September 2025. A file lands on our desks. Our cautious client mandates us to probe a potential partner before sealing a strategic alliance. The target? Company A, a subsidiary of a listed energy giant. On paper, an exemplary technical operator in New-Zealand. In reality… That’s what we need to find out.
Act I: The impeccable facade
The first hours of investigation seem to confirm the obvious: Company A is irreproachable. Technically competent, perfectly integrated into its group, operating in a stable regulatory environment. No sanctions. No direct litigation. The ideal profile for a major partnership. Too ideal?
Act II: The first crack
It is by examining the organization chart that our attention is focused. Company A has, in reality, no autonomy. Entirely dependent on its parent company, Company B, for its processes, tools, and strategy. A well-oiled puppet, certainly, but whose strings are pulled elsewhere. Our analysts go up the chain. If Company A is clean, what about the one pulling the strings?
Act III: Shadows of the Past
Company B. A listed group, transparent… In appearance. But by scrutinizing its shareholders, a name emerges: Company H. A historic shareholder who recently had to reduce its stake. Under pressure. The New-Zealand authorities are concerned about opaque financial arrangements domiciled in the Cayman Islands.
Digging deeper, another detail emerges: the founder of Company H maintains documented links with a public official in Jordan. Relationships that raise questions.
Act IV: The international canvas
But that’s not all. In parallel, Company B itself faces two legal storms:
- International arbitration in Colombia, where the specter of corruption looms
- A collective action in his country of origin, threatening his reputation and finances
Two disputes that, although indirect, cast their shadow over the entire ecosystem. Including on Company A.
Act V: Clarity in the Fog, Finally
Our SKAN-4X assessment delivers its verdict: Company A is technically sound, but it carries the vulnerabilities of its group. Inherited reputational risks. Indirect financial risks. Gray areas in the governance of its parent company.
Thanks to our investigation, the client now has a 360-degree view. They are no longer blinded by the reassuring facade. They see the complex machine behind it. They can manage this relationship with vigilance, demand clarifications, and set up enhanced monitoring of shareholding and litigation.
It protects itself against unpleasant surprises. The investment is secure. The anti-corruption program is strengthened. Mission accomplished.
But one question remains: how many companies, at this very moment, are partnering with partners without having scrutinized the unsuspected depths of their ecosystem?