Ethical Incidents in Organizations: Arthur Andersen While the majority of people in the US are aware of the problems that were faced by Enron, most do not realize the impact the company had on other organizations which were also involved in the scandal. One such company was the accounting firm Arthur Andersen. While the firm is still technically in business, it is nothing like it was in the days before its ethical dilemma and scandal. The mission and core values that were touted by Arthur Andersen were violated by the problems in which the company involved itself. Public embarrassment was definitely caused by that, but there was much more than embarrassment at stake for the firm. Before the problems Arthur Andersen had 28,000 employees in the US and 85,000 worldwide (Moore & Crampton, 2000). As of 2011, the company had only 200 employees, and most of them were based in and around the Chicago area. These employees are working on the dissolution of the company and the handling of more than 100 civil lawsuits which are still pending against the company from its part in the debacle that took down Enron. Because Arthur Andersen was trusted and widely lauded as a great accounting firm, it had many clients and a significant profit margin. When it was discovered that the firm had "adjusted" documents for Enron, Arthur Andersen was forced to surrender its CPA licensing (Sachdev, 2003). It was heavily fined, but the damage to its reputation was the worst issue it faced. Once a
Before going into an analysis on the organizational culture at Enron, I will first elaborate on the severity of the unethical behavior that existed at Enron. The problem can best be shown in the words of an Enron employee who said “If I’m going to my boss’s office to talk about compensation, and if I step on some guy’s throat and that doubles it, then I’ll stomp on that guy’s throat”(Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room). This culture of greed and corruption can also be seen through Enron’s mark to market accounting system, in which Enron cashed in on ideas and “future profits” without actually making anything. Furthermore,
Enron was an energy trading and communications company located in Houston, Texas. During 1996-2001 Enron was given the name of America’s Most Innovative Company by Fortune magazine as it was the seventh-largest corporation in the US. The problem that led this company to bankruptcy was due to the fact that fraudulent accounting practices took place allowing Enron to overstate their earnings and tuck away their high debt liabilities in order to have a more appealing balance sheet (Forbes.com, 2002). Enron’s accounting team “cooked” the books to every meaning of the word so that their investors would not see anything wrong with the failing organization. This poorly structured company led people to jail time, unemployment, and caused retirement stocks to be dried up. Enron had a social responsibility to its stockholders and rather than being up front and honest about the failing company they hid every financial flaw in order to keep receiving money from its investors. By Enron not keeping a social
Arthur Anderson Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) was established in 1913 into the Accounting industry. They offered tax, consulting, and, auditing services to large corporations everywhere. Their headquarters were located in Chicago, Illinois and eventually had over 85,000 employees in 84 different countries (Collins, 2016). By the 1990’s Arthur Andersen had become one of the largest accounting firms, and was recognized as one of the “big five.” Along with being one of the largest accounting firms Arthur Andersen was also one of the most reputable. There were many factors that distinguished Arthur Andersen from other accounting firms, and the most notable were the honesty and integrity Arthur Andersen had established for the company (Moore & Crampton, 2000). Andersen set high standards which in turn resulted in the growth of their prestige. Many companies came to Arthur Andersen because of the trust it had established in the public and in the accounting Industry. One of the ways Arthur Andersen established their reputation was through their organizational structure and the culture of the company.
Without a question the BOD should have placed a high degree of reliance on Andersen, which at the time was one of the most prestigious worldwide accounting firms. The auditors should have known the kind of accounting taking place in Enron. In my opinion, Andersen knew, at least to some extent, the company’s financial condition. However, Enron was already too deep under water that blowing the whistle so late would have created problems for Andersen as well. According to the case, on 02/05/01, Andersen held internal meeting during which it addressed the company’s accounting from and oversight of the LJM partnership. Andersen never discussed these concerns with the Audit and Compliance Committee. Although the BOD has its faults, it should have been able to rely on Andersen’s work.
