Does Euphemistic Language Help Companies Dealing with Sexual Harassment
- Zevez Zalay
- Nov 6, 2025
- 10 min read
Updated: Nov 11, 2025
Primark’s former CEO, Paul Marchant, made an “error in judgment”
Zevez Zalay
October 8th, 2025, 8:52 pm ET
Related Topics
Primark, Paul Marchant, Sexual Harassment, Harassment in the Workplace, HR, HR Policies and Procedures, Employee Turnover, Absenteeism, Job Satisfaction, Commitment to Due Process, Gender Equality, Organizational Behavior, Organizational Resilience to Future Financial Crisis, Public Trust, Organizational Attractiveness
A lot of us hear stories about sexual harassment in the workplace online, and, as there is a lack of proximity to these stories, we are able to hear about them and move on. However, this becomes much different if we are one of the involved parties or work at the same firm.
March 31, 2025, the CEO of Primark, Paul Marchant, decided to step down from his position and leave the company entirely (Butler and Kollewe, 2025; Jordan, 2025; Primark, 2025). As Associated British Foods PLC (ABF) reported on the leadership change:
Paul Marchant’s departure follows an investigation, initiated by ABF and carried out by external lawyers, into an allegation made by an individual about his behaviour towards her in a social environment. Paul Marchant cooperated with the investigation, acknowledged his error of judgement, and accepts that his actions fell below the standards expected by ABF. He has made an apology to the individual concerned, the ABF Board, and also to his Primark colleagues and others connected to the business. (Associated British Foods PLC, 2025)
Upon reading the quote for the first time, I immediately wondered why the company was using so many euphemisms around the area of sexual harassment. As transparency takes a major role in a company's public image, terms such as “behavior in a social environment”, or “error of judgment” (Associated British Foods PLC, 2025) bring up an ethical debate surrounding the protection of the public image of a company, versus the confidentiality towards the individuals involved. When facing a sexual harassment case in a company, especially for a public company CEO, there is bound to be press coverage on the matter, but how do we balance the needs of the company, public, and involved parties without sacrificing one group’s needs for another?
Analyzing the Case of Paul Marchant
In the instance of Primark, some could interpret the euphemistic language as taking a minimizing response, or even trying to protect the integrity of the perpetrator partially. For which proximity comes into play again, as it is easy for the majority of the public to take an extreme stance on a sexual harassment cover story, as they may not have the full picture. Hypothetically, their consideration of the perpetrator would vary significantly if their father happened to be the CEO of said company. Thus, how ethical is it to push for transparency on the perpetrator’s actions, to a general extent, thus not covering fine details of the case? Does this not leave room for them to change, take on a new role, or be free from the commentary on a past action? Many of us would be terrified by the idea of discussing a past regret with every future potential employer or professional networking opportunity. Thus, is protecting the dignity of the perpetrator diminishing their actions upon the victim, or simply trying to minimize the toll that the public will inevitably put on them? Additionally, as members of the public, should we move forward believing that an individual who harms needs to be harmed, or should we recognize that if it were to be ourselves that we would want a chance to learn from our mistakes.
I believe judgment of the aforementioned questions comes from looking at the actions of the individual. I did some digging on Paul Marchant, and multiple sources claim that there were similar cases (Butler and Kollewe, 2025; Davey, 2025; Jordan, 2025) reported on ex CEO Marchant within the company before the one that Primark mentions in his departure statement (Primark, 2025). Seeming to show that it's possible that Marchant did not take the opportunity to learn from his previous mistakes, thus potentially making it more probable that he will engage in similar behaviors in the future. Additionally, outside of Marchant's thoughts stated through Primark and ABF, he has not taken the courage to make any statements independently, as his last LinkedIn post was prior to the harassment case being publicized (Paul Marchant LinkedIn, 2025). Granted, this doesn’t take away the opportunity to make statements in the future. However, we should also acknowledge that, through inaction, he is taking time to privately reflect, and does not have a formal obligation to ever make an independent public statement on the matter. Thus, his character growth will be up to his own willingness, transparency, and vulnerability.
On the other hand, too much transparency on the actions inflicted upon the victim in a case like this can come across as too vulgar, harming the confidentiality of the case, and possibly giving internal insights into the identity of the victim if there are enough details. Thus, euphemistic language is important for the protection of the involved parties, but this may not be the same case for the company itself, as aforementioned, which can come across as protecting the perpetrator or minimizing the victim’s experience. Thus, there is a fine line that firms have to walk along in these instances, and to get insights into where we should stand, its important to go back to the basics.
