His activities have not stopped there however. This was done without the knowledge or consent of either Metropolitan Jonah or Bishop Nikolai.
Enron, Board Governance and Moral Failings by Gerald Zandstra Introduction The stock of publicly held companies rises and falls on the leadership of its executives and its board of directors. President Bush recently developed a plan to address key issues involved in corporate responsibility.
His plan, however, fails to take into account one of the most important weaknesses in the corporate governance: Ultimately the public and especially the shareholders have to trust that the board charged with company oversight will act in the best interest of the company. The board is the recipient of the public and shareholder trust and, in addition to portraying confidence to investors, it is responsible to see that wise decisions are made and that the law is being followed.
The plan has three core principles. The first is focused on information. The second broad principle pertains to chief executive officers CEOs and other executives and their accountability to investors. The CEO must personally vouch for the truth, timeliness, and fairness of information sent to investors and cannot benefit from financial statements, which provide false or misleading information.
Instead of the lag time currently in the system, the President proposes that executives who buy or sell stock be required to more quickly inform the public. Those who are found to be in violation would lose their right to serve in a position of corporate leadership.
The third principle addresses audits. Unfortunately, none of these principles addresses the role of the board of directors.
The Enron board of directors One look around the Enron board room in would instill confidence in any investor who could be assured that the company was in the hands of legal, ethical, political, and economic leaders.
In addition to Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, there were 15 external directors whose resumes were impeccable. These were people with a combined total of several hundred years worth of board oversight. The expertise in the room is astounding. There are people who have served as CEOs in several companies, as bank executives, as capital management leaders, and several who are familiar with the gas and oil business.
There are several law degrees and one person who served as the dean of a law school. There are two physicians.
One current university president sits next to one who is now emeritus. Multiple Harvard MBAs can discuss their alma mater with one of its current professors in government.
One director has written multiple articles for the Journal of Law and Economics. The board has political experience with one member who has served in the British Parliament, one member who is an expert in anti-regulatory legislation, and several who have served in one political capacity or another.
One was an elder at his Presbyterian Church and almost all had served or were serving on at least one non-profit board of directors. Taken together, these 15 external directors had served on at least boards of directors of both for-profit and non-profit organizations. Companies are about leadership and the board of Enron certainly had it in They had the expertise to know what to do.
Who could doubt the viability of Enron? But with Lay and Skilling driving the ship and this talented board of directors charting the course, no one would doubt that Enron would remain a world business leader for a very long time. How could this group of world-class business, political, and legal leaders allow such a catastrophe to occur on their watch?
Enron has exposed one of the issues which modern corporations and all stockholders must face: Another Enron will not be prevented by a new series of regulations or laws or accounting practices.
Creative accountants and savvy executives will always find ways around such attempts to control them. Adding laws to the legal code does not necessarily solve the problem of crime. The development and function of the board of director system Samuel Greggp.
Stanley Vancep. While each corporation is governed by state statute and no state has legal requirements to be eligible for board of director membership, each board of directors has at least the following three functions.
First of all, the board of directors is responsible for lending an air of legitimacy to the corporation. While this is a passive function, it is important that the company have a board made up of people with some prestige attached to their name.
They ought to be people with expertise and experience in business. Their involvement ought to lend a level of confidence to the enterprise and those who purchase stock in it.The failure of the board of directors to function morally and ethically rather than lack of regulations has been argued to be reason for the collapse of Enron (Zandstra, ) and other corporations.
Transcript of WHY DID ENRON COLLAPSE? Results The biggest corporate collapse in US history Stakeholder Executive Directors Investors Employees Creditors Zandstra, G.
(). Enron, Board Governance and Moral Failings. Corporate Governance, 2(2), Full transcript. More presentations by Cheok Heng Yeo Copy of WHY DID ENRON .
Failure to take seriously these three functions leads to collapses similar to that of Enron and, in the end, are moral failures on the part of those who serve in the board of directors. The moral obligations of directors. George: Although Soraich attended seminary at Johnstown, he was not “formerly of ACROD”.
He was Serbian and was ordained in the Serbian Church and, because of scandal, was released by . Enron, board governance and moral failings Enron, board governance and moral failings Gerald Zandstra The failure of the Enron Corporation has brought attention to the roles played by the chief executive officer and other executives of the modern corporation.
Its failure has also produced discussion of further regulations . Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin