Respectfully, I don't think that's what he's saying. If we want to look at this formally, we see he is stating three things: 1. That we seem to apply inconsis

Respectfully, I don't think that's what he's saying. If we want to look at this formally, we see he is stating three things: 1. That we seem to apply inconsistent standards of responsibility to CEOs. Are they ultimately responsible for the outcomes of the companies they lead, for good or for bad? In current practice, we seem to selectively apply praise and eschew blame. He wants to point this out. 2. He personally believes the CEO is ultimately responsible; however... 3. At the end of the day, he just wants society to apply a consistent standard, one way or the other: either the CEO is the ultimate point of accountability for all things, or she's not. He almost "doesn't care" which one we choose, so long as we choose one. Now, you're free to criticize the dichotomy he raises in those points. Maybe you find it overly reductive or absolutist. If so, fair. (Personally speaking, I believe the buck should stop at the CEO, insofar as she is the chief executive of the company, tasked with understanding and directing all of its actions. If she took deliberate part in any alleged deceptions, that's certainly worse than if she negligently allowed the deceptions to take place. But in either case, she bears some responsibility. Not the same degree of blame, but the same mantle of responsibility. It's her company, and whether she deliberately misguided it or was simply asleep at the wheel, those are both derelictions of the CEO's responsibilities. Sure, the BOD outranks the CEO, but the CEO has a much closer relationship with the day-to-day operations of the company.)