FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Personal Responsibility for the Corporate Elite

by Russell Mokhiber And Robert Weissman

Before the corporate and political elite consign the “corporate accountability” proposal issued by President Bush last week to the dustbin, it is worth highlighting one element: the idea that CEOs sign and personally attest to the accuracy of the financial numbers their companies make public.

Here is what is important about this proposal: No one believes the CEOs are going to actually generate the numbers and track down each and every figure. Rather, the expectation is that making the CEOs personally responsible for the truthfulness of their statements will give them the needed incentive to put in place systems to ensure accuracy.

This is a radical concept.

Don’t worry. We haven’t lost perspective. We have zero expectation that the Bush administration is interested in applying the concept seriously.

Our point here is to emphasize the power of the concept.

One of the reasons corporations are so powerful is that they are entities structured in complex fashion to shield themselves and their top executives from responsibility for damage they may inflict on others. One of the perquisites of large size is that — absent an Enron-scale debacle — top management can always claim that “they didn’t know” about the misdeeds committed by the corporation, presumably ordered or overseen by a lower-level official.

The Bush proposal, taken seriously, cuts through the protective layering insulating top executives.

It puts the onus on the CEO, making it the CEO’s job to know. Under the Bush proposal, if a CEO attests to the validity of a grossly inaccurate financial statement, he or she would be required to return bonuses, and could be barred from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company.

There’s no reason this assignment of personal responsibility to CEOs should be limited to financial disclosures.

CEOs should be made personally responsible for ensuring their corporation complies with its specific legal duties, and particularly their obligation to comply with the law.

Leave aside, for now, the issue of corporate executives’ obligations to shareholders. Under the “business judgment” rule, executives are largely immune from liability to shareholders for any action undertaken in good faith. Underlying the business judgment rule is the notion that executives need discretion to use their best judgment to make corporate decisions, and that courts should not second-guess those decisions in hindsight. There are problems with the business judgment rule, but it is clear that executives do need some discretion when it comes to running a business.

But that discretion cannot include contravening statutory law and related regulations. Those rules circumscribe permissible corporate behavior. Corporations have a legal duty to respect occupational health and safety rules, environmental laws, workers’ labor rights, consumer regulations and criminal codes.

And just the way President Bush was right to propose tbat CEOs take personal responsibility for ensuring their corporations fulfill their legal duty to issue accurate financial statements, it makes sense to demand that corporations’ top officials — their chief executive officers — take personal responsibility for ensuring the companies comply with legal duties related to worker safety, worker rights, the environment, consumer protection and avoiding criminal wrongdoing.

The logic here is the same as in the Bush proposal. CEOs of large corporations cannot be expected to know the details of every action undertaken in the corporate name. But by being held personally responsible — with meaningful penalties in case of company noncompliance — they can be given the necessary incentive to put in place systems to ensure their company respects the law.

“America is ushering in a responsibility era,” President Bush said in issuing his corporate accountability proposal, “a culture regaining a sense of personal responsibility, where each of us understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make in life. And this new culture must include a renewed sense of corporate responsibility. If you lead a corporation, you have a responsibility to serve your shareholders, to be honest with your employees. You have a responsibility to obey the law and to tell the truth.”

Those are fine principles. Let’s give them teeth by holding CEOs personally responsible not just for their corporation’s financial statements, but for making sure their corporations comply with the law.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999)

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Muller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OSFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
Tommy Raskin
Syrian Quicksand
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Still Tries to Push Dangerous Drug Class
Jill Richardson
The Attorney General Thinks Aspirin Helps Severe Pain – He’s Wrong
Mike Miller
Herb March: a Legend Deserved
Ann Garrison
If the Democrats Were Decent
Renee Parsons
The Times, They are a-Changing
Howard Gregory
The Democrats Must Campaign to End Trickle-Down Economics
Sean Keller
Agriculture and Autonomy in the Middle East
Ron Jacobs
Re-Visiting Gonzo
Eileen Appelbaum
Rapid Job Growth, More Education Fail to Translate into Higher Wages for Health Care Workers
Ralph Nader
Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria—Wide-Ranging Lawyers for the People
Chris Zinda
The Meaning of Virginia Park
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail