisis, that gap becomes a professional liability — fast.
2: Should a director speak publicly if they have any association with the KPMG situation?
Silence is not neutral. It cedes the narrative to the most hostile available interpretation. The question is not whether to communicate — it is what to say, to whom, and through which channels. Considered, substantive commentary on governance standards demonstrates exactly the judgment the current moment demands. IGI advises on precisely these parameters.
3: How long does it take to build reputation infrastructure that protects a director in a crisis?
Longer than a crisis gives you. The directors who emerge intact built their reputational infrastructure before the scrutiny arrived — not in response to it. The most valuable time to build a governance reputation is before it is needed. The most expensive time to discover its absence is when it is already too late.
4: Is this relevant for directors with no direct KPMG connection?
Emphatically yes. The KPMG situation is the current trigger for a broader scrutiny of director quality across the entire ASX governance ecosystem. Nomination committees, institutional investors, and regulators are asking the same question of everyone in these roles. The director who addresses it proactively gains a genuine competitive advantage in the board appointment market.
5: How is IGI’s work different from executive coaching or PR?
Executive coaching and PR both have genuine value, and both are part of the toolkit IGI deploys when the situation warrants. What distinguishes IGI’s approach is the architecture that holds everything together.
Executive coaching addresses internal behaviour. PR manages media relationships. Both are episodic by nature. IGI’s Authority Personal Branding™ is the strategic framework that determines when each is needed, how they integrate, and what they are collectively building toward … the precise alignment of a director’s genuine governance capability with how that capability is perceived by the specific audiences whose confidence shapes their career.
Thirty-seven years of applied experience. A system built for exactly this environment.
RESEARCH LINKS
The following are verified, publicly available research sources relevant to the article’s subject matter:
- Edelman Trust Barometer 2024 — Institutional Trust and Business Credibility
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2024/trust-barometer - Australian Securities and Investments Commission — Audit Quality Inspection Reports
https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/auditors/audit-quality/ - Australian Institute of Company Directors — Director Sentiment Index
https://www.aicd.com.au/research-and-advocacy/research/director-sentiment-index.html
Request Your Authority Positioning Session
Refined through decades of advisory work at Image Group International.
For leaders navigating complexity, scrutiny, and high-stakes environments:
Request Your Authority Personal Branding™ Session
Author
Jon Michail is the Founder and Group CEO of Image Group International, a global advisory firm specialising in Authority Personal Branding™, reputation management, and leadership positioning.
With over three decades of experience, Jon has advised chief executives, entrepreneurs, and public figures on building credible, high-trust reputations in complex, high-pressure, and crisis environments. His work focuses on aligning identity, behaviour, and perception to ensure leaders are not only visible but also trusted.
A best-selling author and a leader of the Forbes Coaches Council, Jon’s insights sit at the intersection of personal branding, crisis communication, reputation management.