Enron - When All Systems Fail: Creative Destruction or Roadmap to Corporate Governance Reform?

Douglas M. Branson
{"title":"Enron - When All Systems Fail: Creative Destruction or Roadmap to Corporate Governance Reform?","authors":"Douglas M. Branson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.473205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article raises the unthinkable proposition (for academics at least) that Enron may have been an aberration. The Enron debacle may have been the rare case in which nine, ten or more sets of monitors and gatekeepers failed. Alternatively, as with Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, Rite Aid or other celebrated corporate \"busts,\" Enron may be the handiwork of one or two well placed wrongdoers, in this case, CFO Andrew Fastow. Enron then may not be the pathway to meaningful reform at all. The article next proceeds to a critical review of Sarbanes-Oxley's principal provisions. The conclusion reached is that by and large only a few meaningful reforms have resulted, and those with significant costs (such as federalization of key aspects of corporate governance). One suggested pathway to meaningful reform would have been to take an enabling approach rather than the regulatory, even punitive, one that Sarbanes-Oxley encapsulates. The enabling approach would focus on the positive side of corporate governance, which over has improved dramatically in the United States over the last 20 years, principally through the predominance of independent directors. The article suggest several measures that could be taken to enhance the positive in corporate governance, including several lessons from the Enron board's operation that thus far have been ignored. The conclusion reached is that Enron's most meaningful contribution to our political economy is neither Sarbanes-Oxley nor the enabling reforms suggested. Enron's contribution instead is creative destruction of a different kind, namely, creative destruction of what Professor William Bratton terms the \"winning culture,\" or what the author terms the culture of the \"good deal exemption,\" and the countless moral hazards that those cultural viewpoints spawned.","PeriodicalId":83467,"journal":{"name":"Villanova law review","volume":"48 1","pages":"989"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Villanova law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.473205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

This article raises the unthinkable proposition (for academics at least) that Enron may have been an aberration. The Enron debacle may have been the rare case in which nine, ten or more sets of monitors and gatekeepers failed. Alternatively, as with Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, Rite Aid or other celebrated corporate "busts," Enron may be the handiwork of one or two well placed wrongdoers, in this case, CFO Andrew Fastow. Enron then may not be the pathway to meaningful reform at all. The article next proceeds to a critical review of Sarbanes-Oxley's principal provisions. The conclusion reached is that by and large only a few meaningful reforms have resulted, and those with significant costs (such as federalization of key aspects of corporate governance). One suggested pathway to meaningful reform would have been to take an enabling approach rather than the regulatory, even punitive, one that Sarbanes-Oxley encapsulates. The enabling approach would focus on the positive side of corporate governance, which over has improved dramatically in the United States over the last 20 years, principally through the predominance of independent directors. The article suggest several measures that could be taken to enhance the positive in corporate governance, including several lessons from the Enron board's operation that thus far have been ignored. The conclusion reached is that Enron's most meaningful contribution to our political economy is neither Sarbanes-Oxley nor the enabling reforms suggested. Enron's contribution instead is creative destruction of a different kind, namely, creative destruction of what Professor William Bratton terms the "winning culture," or what the author terms the culture of the "good deal exemption," and the countless moral hazards that those cultural viewpoints spawned.
安然——当所有系统都失灵时:创造性破坏还是公司治理改革的路线图?
这篇文章提出了一个不可思议的命题(至少对学术界来说),即安然可能是一种反常现象。安然公司的崩溃可能是一个罕见的案例,在这个案例中,九套、十套甚至更多的监控器和看门人都失灵了。或者,就像泰科、世通、爱德、来德爱或其他著名的公司“破产”一样,安然可能是一两个地位良好的不法分子的手笔,在这个案例中,就是首席财务官安德鲁·法斯托。那么,安然可能根本就不是通往有意义改革的道路。接下来,本文将对《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》的主要条款进行批判性的回顾。得出的结论是,总的来说,只有少数有意义的改革取得了成果,而那些改革的代价很大(比如公司治理关键方面的联邦化)。一种有意义的改革途径是采取一种有利的方式,而不是像《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》所概括的那种监管,甚至是惩罚性的方式。这种方法将侧重于公司治理的积极方面,在过去20年里,美国的公司治理得到了显著改善,主要是通过独立董事的主导地位。本文提出了几项可以采取的措施来增强公司治理的积极作用,包括安然董事会运作的几个迄今为止被忽视的教训。得出的结论是,安然对我们政治经济最有意义的贡献既不是萨班斯-奥克斯利法案,也不是提议的授权改革。相反,安然的贡献是一种不同类型的创造性破坏,即威廉·布拉顿教授所说的“胜利文化”或作者所说的“好交易豁免”文化的创造性破坏,以及这些文化观点催生的无数道德风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书