Enron: An Ethics Case Study

This now bankrupt company, misappropriated investments, pension funds, stock options and saving plans after deregulation and little oversight by the federal government. However, with deregulation an increasing competitive culture emerged as the CEO Jeffry Skilling motto to his organization was to “do it right, do it now, and do it better” this was the rally cried that pushed ambitious employees to engage in unethical behavior as Enron use deceptive “accounting methods to maintain its investment grade status” (Sims, & Brinkmann, 2003, pp.244-245). As Enron continued to flourish and received accolades from the business community this recognition drove executives to continue the façade of bending ethical guidelines before their public fall from

Between the years 2000 and 2002 there were over a dozen corporate scandals involving unethical corporate governance practices. The allegations ranged from faulty revenue reporting and falsifying financial records, to the shredding and destruction of financial documents (Patsuris, 2002). Most notably, are the cases involving Enron and Arthur Andersen. The allegations of the Enron scandal went public in October 2001. They included, hiding debt and boosting profits to the tune of more than one billion dollars. They were also accused of bribing foreign governments to win contacts and manipulating both the California and Texas power markets (Patsuris, 2002). Following these allegations, Arthur Andersen was investigated for, allegedly,

More than a decade ago, one of the most commanding corporations in modern American history filed for bankruptcy. Enron, a seemingly invulnerable company would eventually provoke sweeping changes in regulation that controls the management and accounting of public companies even to this day. The Enron scandal has come to be known as one of the prime audit failures of all time and serves as a classic example of corporate greed and corruption. However, for the generation that watched in horror as corporations such as Enron fell along with the stock market, this scandal is slowly becoming just that: history. And for the newer generation of college students like me, it is almost ancient history. Despite the time that separates us from this scandal, it has never been more important to remember the lessons learned and best understand how the adoption of The Clarkson Principles can guide our careers in the business sector.

In the summer of 2001, questions began to arise about the integrity of Houston energy company Enron’s financial statements. In December, they filed for bankruptcy as their fraud came to light and the United States government froze all of their assets and began prosecuting their executives and their external auditing firm Arthur Anderson (Franzel 2014). Enron was not the only company using accounting loopholes to mislead stockholders though; Global Crossing, Tyco, Aldephia, WorldCom, and Waste Management all underwent investigation for similar

This event was unprecedented. The seventh largest company in the United States disintegrated from an annually profitable company in business for over sixteen years to a company claiming to be bankrupt over a period of a few months (O’Leary). Ultimately, fraudulent accounting and misstatements of revenues and debt obligations orchestrated by the CEO, CFO, and other senior managers were to blame. These revelations roiled stakeholder trust in public companies' financial reporting, accounting methodology, and overall transparency. In addition to Enron’s admissions, their accountant and auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, was determined to have conspired to assist in the inflation of stated profits mainly by not disclosing Enron's money-losing partnerships in the financial statements (PBS). Arthur Andersen eventually surrendered the practices’ CPA licenses in the United States after being found guilty of criminal charges relating to the firm's handling of auditing for Enron

In the early 1990s, a young company named Enron was quickly moving up Fortune magazine’s chart of “America’s Most Innovative Company.” As the corporate world began to herald Enron as the next global leader in business, a dark secret loomed on the horizon of this great energy company. Aggressive entrepreneurs eager to push the company’s stock price higher and a series of fraudulent accounting procedures involving special purpose entities were about to be exposed. In early 2002, the United States Justice Department announced its intent to pursue a criminal investigation into the once mighty company, Enron.

As with much of Enron, their outward appearance did not match what was really going on inside the company. Enron ended up cultivating their own demise for bankruptcy by how they ran their company. This corrupt corporate culture was a place whose employees threw ethical responsibility to the wind if it meant financial gain. At Enron, the employees were motivated by a very “cut-throat” culture. If an employee didn’t perform well enough, they would simply be replaced by someone who could. “The company’s culture had profound effects on the ethics of its employees” (Sims, pg.243). Like a parent to their children, when the executives of a company pursue unethical financial means, it sets a certain tone for their employees and even the market of the company. As mentioned before, Enron had a very “cut-throat” attitude in regards to their employees. This also became one Enron’s main ethical falling points. According to the class text, “employees were rated every six months, with those ranked in the bottom 20 percent forced to leave” (Ferrell, 2017, pg. 287). This system which pits employees against each other rather than having them work together will create a workplace of dishonesty and a recipe of disaster for the company. This coupled with the objective of financial growth, creates a very dim opportunity for any ethical culture. “The entire cultural framework of Enron not only allowed unethical behavior to flourish,

The Enron scandal has far-reaching political and financial implications. In just 15 years, Enron grew from nowhere to be America's seventh largest company, employing 21,000 staff in more than 40 countries. But the firm's success turned out to have involved an elaborate scam. Enron lied about its profits and stands accused of a range of shady dealings, including concealing debts so they didn't show up in the company's accounts. As the depth of the deception unfolded, investors and creditors retreated, forcing the firm into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December. More than six months after a criminal inquiry was announced, the guilty parties have still not been brought to justice.

