A Preliminary Inquiry into the Responsibility of Corporations and Their Directors and Officers for Corporate Climate: The Psychology of Enron's Demise

Lynne L. Dallas
{"title":"A Preliminary Inquiry into the Responsibility of Corporations and Their Directors and Officers for Corporate Climate: The Psychology of Enron's Demise","authors":"Lynne L. Dallas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.350341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With substantial inquiry concerning what individual Enron directors and officers knew, or what they should have known based on what they knew, little attention has been directed to examining the institutional structure at Enron that may have spawned the unethical behavior and to assessing responsibility for that structure. By institutional structure, I refer to Enron's ethical climate which is a manifestation of its culture. Corporate culture is defined as a complex set of common beliefs and expectations held by members of the organization which are based on shared values, assumptions, attitudes and norms. The corporation's ethical climate refers to the ethical meaning attached by employees to organizational policies, practices and procedures. These policies, practices and procedures influence moral awareness, the criteria used in decision making, whether morals will have priority over other values, and moral behavior. Important to ascertaining corporate culture are the employees' perceptions of the corporation's values as reflect by the corporation's mission statement and code of ethics, the criteria for business decisions, the words and actions of leaders, the handling of conflicts of interest, the reward system, the guidance provided to employees concerning dealing with ethical issues, and the monitoring system. This article is a preliminary examination of the factual predicates for placing responsibility on the corporation and its directors and officers for a corporate climate that encourages and supports unethical and illegal behavior. This article explores (1) whether climates contribute to illegal behavior within corporations, (2) whether corporate climates can be ascertained, (3) whether some corporate climates can be identified that have a greater likelihood of fostering illegal conduct than others, and (4) whether climates can either be modified to encourage and support legal behavior or, if not, whether steps can be taken to decrease the likelihood of illegal behavior in such climates. Ultimately, the questions concerning Enron are: What was its corporate climate and did that climate contribute to the unethical behavior of its employees? If so, what was the responsibility of Enron and its officers and directors to ascertain, monitor, and modify that climate? This article will respond to the call by the Advisory Group to the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines should encourage organizations to \"foster ethical cultures\" to ensure compliance with the intent as well as the letter of the law, and if so, to consider how an organization's performance in this regard can be measured or evaluated. This article will also consider the effectiveness of provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that require the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations requiring corporations to disclose whether or not they have a code of ethics for senior financial officers, and any waivers of such code, and provisions of the NYSE proposed rules promulgated to meet these requirements. Additionally, this article will raise the issues as to whether corporations and their directors and officers who sign the corporation's disclosure statements have an obligation to disclose their corporations' unethical climate and whether they breach their fiduciary duty to the corporation when they fail to take steps to discover, or to act when confronted with, their corporation's unethical climate.","PeriodicalId":10000,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.350341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

