Excerpt from Essay:
The question is lacking a term. “is more conducive to moral behavior” than? The word “more” invites evaluation but there exists nothing to compare the current environment to. Very well, the current environment is not much different than any kind of past environment. The regulating environment will not dictate values, as integrity exist distinct from laws. Ethical habit rests on how society itself defines ethics, and is just loosely relevant to the regulating environment. And so while there happens to be a tighter regulating environment for least with the introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley and the PCAOB, these types of laws will not dictate values, just patterns (Lennox Pittman, 2010). Certainly, an increasingly intricate regulatory environment only provides to complicate the issue of specific ethics, and creates distress among organization practitioners between legal/illegal and right/wrong, both operating totally different conceptual spheres (Jennings, 2004).
The “business” environment is quite hazy – there are numerous facets to the business environment. Which feature are we working with below? There is absolutely nothing that signifies to me there is any strong social control embedded within our society that could regulate business ethics. There is absolutely no defined pair of ethics, which leaves each company to determine its own moral guidelines. Some are more specific plus more strict than others, although society because whole would not contribute that much to these suggestions, and there is zero real enforcement mechanism because most people tend not to purchasing decisions based on a firm’s recognized ethical behavior.
2 . One of many cases of “ethical breach” that sticks out is actually the Martha Stewart Omnimedia one particular. Stewart’s infringement was insider trading. She was certain of fees relating to that incident, and it shown negatively on her company’s stock. The reason this really is more interesting when compared to a garden-variety lawbreaker fraud circumstance – breaking the law is barely a major moral dilemma worthy of study – is that that reflects the role of leadership. The Martha Stewart case engaged her own personal activities, certainly not those of her company. However , the market perceived that the CEO of Omnimedia was most likely lacking in very good ethics, and felt that there was raise the risk that this sort of lack of integrity had been sent via Stewart to the traditions of Omnimedia. Thus, the marketplace punished the stock because of the risk of moral violations. The problems we observed with the Tycos, Enrons and other fraud designers all involved the Entrepreneurs of those companies – any kind of CEO considered to lack an ethical compass could be responsible for an organization carrying out similar fraud. It turns out that was not the situation – there was no accounting fraud at Omnimedia – but the perception that the business was vulnerable to accounting fraud alone performed damage to the stock from which the company was required to work hard to recoup.
In this instance, the issue was uncovered through SEC research, as often occurs. In a lots of cases, it will require a whistleblower, like Sherron Watkins in Enron, to trigger an SEC exploration. At Omnimedia, there was nothing to detect, but the link between leadership and ethics is key to the case. The company had an ethical environment, but due to leader’s personal indiscretions was felt that probably there was too little of ethics at the company since normally that is certainly how it works. In other circumstances, unethical managers worked with others in the