The Security Exchange Commission found that The Enron corporations CEO’s and executives hindered the company’s research methods by using information to reveal how the top leaders of the organization assisted and supported the unethical behaviors in the accounting and finance departments. These acts deteriorated the integrity of excellence professionals, associates, and employees who were associated with the Enron Corporation. On behalf of the entire organization, the Enron Corporation’s poor business practices gross standards that pertain to unethical behavior.

Enron’s fraudulent financial practices lead to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Mistakes made by the company and their leadership shocked the world and cost billions. Enron’s leadership could have taken steps to prevent or mitigate the repercussions of their actions. The act restored ethical and reliable financial practices to the market.The major provisions of the act made corporations responsibility for financial reports, and required internal and external audits. The Act changed the accounting regulatory environment. And although corporations incurred the additional expense of audit and new reporting standards, these changes restored consumer investing confidence, strengthening the corporations and the stock market overall. (Flanigan, 2002.)

The agencies not only discovered the complex web of fictitious partnerships that hid Enron’s massive debt but also that the company’s external accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, was creating materially false and misleading audit reports. . The true nature of Enron’s massive financial losses was shown to the public and the stock price plunged, causing investors to lose billions of dollars. Enron, however, was just the first and largest scandal to become public. Numerous companies including Tyco, WorldCom, and Kmart were found to have inflated earnings (Martin & Combs, 2010, 103). Investors had been manipulated to invest into companies that followed unethical business practice thereby shattering future investor confidence.

Enron, though not the largest scandal, could be one of the most talked about and blown up by the media. Enron was caused by a couple of reasons, though the main underlying factor behind these is a conflict of interest that has evolved in our companies. First, I think that one of the obvious causes of the Enron scandal is our legal and regulatory structure (Reid). Current laws and SEC regulations allow firms like Arthur Andersen (Enron auditor) to provide consulting services to a company and then turn around and provide the audited report about the financial results of these consulting activities (Sorkin). This is an obvious conflict of interest that is built into our legal structure and must be addressed. Second, a private company like Enron currently hires and pays its own auditors. This again is a conflict of interest built into our legal system because the auditor has an incentive not to issue an unfavorable report on the company that is paying him or her. Third, most large companies like Enron are allowed to manage their own employee pension funds. Again, this is a conflict of interest built into our

Enron executives and accountants cooked the books and lied about the financial state of the company. They manipulated the earnings and booked revenue that never came in. This was encouraged by Ken Lay as long as the company was making money. Once word got out that they were disclosing this information, their stock plummeted from $90 to $0.26 causing the corporation to file for bankruptcy.

As competition increased and the economy started to plunge in the early 2000s, Enron struggled to maintain their profit margins. Executives determined that in order to keep their debt ratio low, they would need to transfer debt from their balance sheet. “Reducing hard assets while earning increasing paper profits served to increase Enron’s return on assets (ROA) and reduce its debt-to-total-assets ratio, making the company more attractive to credit rating agencies and investors” (Thomas, 2002). Executives developed Structured Financing and Special Purpose Entities (SPE), which they used to transfer the majority of Enron’s debt to the SPEs. Enron also failed to appropriately disclose information regarding the related party transactions in the notes to the financial statements.Andersen performed audit work for Enron and rendered an unqualified opinion of their financial statements while this activity occurred. The seriousness and amount of misstatement has led some to believe that Andersen must have known what was going on inside Enron, but decided to overlook it. Assets and equities were overstated by over $1.2 billion, which can clearly be considered a material amount (Cunningham & Harris, 2006). These are a few of several practices that spiraled out of control in an effort to meet forecasted quarterly earnings. As competition grew against the energy giant and their

Most of the world has heard of Enron, the American, mega-energy company that “cooked their books” ( ) and cost their investors billions of dollars in lost earnings and retirement funds. While much of the controversy surrounding the Enron scandal focused on the losses of investors, unethical practices of executives and questionable accounting tactics, there were many others within close proximity to the turmoil. It begs the question- who was really at fault and what has been done to prevent it from happening again?