FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W233850557> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W233850557 startingPage "49" @default.
• W233850557 abstract "Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossings, Tyco, WorldCom. In most of these cases, the courts have yet to determine legal culpability. But public opinion, already convinced that something was terribly amiss, has mercilessly punished the businesses involved. What went wrong? A Hollywood script would present us with images of corrupt and greedy suits huddling in conspiratorial whispers to enrich themselves by breaking the securities laws, dummying up phony books, and hiding their crimes behind fancy accounting. In real life, though, the story is likely to be much more complicated. Bankers can watch these scandals unfold and think, This can't happen to us. Maybe not. But when seemingly reputable businesses run afoul of legal and ethical rules, one of two things has happened: 1. Employees have broken the rules intentionally. 2. They have broken the rules without realizing it. My experience in working with many companies embroiled in legal and compliance problems is that the second scenario--cheating without knowing it--is more common than premeditated law-breaking. However--and this is important--that kind of trouble almost never arises unless senior executives have neglected basic, bread-and-butter principles of sound risk management. They have tolerated, and even created, a climate in which serious rule-breaking can occur. What are the conditions that produce that climate? And what lessons does Enron, specifically, offer to banks for staying out of compliance difficulty? Sending mixed signals It's hard to think of a more ethical group of business people than bank executives. Overwhelmingly, they are law-abiding, rule-following folks. They run enterprises that are highly regulated, closely supervised, and completely dependent for success on public trust. In spite of this, many bank executives have a blind spot: how to handle regulatory compliance. They believe (with some merit) that many government rules impose very high costs in return for low, or sometimes even negative, consumer benefits. They don't like the expense and constraints that this imposes. And even though they tell their banks to comply with the law, they also telegraph these conflicting attitudes to their troops. The troops read the signals, and take them as a mandate to minimize time and effort invested in compliance. However, some employees read the signals and go a step further, not just minimizing costs, but actually cutting corners--neglecting required paperwork, skipping quality checks and reviews, counseling customers orally in ways that don't fully match what the government says in the fine-print disclosures, or looking for creative ways around the rules if they interfere with profits. If rules get bent or by-passed too much, the bank is at risk. At Enron, the alleged wrong-doing occurred at the very top of the company--the CEO and other senior executives stand accused of personally bending the rules. When banks get into compliance problems, it's much more common for the rule-bending to be done by others, but it almost always happens in a company climate where compliance is perceived as a low priority to managers who mainly want other kinds of performance. Weakened watchdogs At the heart of the Enron scandal is the allegation that the independent judgment of the firm's outside accountants, lawyers, consultants, and board was compromised. We don't know what was in the heads of these people as they made decisions. We do know, though, that many banks put their own watchdogs in a position where they do not feel free to raise an alarm. Compliance staffs, internal auditors, and sometimes loan review may labor under the impression that they should go through the processes involved in their duties but should not make too many waves. In particular, they can be reluctant to be the troublemaker who questions a highly profitable or successful innovation or unit, or a manager. …" @default.
• W233850557 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W233850557 creator A5037078678 @default.
• W233850557 date "2002-08-01" @default.
• W233850557 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W233850557 title "What Can You Learn from Enron? How to Know If You Are Creating a Climate of Rule-Breaking. (Compliance Clinic)" @default.
• W233850557 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W233850557 type Work @default.
• W233850557 sameAs 233850557 @default.
• W233850557 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W233850557 countsByYear W2338505572014 @default.
• W233850557 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W233850557 hasAuthorship W233850557A5037078678 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C2778024590 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C2779990267 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C2781460075 @default.
• W233850557 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C121955636 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C144133560 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C15744967 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C162324750 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C17744445 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C190253527 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C199539241 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C2778024590 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C2779990267 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C2781460075 @default.
• W233850557 hasConceptScore W233850557C77805123 @default.
• W233850557 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W233850557 hasLocation W2338505571 @default.
• W233850557 hasOpenAccess W233850557 @default.
• W233850557 hasPrimaryLocation W2338505571 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W151895606 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W1562577448 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W160081292 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W186006155 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W1999865616 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W2320221144 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W232913436 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W266657480 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W276289818 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W279610655 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W2994135687 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W307793909 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W309587986 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W3122652268 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W3123982307 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W344202478 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W344387734 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W34615800 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W789773999 @default.
• W233850557 hasRelatedWork W2598146653 @default.
• W233850557 hasVolume "94" @default.
• W233850557 isParatext "false" @default.
• W233850557 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W233850557 magId "233850557" @default.
• W233850557 workType "article" @default.