Stages of Sexual Harassment Cases
I was recently enlightened on the different stages a company goes through in regards to sexual harassment cases in a study titled, “How Organizational Responses to Sexual Harassment Claims Shape Public Perception”. The authors break it down into the primary stage, the secondary stage, and the tertiary stage (Danqiao Cheng, Serena Does, Seval Gündemir & Margaret Shih, 2024). The primary stage focused on the prevention of harassment cases from occurring, such as training employees, updating company policies, or setting up internal advocacy programs. The secondary stage revolves around the company’s response after a situation has occurred, as the primary stage will not be able to prevent all instances. This can consist of punishing the perpetrator, handling claims, making public statements, and taking care of the victim. Finally, the tertiary stage focuses on the long-term effects a sexual harassment case can have on a company, for which much of the action in the second stage is preventative of negative long-term outcomes (Danqiao Cheng, Serena Does, Seval Gündemir & Margaret Shih, 2024). While it’s nice to have an outline of what this process could look like, for many companies, the attention to detail stops at the primary stage.
A lot of what the study focuses on is the secondary and tertiary stages, as the company’s immediate response to the situation can have varying effects on how the public views gender equality within a company, the company’s commitment to due process, and the overall attractiveness of a firm (Danqiao Cheng, Serena Does, Seval Gündemir & Margaret Shih, 2024). There are two ways the study identifies organizational responses, accommodative and defensive:
Accommodative responses involve an active consideration of the stakeholders ' needs, and defensive responses relate to organizations ' actions to distance themselves from the misconduct. (see Hersel et al., 2019). Whereas accommodative responses involve a public relations approach, which is characterized by ethical and care-oriented actions revolving around impartiality and consideration of ( indirectly ) involved parties ' emotional needs, defensive responses are more consistent with the legal-oriented withdrawal responses, such as denial. (Danqiao Cheng, Serena Does, Seval Gündemir & Margaret Shih, 2024)
Looking again at the case of Primark and Paul Marchant, it is clear that the textile firm is trying to distance itself in order not to be associated with sexual misconduct, hence the highly euphemistic language and statements such as, “As we have committed to publicly, ABF seeks to provide a safe, respectful, and inclusive work environment where all employees and third parties are treated with dignity and respect. Primark is committed to doing business the right way at all levels of the company.” (Associated British Foods PLC, 2025). While this may be helpful in the lens of media coverage, empty statements without the action behind them don’t mean much to the general public, or increasing the organizational attractiveness of a firm to make people want to work there (Danqiao Cheng, Serena Does, Seval Gündemir & Margaret Shih, 2024).
Ideally, organizations should try to take on an “Accommodative” approach that encompasses change-driven action, care for the victim, and transparency on how the firm chooses to move forward. As seen in the figure below, taking on an accommodating or exhibiting organizational responsiveness can return the public’s organizational attractiveness close to a firm that doesn’t have any past harassment cases.
In the case of Primark, I think this shows that an organization can have a mixed approach that exhibits both defensive and accommodating response techniques. Thus, there is always room for improvement, and Primark is making some steps towards the right direction by speaking out about their former CEO and making statements such as, “Paul Marchant cooperated with the investigation, acknowledged his error of judgment, and accepts that his actions fell below the standards expected by ABF. He has made an apology to the individual concerned, the ABF Board, and also to his Primark colleagues and others connected to the business.” (Associated British Foods PLC, 2025). However, for Primark and other firms, I would make note of the fact that efforts put forward in the primary stage or the preventive stage of organizational sexual harassment cases are not going to be able to fully prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the workplace. Thus, having a focus on the responses taken afterwards is crucial to the care of the involved parties and for the organizational attractiveness as a whole.
My Suggestions
In the case of Primark, I would take aspects of all three deontological, teleological, and virtuous frameworks. As there is a duty that companies have towards their employees, outcomes they need to manage for the psychological safety of the involved parties, and virtuous organizational approach towards a sensitive subject to help integrate authenticity into their response. Some actions that can be initiated for a firm like Primark to have their response lead more on the accommodative side than defensive could look like the following:
Regularly updating company policies to better reflect the learnings from recent situations. While we cannot be certain of the last update made to Primark’s “Speak Up” initiative, the page on their website where the information was posted dates back to 2023, which may not encompass the power dynamic seen in recent times with Paul Marchant. (Primark, 2023)
Taking the initiative to check in with employees about their experiences (Danqiao Cheng, Serena Does, Seval Gündemir & Margaret Shih, 2024). As for many employees, there is a power dynamic between them and their superiors; it can be challenging to “Speak Up” about your concerns while giving up your anonymity for the hope that something will change. Checking in with employees regularly, whether or not something has been reported, is a more transformational method of leadership, regardless.
Take and document proactive measures (Cramer Law Group, 2025). The response to a sexual harassment case should ideally start before the final decision of the investigation has been made. Actively listening to the alleged victim during meetings, discussing options regarding separation during work between them and the alleged perpetrator, and seeing if anyone else in the office has experienced or witnessed certain behaviors. As seen in the Primark case, unfortunately, former CEO Paul Marchant may not have learned from his first risky interactions with colleagues; thus, others may have experienced similar behaviors and can help give a fuller picture of the story and what factors may help make the work environment more comfortable. Additionally, documenting all actions, discussions, and observations made during the case will be helpful if legal guidance is needed down the line.