Arthur Andersen (AA) contributed to the Enron disaster when it has failed to the management by failing to have Enron establish and enforce its own internal control. There has been flaws to AA‘s internal control. There has been assumption that AA partners were too motivated by revenue recognition thus, overlooking several criteria when providing their services to Enron. Additionally, AA also recognised the retention of audit clients as vital and a loss of any clients would be disadvantaged to an auditor’s career. In AA internal control, the person who is able to make most of the decisions is the person who is most concerned about the revenue or losses of the client’s company.
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,
Arthur Andersen LLP is one of the “Big Five’ accounting firms. The firm was accused of shredding documents and getting rid of e-mail messages that pertained to their audit of Enron. This occurred after finding out that the Securities and Exchange Commission had begun an investigation of Enron’s accounting. The firm was
Enron was named the most admired company for six years in a row, and it was widely considered one of the best companies to work for by Fortune magazine. Enron shocked the world, and it's stockholders when it was revealed at the end of 2001 that the company’s “reported financial condition was sustained substantially by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud”. (Enron, 2011, para. 1) Enron maximized it’s long-run profits for itself, but not within the limits of the law. Enron disregarded it’s social responsibility to it’s stackholders when the company only strive for it’s maximized profits, and didn’t strive
In 1913, the company Arthur Andersen started by Arthur Andersen and Clarence Delany by the name of Andersen, Delany, & Co. In 1918, it was given the name Arthur Andersen & Co. The company supplied tax, consulting services and auditing for the large business, and itself had a position in the "Big Five" accounting firms. In 2002, this firm was found guilty for auditing an energy corporation, Enron and it surrendered back its rights of auditing. This led to Enron 's bankruptcy and loss of 85,000 jobs.
Assigned auditors were more than aware of the accounting misrepresentation of financial statements, overstating net income. Still instead of walking away from the client and resign, Andersen in pursuing short-term goals stayed with the company and moreover played by the Giant’s rules. More and more accounting firms at that time started to provide consulting services along with auditing to the same companies which always indicates a conflict of interests. Auditors are the guardians and rules players where consultants are giving advices and showing how to avoid some accounting oversights. Andersen also in order to make good profits stepped on the side of combining two contradicting to each other services. Waste Management had lots of former Arthur Andersen employees which also led to close ties between two companies. That situation undoubtedly led to inability to turn down fraudulent accounting practices Waste Management was exercising at that time for a long period of time.
Disregarded Enron’s accounting misbehave and Misuse. CFOs and controllers hired by Enron company were former Arthur Andersen LLP executives; shredded all Enron’s documents, and Arthur Andersen LLP attorney altered documents related to its audit work for Enron. Arthur Andersen LLP has been handed the maximum penalty allowed under US law for its role in the collapse of Enron. Arthur Andersen LLP CPA License has
Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off
Enron and Arthur Anderson were both giants in their own industry. Enron, a Texas based company in the energy trading business, was expanding rapidly in both domestic and global markets. Arthur Anderson, LLC. (Anderson), based out of Chicago, was well established as one of the big five accounting firms. But the means by which they achieved this status became questionable and eventually contributed to their demise. Enron used what if often referred to as “creative” accounting methods, this resulted in them posting record breaking earnings. Anderson, who earned substantial audit and consultation fees from Enron, failed to comply with the auditing standards required in their line of work. Investigations and reports have resulted in finger
Needed for the Houston office of Andersen, an audit partner that understands the role of being a "public watchdog" with "ultimate allegiance to the creditors and shareholders" . Arthur Anderson abandoned its roles as independent auditor by turning a blind eye to improper accounting, including the failure to consolidate, failure of Enron to make $51million in proposed adjustments in 1997, and failure to adequately disclose the nature of transactions with subsidiaries . Another example is Lord Wakeham joined Enron as a non-executive director in 1994 and also sat on Enron's audit and compliance committee. In addition, Andersen also provides internal audit service to Enron, which in fact impact
The case of Enron Corporation and Andersen, LLP can be noted as one of the most infamous fraud scandals in US history. Investors lost millions of dollars and ruined the public’s trust. Enron was once the seventh largest public company in the United States and Andersen LLP was the world’s largest and most respected business organizations. Enron’s stock prices soared to approximately $100 to less than $10 in 2001. How did these two big giants fall into oblivion and what could have been done to avoid the disaster of these companies?