Management Planning Paper on Arthur Andersen

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.

The role of ethics and social responsibility aids organizations in developing a strong strategic plan, while addressing the needs of stakeholders. Ethics and social responsibility require social awareness to address the needs of the environment and to increase the knowledge of employees, which will lead to a corporation focused on supplying the customer with what is needed, managers equipped with solid decision-making abilities, and employees who believe that he or she are an asset to the business. It is the executive manager’s responsibility to establish a clear vision for the corporation and place a specific focus on understanding stakeholder’s needs. In an effort to support

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,

The architectural design of a firm varies greatly. In 1950, the business environment of Arthur Andersen included using the computer effectively for automated bookkeeping. Structure and regulation of the markets, helped Arthur Andersen to develop into a well-respected and reputable auditing company. The federal law in the 1930s requiring companies to turn over their financial statements yearly to an independent auditor not only strengthened Arthur Andersen, but also helped with their impeccable reputation. Arthur Andersen’s strategy included quality audits with a well-managed staff and profits. Promotions and rewards were plentiful when auditors made sound auditing decisions. In the 1990s, Arthur Andersen’s organizational architecture and strategy focused on generating new business, cost cutting, and performance evaluations along with decision rights over its business (Brickley, Smith, & Zimmerman, 2009).

Andersen – Although Enron committed the fraud, Andersen allowed Enron to get away with it. An audit firm has to be independent from their client and act in the best interest of the public. For this reason, I think that Andersen was the most responsible for the Enron crisis. Andersen could have declined continuing their relationship with Enron as their client, considering some Andersen representatives did not agree with Enron’s “aggressive” accounting and financial reporting decisions in the early months of 2001. Andersen also assisted Enron in restructuring some of the SPEs so they would still be considered unconsolidated entities. Andersen not only audited Enron, but they also went beyond the scope of what the quality audit should entail. It was also telling when personnel in the Houston office destroyed documents related to Enron and

Organizations are responsible for the legal, ethical, and social issues that affect each stakeholder within the company. These factors continually impact the planning process performed at each level of management. An organization that neglects to establish and monitor plans can become disorganized and ultimately lose control of practices performed throughout the corporation. A prime example of poor planning due to disregard of legal, ethical, and social issues were the executives employed at WorldCom.

1 - What were the business risks Enron faced, and how did those risks increase the likelihood of material misstatements in Enron’s financial statements?

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.

On June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to Enron’s audit which resulted in the Enron scandal. The impact of the scandal combined with the findings of criminal complicity ultimately destroyed the Arthur Andersen LLP. The company was accused of destroying thousands of Enron documents that included not only physical documents, but also computer files and Email files. By giving it the role of consultant along with their original role as external auditors, Enron made Arthur Andersen LLP a key player in Enron auditing.

Every organisation must plan every action it intends to take, in the short-term as well as in the long-term. The company, on the basis of the objectives set by the top management of the organisation should plan for growth, expansion, restructuring of business or otherwise. Every company needs to plan out its strategies according to its future plans in order to avoid surprises and to overcome any challenges they may have to face. Therefore, without planning, the organisation cannot achieve any of its goals.

Ethics ensure that a company achieves its mission, vision, goals, and objectives in such a manner that they give a company a sense of direction and framework. Ethics ensure guidelines are creating that bind the entire organization into one common thread, govern the action of the organizational employees, and avoid deviation from the desired strategic path. Five ways a company can ensure ethics is including in their strategic planning are

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

To make matters worse, when Andersen found problems in the financial statements, they didn’t make corrections due to a conflict of interest. The concern was that if Andersen brought these problems to light, Enron would walk away and cost Andersen millions of dollars in the long run. Andersen contemplated dropping Enron as a client, but did not follow through with it. Because the audit and consulting was done at the same firm, it clouded Andersen’s judgment. Andersen employees in Houston began shredding documents and therefore brought obstruction of justice charges that destroyed the firm.