3 ms·
It doesn’t lead to a diffusion of responsibility, the diffusion exists independently by nature of how a business operates. A CEO will green light high level st
by natpalmer1776 3y ago
It doesn’t lead to a diffusion of responsibility, the diffusion exists independently by nature of how a business operates.
A CEO will green light high level strategic direction, but the crimes described here could easily emerge from the implementation of that directive at lower levels of the company. “Plausible deniability”
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoThe CEO in that case would be culpable for culturing a culture of criminality. The buck stops at the top.
- natpalmer1776 3y agoI mean, I agree with the sentiment but good luck codifying that in a law that won’t be abused to convict innocent people who were convenient patsies while letting guilty ones walk free due to the “subjective” nature.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoSarbanes Oxley already codifies corporate officer responsibility into law, so there's a pretty clear precedent.
- natpalmer1776 3y agoDoes Sarbanes Oxley codify culturing a culture? As far as my cursory glance at wikipedia has informed me, the act itself works around the “plausible deniability” by requiring certain disclosures containing factual information be signed off by key executive staff rendering it impossible for them to say “I didn’t know!” with regards to specific material information. The blanket concept of holding executive staff accountable for the wrongdoings of the company would mean a lot more disclosures, forms, sign offs, etc. for “any” eventuality that would render the position pointless as they wouldn’t have any time to actually do anything useful. Because at the end of the day how do you prove that joe schmoe CEO actually fostered a culture that resulted in criminal acts? This isn’t even mentioning the individuals who were actually involved and directly culpable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]