1,720,986 research outputs found
More Meaningful Ethics
Full text linkFirms have exponentially increased their investment in the creation and implementation of ethics and compliance programs over the past fifteen years. The convergence of more robust corporate enforcement actions and more sophisticated industry standards and practices surrounding compliance efforts has created a booming compliance industry with commonly accepted standards and responsibilities. Within these efforts is a formal acknowledgment by the government, industry leaders, and academics that ethics has a role to play in helping to prevent misconduct within firms and that compliance without concern for ethics is insufficient. The reality, however, is that within firms’ efforts to implement effective ethics and compliance programs, compliance is king and ethics is something far less significant.
This Essay questions the wisdom of focusing on compliance without an equal focus on ethics. It challenges academics, industry leaders, compliance officers, and inside and external counsel to think critically about how firms might incorporate “More Meaningful Ethics” within their compliance efforts. This Essay argues that firms should implement specific and explicit ethical infrastructures within their compliance programs. In particular, this Essay suggests that firms commit to adopting policies and procedures that (i) protect the dignity of, (ii) promote the flourishing of, and (iii) advance the interests of the various stakeholders of firms as a baseline to be used for establishing the ethics components of their ethics and compliance programs
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
From Reaction to Resilience: A New Vision for Corporate Ethics & Compliance
No full textThis lecture explores how organizations can build ethics and compliance programs that genuinely prevent misconduct rather than simply respond to regulatory pressure. Drawing on the historical evolution of modern compliance, the talk traces how enforcement activity, statutory mandates, and negotiated corporate settlements have shaped today’s compliance landscape. Yet, as the book argues, enforcement-driven models are no longer sufficient. Instead, large and complex organizations must adopt firm-driven, ethics-centered compliance programs that proactively address risk, empower middle management, strengthen internal culture, and support human flourishing across communities. Grounded in behavioral ethics, governance theory, and real-world case studies, the lecture outlines a practical framework for designing compliance programs capable of meeting tomorrow’s challenges
Recommended from our members
Public Reporting of Monitorship Outcomes
No full textWhen a corporation engages in misconduct that is widespread or pervasive, courts, regulators, or prosecutors often insist that the firm obtain assistance from an independent third party — a monitor — to oversee the firm’s remediation effort. The largest firms in the world — from Deutsche Bank, to Volkswagen, to Carnival Cruise Lines — have found themselves having to retain a monitor for corporate misconduct, despite attempts to avoid a monitorship entirely. Traditionally, monitors, or their special master forebearers, were utilized by courts to assist in overseeing compliance with court orders, and their work was both accessible and transparent. As corporate monitorships have evolved over the past fifteen to twenty years, however, the transparency norm has receded, even when the success or failure of the underlying remediation effort invokes issues of public concern.
This lack of transparency would, potentially, be of little concern if the courts, regulators, and prosecutors that are party to monitorships were fully able and willing to ensure the monitorship achieved its goals. The reality, however, is that these governmental actors have demonstrated their own susceptibility to concerns related to cronyism, capture, and, perhaps, competence. Because the governmental actors involved in monitorships have proven to, understandably, lack perfection in their supervision capabilities, the lack of transparency and oversight over monitors and monitorships has prompted public critique, academic debate, and litigation. And yet, it has proven next to impossible to identify a comprehensive manner in which to regulate monitorships.
This Article suggests a novel path forward through a mix of federal interventions. The Article argues that at the conclusion of all monitorships, the public should receive an accounting that details whether the firm has or has not engaged in a successful remediation effort. This Article suggests two paths for the public to receive this information: (i) a securities disclosure and (ii) the adoption of a new policy regarding the use of monitors via the Office of Management and Budget. The result of these interventions will be greatly increased public access to information about the conclusion of a firm’s monitorship. All monitors, regardless of type, gather, assess, analyze, and disseminate information, yet this information is often kept outside of the public sphere. This Article presents a piecemeal set of interventions that would help generate the move toward greater public reporting of monitorship outcomes
Reframing the DEI Case
Full text linkCorporate firms have long expressed their support for the idea that their organizations should become more demographically diverse while creating a culture that is inclusive of all members of the firm. These firms have traditionally, however, not been successful at improving demographic diversity and true inclusion within the upper echelons of their organizations. The status quo seemed unlikely to move, but expectations for corporate firms were upended after the #MeToo Movement of 2017 and 2018, which was followed by corporate support of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement in 2020. These two social movements, while distinct in many ways, forced firms to rethink how to approach the status of women and people of color within their organizations. It forced them to ask, yet again, but with renewed energy: “What is the best way to improve diversity and inclusion within firms?”
