The recent release of three million Jeffrey Epstein files by the U.S. Justice Department has sent ripples through the corporate world, prompting difficult conversations and, in some cases, significant personnel changes. These documents detail connections between the late financier and a cross-section of business elites, from Hollywood to New York and Dubai, forcing companies to grapple with how to address executives whose past associations with Epstein, particularly after his 2008 sex crime conviction, have now come to light. The central question for many boards and business leaders revolves around the extent of knowledge and culpability, differentiating between criminal acts and instances of profoundly poor judgment.
Among the first to face direct consequences was Kathryn Ruemmler, Goldman Sachs’ general counsel. The documents revealed her continued close contact with Epstein until 2019, including an instance where she referred to him as “Uncle Jeffrey” while thanking him for expensive gifts. Goldman Sachs announced her departure in June. Similarly, in Dubai, the logistics conglomerate DP World appointed a new chair and CEO, signaling the exit of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. Emails from Sulayem’s past communications with Epstein reportedly contained references to sexual experiences. These corporate moves follow earlier resignations in the U.K. public sector, including Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords and Morgan McSweeney, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, who had advised on Mandelson’s appointment.
Despite these high-profile departures, the broader response from the business community has been notably measured, even cautious. Many individuals named in the Epstein files have not yet faced professional repercussions. This hesitancy highlights a complex aspect of the Epstein saga: the released documents do not uniformly provide evidence of criminal behavior among all his correspondents. This ambiguity creates a challenging gray area for corporate governance, where poor judgment, however egregious, does not automatically trigger dismissal. Jill Fisch, a professor of business law at the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Carey Law School, notes that decisions often involve a cost-benefit analysis by those in hiring and firing positions. An executive’s poor judgment might be weighed against their perceived virtues, strengths, or past contributions. Ruemmler, for instance, a former counsel to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, was widely regarded as a high-caliber professional.
Public pressure is undeniably building on companies employing individuals implicated in the Epstein files, with questions about accountability circulating online and among customers. However, several factors appear to be mitigating swifter, more widespread action. The sheer number of business elites within Epstein’s network means that public outrage, while present, is diffused across many targets. Fisch suggests that boards might reason that if numerous respected figures across industry and finance had some connection to Epstein, a blanket shunning might be impractical or unwarranted. There also seems to be a desire among decision-makers to avoid the rapid, sometimes criticized, corporate cancellations observed during the MeToo era. There is a sense that past instincts to “cancel” individuals might have been overly zealous, leading to a more deliberate approach now.
Adding to this complex environment is a prevailing sentiment that scandalous behavior, even unethical conduct, has become somewhat normalized. N. Craig Smith, chair in ethics and social responsibility at INSEAD business school, observes that in the past, individuals were often fired for appearances or for private actions that reflected poorly on their companies. Today, he argues, the business world might be mirroring examples set by political spheres, where numerous controversies, including those tied to Epstein, have been largely weathered without significant consequence. This suggests an evolving standard where actions that previously would have led to sanctions are now increasingly tolerated.
It is important to remember that this scrutiny applies primarily to a subset of Epstein’s associates. Multi-billionaires like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Reid Hoffman, also linked to Epstein’s orbit, operate within a different sphere of accountability, though they deny any wrongdoing. Even in Ruemmler’s case, her departure was framed as her own decision, citing media attention as a distraction from her role. Goldman Sachs publicly supported her, with CEO David Solomon praising her contributions. However, accountability is not solely top-down. Reputational damage is a significant consequence for many. Brad Karp, managing director at Paul Weiss, stepped down from a leadership role after a peer revolt, and clients of the Wasserman talent agency, such as Chappell Roan, have reportedly left due to founder Casey Wasserman’s ties to Epstein’s network. These instances suggest that consequences, in various forms, continue to unfold.
Ultimately, the business world’s cautious response risks lowering the ethical bar, potentially suggesting that only illegal acts warrant disqualification from leadership positions. Archon Fung, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, highlights that leadership roles are privileges, often bestowed based on sound judgment, not just in business but in character and behavior. The current response suggests that, in the U.S. at least, judgment regarding character may not be considered an essential demand for those in the highest echelons of corporate power.
