What is going on with WiseTech?

What is going on with WiseTech Global, where share prices have been on a chaotic rollercoaster these past few months?

The founder and now Executive Chairman Richard White is at the heart of the story, as is his appetite for good governance (or lack thereof, depending on who you talk to). 

It’s fair to say that WiseTech’s recent past has been dominated by turbulent episodes, periodically knocking the share price up and down by margins that would worry any governance expert. 

White’s power over the company began to diminish during this time, but now, he’s back at the helm again. His comments and actions suggest he’s prepared to let some governance principles fall by the wayside in favour of his own brand of personalised leadership.

• October 2024 – Richard White stepped down as CEO following allegations of personal misconduct.
• December 2024 – White transitioned into a consultancy role as interim leadership was installed. 
• January 2025 – White came under further scrutiny following further reports of inappropriate behaviour towards several women. This prompted the board to seriously consider White’s future in the company. 
• February 2025—Most of the board, including Chair Richard Dammery, resigned, citing “intractable differences” over White’s future. Share prices tumbled nearly 20% following the announcement but recovered slightly when White was announced as the new Executive Chair.

How did a resigned CEO facing misconduct allegations fight his way back to be Executive Chair so quickly? Much of it stems from his 37% stake in the company and his ability to convince other investors that he has the expertise to lead it forward. 

For now, White has a prominent leadership role again, and speaks passionately about the company’s future.

A large exodus of directors—many of whom were independent—marked a fundamental shift in how WiseTech is governed. From a governance perspective, independent voices leaving the table is a sacrifice. Here’s why:

• Independent oversight – Independent directors are free from the company’s internal relationships and potential groupthink. They can question decisions and ensure the company is acting in shareholders’ best interests from an outside perspective. 
• Accountability – If the board of directors gets in trouble because an echo-chamber effect allowed bad decisions to happen, directors don’t have much to say in their defence. 
• Investor confidence – Many investors will see red flags when independent directors walk away; it raises red flags. That’s not to say every investor will smell trouble, but it is a cause for worry, especially in big companies that should never function as one-person leadership operations. 

There’s no denying that a well-functioning board is supposed to provide scrutiny, debate, and challenge. WiseTech’s recent shake-up suggests that this critical function is now at risk.

First, attempting to remove White from key leadership positions has backfired. In situations like that, the leader often feels vindicated and emboldened to pursue their own leadership agenda without calling on others for advice. 

Because of that, you can bet that White will use his influence to fill the vacant director seats with people who are more willing to work with him. 

His return is reassuring for those who see White as the driving force behind WiseTech’s success. However, this is a worry for governance advocates because a lack of independent decision-making is often a breeding ground for further corporate scandal and worry. 

The Australian Shareholders’ Association has already raised concerns about the lack of independent directors, warning that strong governance is at risk.

The Australian press has compared White’s comeback to a one-man-band leadership espoused by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, where supporters are expected to fall in line, and allegations of wrongdoing are simply brushed aside. 

In governance, that attitude always comes back to haunt you.

Good governance isn’t about a “loyal” board or ticking boxes for collective decision-making—it’s about genuine oversight, fuelled by respectful challenges and open questioning so that, ultimately, those in charge make the right call.

History has shown us that the lack of independence on influential boards can always lead to chaos. After a scandal, when it’s time to analyse what went wrong, one of the most common findings is that the board simply didn’t ask the right questions and challenge established principles that didn’t make sense. 

We saw it in: 

• The UK Post Office scandal, where those in charge failed to question discrepancies in serious allegations against employees, since proven to be false. 
• The Danske Bank scandal, where those in charge failed to question the origin of billions moving through the bank’s channels. 
• The Volkswagen scandal, where a lack of external scrutiny failed to catch discrepancies in emissions claims. 

The lesson? When a board is too closely aligned with management, the company—and its investors—suffer the consequences.

Richard White has come out on top of a bumpy few months at WiseTech. Relegated the sidelines, he has used his influence to regain an important role after most of the board resigned. 

Now, he seems set to ignore key governance principles and pursue his leadership agenda. While this might bring relief in the short term, it constitutes a serious governance risk that we have seen repeatedly.