This Article seeks to contribute to scholarly conversations aimed at addressing that, admittedly elusive, question head-on. It argues that in addition to pursuing the business and legal cases for diversity when crafting diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs, firms should also employ insights from behavioral ethics literature. By utilizing insights from behavioral ethics literature, firms can better prompt decisionmakers to recognize that DEI questions—whether under the business or legal case for diversity—are questions that should be evaluated from an ethical perspective. Scholars and firm leaders have long debated the accuracy of the business case rationale in support of DEI efforts. More recent scholarship has focused on the legal case in support of DEI efforts. This Article recognizes that firms committed to crafting meaningful DEI reforms must focus on both the business and legal cases, but they must reinforce the ethical ramifications of DEI concerns under both frameworks. In short, firms committed to creating a successful DEI program must find ways to evoke ethical framing when engaged in the creation of diverse, equitable, and inclusive organizational cultures
The Diversity Risk Paradox
Full text linkThere is a growing body of literature discussing the proper role of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts by and within public firms. A combination of forces brought renewed energy to this topic over the past few years. The #MeToo movement demonstrated a whole host of inequities faced by women within workplaces. Business Roundtable’s 2019 Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation rejected the view that the purpose of the corporation was solely to be focused on the maximization of shareholder wealth. And, in 2020, the murder of George Floyd ignited a racial reckoning within the United States, which prompted many firms to rethink and reaffirm their commitments to creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Chris Brummer and Leo E. Strine, Jr.’s Duty and Diversity, the subject of this Response piece, takes on the issue of diversity efforts within public firms directly. They argue that “the pursuit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is solidly authorized by the operation of traditional corporate law principles and can even be easily squared with the views of those who embrace what has come to be known as ‘shareholder primacy.’ ” Their piece is an excellent and comprehensive addition to the current literature.
This Response focuses on how concerns about risk may influence firms as they evaluate how to best engage in more robust and meaningful diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. It highlights the tension that can be created when members of a firm fail to take certain risks seriously enough while simultaneously allowing potential risks to block a subset of potentially impactful reforms. First, the failure by a firm to act in accordance with its public statements regarding diversity could create risks for the firm over the long term. Second, members of firms may sometimes be deterred, whether implicitly or explicitly, out of concerns that taking certain actions might create new zones of risk for the firm. These two realities can create a sort of risk paradox. This Response argues that for a firm to properly address the diversity risk paradox, it must consider what actions are likely to lead to the creation of a culture of equity and inclusion throughout the firm. By prioritizing equity and inclusion, firms can engage in more productive risk assessments about what diversity efforts to prioritize and pursue
Recommended from our members
Avoiding Judicial Discipline
No full textOver the past several years, several high-profile complaints have been levied against Article III judges alleging improper conduct. Many of these complaints, however, were dismissed without investigation after the judge in question removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the circuit’s judicial council—oftentimes through retirement and once through elevation to the Supreme Court. When judges—the literal arbiters of justice within American society—are able to elude oversight of their own potential misconduct, it puts the legitimacy of the judiciary and the rule of law in jeopardy.
This Essay argues that it is imperative that mechanisms are adopted that will ensure investigations into judicial misconduct are completed, even in the event that the individual is no longer serving as a judge in the circuit where the complaint has been filed. This Essay suggests two reforms. First, the adoption of customs that will refer any short-circuited investigation to the state bar and to Congress for additional inquiry. Second, the expansion of the judicial councils’ authority to investigate complaints so as to address the jurisdictional limitations that currently allow judges to circumvent attempts at judicial oversight over allegations of misconduct. The status quo that incentivizes avoiding judicial discipline must be reformed into one that allows for thorough and fair investigation of these important matters of public concern
- …