If your firm has an active sexual harassment case, some questions you should consider regarding your organizational response to the situation could be as follows:
How can we balance transparency of the situation to the public without minimizing, concealing, or distancing ourselves from wrongdoing?
How do we properly acknowledge what happened without sounding too vulgar or using too many euphemisms?
How does our response affect the alleged perpetrator in the long run? Do they deserve the consequences that stem from our response?
Can we give a choice to the victim, surrounding the support our organization can offer, and how we publicly respond?
What did we learn from this case thus far, and how do we implement those learnings into updates for our gender equality policies?
How can we better survey our internal staff to improve the effectiveness of our preventative stage?
When and what processes do we implement to better train employees, supervisors, and HR to handle sexual harassment complaints from the start?
How do we consult others about what responses come across as minimizing versus what can come across as more accommodating?
Starting by putting ourselves into the involved parties' shoes can help to enlighten us on how we would want our organization to respond to a sexual harassment situation. It can be harder, especially in the case of Primark, when you’re dealing with anyone on the executive board, but it doesn’t mean that we should embark forward with less consideration to protect the public’s view of our brand, which ironically doesn’t improve opinions, but rather harms them substantially. As Cramer-Law has described these situations and conversations as sensitive, thus, we should tread carefully, knowing that each choice we make on behalf of our organization has a huge impact on our stakeholders.
Resources
The Associated Press. (2025, March 31). CEO of fast-fashion brand Primark steps down after allegations of bad behavior in social situation. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/d860a2dc20a003334f4047a3bc8b9383?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
BBC News. (2025, March 31). Primark boss quits after complaint about behaviour. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c934pzekdz9o Smart News Bot+1
Primark Corporate. (n.d.). A statement on the departure of Paul Marchant. https://corporate.primark.com/en-us/a/news/corporate-news/a-statement-on-the-departure-of-paul-marchant
Milne, R. (2025, March 31). Primark boss admits ‘error of judgment’ and resigns after woman’s allegation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/31/primark-boss-paul-marchant-resigns-after-womans-allegation theguardian.com
LinkedIn. (2025). Post by LinkedIn user Paul Marchant. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7308851819449835523/
Cheng, D., Does, S., Gündemir, S., & Shih, M. (2024). How Organizational Responses to Sexual Harassment Claims Shape Public Perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 46(3), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2024.2313536
Primark Corporate. (n.d.). Policies and reports: Policies. https://corporate.primark.com/en-us/policies-and-reports/policies
Primark. (n.d.). Speak-Up Policy with EU Privacy Notice. https://primark.a.bigcontent.io/v1/static/Speak-Up-Policy-with-EU-Privacy-Notice-Primark
Cramer Law. (2025, January 15). Handling sexual harassment in the workplace: Best practices for employers. https://cramer-law.com/2025/01/15/handling-sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace-best-practices-for-employers/
Reuters. (2025, March 31). Primark boss Paul Marchant resigns after error of judgement. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/primark-boss-paul-marchant-resigns-after-error-judgement-2025-03-31/ Reuters
Keenan, M. (2024). “We are reacting every minute of every day” – Primark CEO Paul Marchant reveals the secrets of Penneys’ success. Irish Independent. https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/we-are-reacting-every-minute-of-every-day-primark-ceo-paul-marchant-reveals-the-secrets-of-penneys-success/38453895.html
This post stands out for its critical look at corporate communication ethics. You effectively show how euphemistic language can minimize serious issues like sexual harassment and shift accountability away from companies. I especially appreciated your insight that word choice can shape moral perception — that’s a subtle but powerful point. To add more depth, you could explore whether this language is used deliberately as a PR tactic or unconsciously as a defense mechanism within corporate culture. Your writing is concise yet strong, and it demonstrates clear ethical awareness about how language influences justice and credibility.
You did a great job breaking down how companies like Primark use euphemistic language to protect their image and how that affects public perception. I especially liked how you connected it to the idea of accommodative versus defensive responses—it really made me think about how much wording can change the way people view accountability. Your suggestions for how companies can respond better were also super practical. I’m curious though, how do you think a company can stay transparent while still respecting the privacy of everyone involved?
I liked how you connected the company’s use of euphemistic language to broader questions about transparency. Your integration of the Cheng et al study really strengthened your analysis and it added a framework that made your suggestions feel backed up by research rather than just opinion. You also talked about the difference between defensive and accommodative responses and showed how Primark is somewhere in between. The recommendations you gave toward the end were excellent toward all stakeholders involved.
Paul Marchant’s resignation from Primark made the situation very clear and helped me understand not just what happened and why it matters. It was also very interesting how the corporate language and the use of euphemisms that shaped the public perceptions at the expense of transparency and accountability. I learned a lot about the ethical balance companies have to maintain when dealing with harassment cases that case high tensions with being transparent and protecting the privacy of those involved. The distinction between accommodative and defensive responses also helped me better understand why some companies gain public trust while others face backlash.
After everything's that been said what do you believe is the most effective path of communication companies should take…