Office romances are an more and more thorny challenge for corporations

It was an ignominious finish to a stellar profession for BP’s Bernard Looney.

He joins the rising pile of chief executives felled due to their failure to reveal romantic relationships within the office.

It’s turning into an more and more thorny challenge for companies. Aware of the reputational injury these sorts of relationships can do, they’re grappling with the best way to finest handle them.

It means workers, even under the chief stage, are more and more having to make private disclosures to HR.

Although there aren’t any legal guidelines that ban romantic relationships throughout the office – and for legitimate causes – companies are drawing up insurance policies of their very own.

It’s a balancing act as a result of companies should respect their workers’ proper to a non-public life, whereas additionally recognising that the dynamics of romantic relationships in a office will be difficult – particularly when it includes staff with totally different ranges of seniority.

Read extra: Finding successor to Looney won’t be simple

Some employers now require workers to signal “love contracts,” whereby they have to disclose and ensure that they consent to a relationship with one other member of workers.

Others are banning senior workers from participating in a majority of these relationships altogether.

Read extra from enterprise:
The Range strikes £5m deal to purchase collapsed Wilko’s model
Four folks face fraud costs over Patisserie Valerie’s collapse
Economy contracts by worse than anticipated 0.5% in July

Matt Gingell, an employment lawyer on the regulation agency Lombards, mentioned: “I think that employers have to protect the workforce.

“And, after all, employers need to guarantee that the dynamics of groups are honest, and that there is not favouritism or perceived favouritism (on account of a romantic relationship).

“Also, that there aren’t situations where there can be an abuse of power, where people in senior roles are effectively abusing their position and adversely affecting perhaps more junior staff.”