Stories about greed and corruption have dominated business coverage in the last decade. But in many cases, journalists have been forced into follow-up mode once a company has already imploded.

That was the case with the Satyam story, where the discovery of massive accounting fraud led to the company’s collapse, which was not covered until after the fact.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, the external auditor, approved Satyam’s inflated balance sheet figures for several years.

Journalists and other critics later asked whether Satyam’s auditors were sufficiently independent and expert, and questioned why auditors did not notice the red flags, which included millions in missing cash.

Just a year before it was awash in scandal, Satyam won a Golden Peacock Award for excellence in corporate governance from the World Council for Corporate Governance. The Council later rescinded the award and complained that the company had failed to disclose material facts.

But Business Week reporter Beverly Behan wrote that the Satyam board was clearly flouting good governance practices. Journalists could have learned by examining the composition of the board that it lacked financial expertise, was only barely independent and failed to meet independently of management — all counter to good governance practices.

As the Satyam case demonstrated, impressive business awards and glossy annual reports are no guarantee that companies are operating legally and ethically.

One of the most sensational business corruption cases continues to unfold in Croatia, as of this writing. Managers and board members of the respected food company Podravka have been embroiled for three years, since 2009, in charges that certain members colluded to use company money to illegally attempt to take over the company by buying its shares and investing in another company.

In what press reports called one of the largest cases in Croatian judicial history, seven former company executives and their business partners were charged with defrauding Podravka of at least 54 million euros, and as the case expanded, the country’s former deputy prime minister was forced to resign over charges that he, too, was connected with the scheme.

Podravka replaced its management and supervisory boards, but in March 2012, the case continued to make headlines.

Writing about such company practices before the fact, rather than dissecting the causes after a meltdown, is the difference between explanatory reporting — or what some call “archeological” reporting — and investigative reporting. Explanatory reporting reconstructs how and why an event occurred. That kind of journalism can be valuable and instructive. It often follows revelations from regulators or court trials.

Investigative reporting, though, is different. It requires enterprise and ingenuity on the part of the reporter, who is exploring uncharted territory and making new discoveries and connections, not covering ground already traveled by someone else.

As more business journalists become adept at covering companies’ inner workings, and probe more deeply, they may recognize and report on irregularities before they explode into scandals. (For websites of organizations that provide training, information and support for investigative reporting, see Chapter 7.)