With substantial inquiry concerning what individual Enron directors and officers knew, or what they should have known based on what they knew, little attention has been directed to examining the institutional structure at Enron that may have spawned the unethical behavior and to assessing responsibility for that structure. By institutional structure, I refer to Enron's ethical climate which is a manifestation of its culture. Corporate culture is defined as a complex set of common beliefs and expectations held by members of the organization which are based on shared values, assumptions, attitudes and norms. The corporation's ethical climate refers to the ethical meaning attached by employees to organizational policies, practices and procedures. These policies, practices and procedures influence moral awareness, the criteria used in decision making, whether morals will have priority over other values, and moral behavior. Important to ascertaining corporate culture are the employees' perceptions of the corporation's values as reflect by the corporation's mission statement and code of ethics, the criteria for business decisions, the words and actions of leaders, the handling of conflicts of interest, the reward system, the guidance provided to employees concerning dealing with ethical issues, and the monitoring system. This article is a preliminary examination of the factual predicates for placing responsibility on the corporation and its directors and officers for a corporate climate that encourages and supports unethical and illegal behavior. This article explores (1) whether climates contribute to illegal behavior within corporations, (2) whether corporate climates can be ascertained, (3) whether some corporate climates can be identified that have a greater likelihood of fostering illegal conduct than others, and (4) whether climates can either be modified to encourage and support legal behavior or, if not, whether steps can be taken to decrease the likelihood of illegal behavior in such climates. Ultimately, the questions concerning Enron are: What was its corporate climate and did that climate contribute to the unethical behavior of its employees? If so, what was the responsibility of Enron and its officers and directors to ascertain, monitor, and modify that climate? This article will respond to the call by the Advisory Group to the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines should encourage organizations to "foster ethical cultures" to ensure compliance with the intent as well as the letter of the law, and if so, to consider how an organization's performance in this regard can be measured or evaluated. This article will also consider the effectiveness of provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that require the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations requiring corporations to disclose whether or not they have a code of ethics for senior financial officers, and any waivers of such code, and provisions of the NYSE proposed rules promulgated to meet these requirements. Additionally, this article will raise the issues as to whether corporations and their directors and officers who sign the corporation's disclosure statements have an obligation to disclose their corporations' unethical climate and whether they breach their fiduciary duty to the corporation when they fail to take steps to discover, or to act when confronted with, their corporation's unethical climate.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公司及其董事和高级职员对公司风气的责任初探:安然倒闭的心理
对于个别安然董事和高级管理人员所知道的情况,或者基于他们所知道的情况,他们应该知道的情况进行了大量调查,很少有人关注安然可能产生不道德行为的制度结构,也很少有人关注对该结构的责任评估。说到制度结构,我指的是安然的道德氛围,这是其文化的一种体现。企业文化被定义为组织成员基于共同的价值观、假设、态度和规范所持有的一套复杂的共同信念和期望。企业的道德氛围是指员工对组织的政策、做法和程序所赋予的道德意义。这些政策、做法和程序影响道德意识、决策标准、道德是否优先于其他价值观以及道德行为。要确定企业文化,重要的是员工对公司价值观的看法,这些价值观反映在公司的使命宣言和道德准则、业务决策准则、领导人的言行、处理利益冲突的方式、奖励制度、就处理道德问题向员工提供的指导,以及监督制度。这篇文章是对事实谓词的初步审查,将责任置于公司及其董事和官员身上,以鼓励和支持不道德和非法行为的公司氛围。本文探讨(1)企业氛围是否助长了企业内部的非法行为;(2)企业氛围是否可以确定;(3)是否可以识别出某些企业氛围比其他企业氛围更有可能助长非法行为;(4)是否可以修改氛围以鼓励和支持合法行为,或者如果不能,是否可以采取措施减少此类氛围中非法行为的可能性。最终,关于安然的问题是:它的企业氛围是怎样的,这种氛围是否导致了员工的不道德行为?如果是这样,安然及其高管和董事有什么责任确定、监督和改变这种氛围?本文将回应美国量刑委员会咨询小组的呼吁,考虑联邦量刑指南是否应该鼓励组织“培养道德文化”,以确保遵守法律的意图和文字,如果是这样,考虑如何衡量或评估一个组织在这方面的表现。本文还将考虑2002年《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(Sarbanes-Oxley Act)条款的有效性,该条款要求美国证券交易委员会(SEC)颁布规则和法规,要求公司披露其是否拥有高级财务人员道德准则,以及对该准则的任何豁免,以及纽约证券交易所(NYSE)为满足这些要求而颁布的拟议规则条款。此外,本文将提出以下问题:公司及其签署公司披露声明的董事和官员是否有义务披露其公司的不道德气候,以及当他们未能采取措施发现或面对公司的不道德气候时,他们是否违反了对公司的信托义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misaligned Incentives in Markets: Envisioning Finance That Benefits All of Society Enforcement Against the Biggest Banks Perspectives on U.S. Financial Regulation Transatlantic Extraterritoriality and the Regulation of Derivatives: The Need for an Integrated Approach between Washington and Brussels, the Uncertainties of BREXIT and New Directions in the US Corporate Governance Oversight and Proxy Advisory Firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1