Industry works solely on stuff that's reproducible because it wants to put these things into practice. That makes for an admirable level of rigor, but constrains their freedom to look at unprofitable and unlikely ideas. That inevitably results in inadvertent p-hacking. The first attempt to look at something unexpected is always "This might be nothing, but..."
They call in other people earlier because they're not protecting trade secrets or trying to get an advantage. They do want priority, and arguably it would be better if they could wait longer and do more work first, but the funding goes to the ones who discover it first.
So there's no real reason for either academics or industry scientists to look askance at each other. They're doing different things, with standards that differ because they're pursuing different goals. They both need each other: applications result in money that pushed for new ideas, and ideas result in new applications.
I think what I mean to say is that the skills required in industrial research (which can be quite speculative in well-funded companies, by which I mean a 5% chance of success or so) are somewhat different from those required in academia.
In academia, the goal is to publish. The peer-review process won't care to repeat your experiments. And the chance that other lab repeating your experiments was slim -- why spending time repeating other people's success?
In contrast, in industry, an experiment has to be bullet-proof reproducible in order to be ending up in a product. That includes materials from multiple manufacturing batches of reagents, at multiple customer sites with varying environmental conditions, and operator with vastly different skills.