I think that both CEO's should've let their employees know the status of what was going on, because it seemed that they had no idea of the things that were occurring. Also spending the company's money on a ridiculous renovation of the CEO's office is completely unethical. If it were me, I think the best thing to do to modify these decisions is to just focus on the responsibilities of both parties involved. The well being of both companies should have been considered above all by the companies
Arthur Anderson agreed with Enron to make it look as if Enron had more revenue than it actually did, so that stockholders would value the stock more. Because Arthur Anderson committed such a blatant act of mistrust, even if its companies were open, people would not trust them doing the auditing. c. Because the consulting firm was shut down, the $27 million earned in consulting fees from Enron was most likely money the firms were trying to hide. This action is unethical by both Enron and Arthur Anderson. d. The sale of the consulting practice by Arthur Anderson did not allow the company to avoid conflicts of interest because they still were working both internal and external audits, so the external audits were checking the work of the internal audits.
In practice, Goldman was providing false information to its clients because the company it created was not truly as profitable as the inflated share price would indicate. The executives at Goldman were fully aware of this but yet they continued to layer additional companies into the strategy because it would only appear successful as long as the market continued to grow. In the use and application of this practice, Goldman was lying through both commission and omission; and its lies not only affected its clients, but the market as a whole. By taking advantage of this particular strategy, Goldman Sachs was contributing to a factor that led to the stock market crash in 1929 (Jennings, 2012) During the 1990s, within the financial investing market, there had been a standard underwriting practice that required a private company to demonstrate a
The lack of the monetary power is a key factor in making important business decisions. Should they be passive in this project? B. Micro: 1. The general manager needs to have a profitable year. Two years in a row without the desired profit numbers, will not look good for his business advancement and his career.
Fewer companies are willing to enter the market because of the SOX requirements that make going public too costly. Plus, the maintenance required to stay public is too expensive for smaller companies, forcing companies to look elsewhere to raise capital. Rising costs persuade large numbers of companies to exit the public markets to sidestep SEC regulation, creates two problems. First, the overall economy could suffer because corporations limit investment projects due to the higher-cost sources of capital to fund potentially new operations. Second, financially stressed companies that go dark are the very companies’ shareholders need to monitor usually and where transparency is most important.
2nd part of your question: Entrepreneurs usually must start a business with other people's money. The likelihood of success in the new business endeavor is directly related to the entrepreneur's competence in starting and running a business, understanding of the business, market, and industry; and, ability to adapt as market conditions change. Without that, the business will soon go bankrupt... the employees will be out of a job (maybe even out of a paycheck they are owed); the bank will lose money; the suppliers will lose money, the customers will lose money. Everybody loses. Where are the ethics in this?
Barclays Plc There are many decisions that Barclays took according to the change in economic growth. When the global financial crisis began, Barclays avoided direct equity investment from the UK Government because it thought that maintaining its independence from the Government was in the best interests of its shareholders. They would have done this to make sure that they do not lose any investment during the tough financial crisis period. It also believed that independence would enable it to take advantage of opportunities that would arise in the crisis. This would therefore give them a competitive advantage as other banks preferred taking help from the government.
These points are just a guideline to obtain quality from a business; however, many of these points contradict the practice of “Salesmen of the Month” awards shown in the article. Firstly, one reason Deming would not approve of “salesmen of the month” tactics would be that this idea disagrees with his point stating that businesses should “end the practice of awarding business”. This tactic awards those who obtain business, which could lead the other employees to feel as if they are inadequate to the top “salesmen of the month”. This also ties in with Deming’s other point stating that businesses should “remove barriers that rob people of pride”. In the article the top 3 salesmen of the month each are shown their own individual profiles, while the other employees are simply grouped together into one generic heading titled “The rest of sales staff”.
1.1 Jeremy´s personality and poor health Since the company is revolving around Jeremy and the main asset is Jeremy’s declining health could jeopardize the entire company. If Cover Concepts realizes that Jeremy has declining health, they could just stall the offer and wait for Jeremy to quit himself. If banks find out he has faltering health, they could decline loans, which would ruin the possibilities to expand the business and compete with Cover Concepts. The alternative to joint venture is disregarded since we do not think Jeremy’s personality will align with a new company culture as he is very driven and need to has some sort of control over the situation. 1.2 Financial structure of the company Cover-It has basically no tangible assets in the company.
This can be very expensive and they will have to compensate by increasing the prices of the products. Another disadvantage is that if they promise too much, they could disappoint customers if they don't manage to accomplish them. This could bring very bad reputation onto the business, and co-op could see a drop in sales due to customers not wanting to purchase anything from co-op as they aren’t reliable. Overall I think co-op benefits from being ethical to a large extent. However it depends