In evaluating the causes of the Enron debacle and its implications for change scholar Lise Newton analyzes the possible responses we could utilize as a society Contemplate her arguments that some responses will not work and consider whether you agree or disagree More regulation: The people who are making the money est regulations for breakfast You can't pass regulations fast enough to get in the way. Regulations are bad for business, she states they do not have sufficient foresight, and virtual and global business leaves us with little to grasp in terms of regulation Business ethics courses: Newton contends that they are ineffective in guiding future action, and they do not sufficiently impact motivations. Changes in corporate cultures: "What the company's officers do, when they act for good or more likely evil does not proceed from the corporate culture, as if the corporate culture coused their actions.... What people do, habitually, just is their character, which they create by doing those things. What a corporation does, through its officers, just is its culture, created by the behavior. To say that if we change the culture we'l change the behavior is a conceptual mistake-trivial or meaningless." Does anything work? -Back to those other eras: this is not the first time that, up to our waists in the muck of corporate dishonesty, we have contemplated regulations and ethics classes and using large rough weapons on the corporate culture. And nothing we did in the past worked Instead. Newton posits. "Capitalism was always known not to contain its own limits: the limits were to be imposed by the democratic system, whose representatives were the popularly elected watchdogs of the economy." Business crime comes not from "systemic capitalist contradictions or sin; instead it ...arises from a failure of the instruments of democracy, which have been weakened by three decades of market fundamentalism, privatization ideology and resentment of government. Capitalism is not too strong democracy is too weak. We have not grown too hubristic as producers and consumers (as if the market were, when working right, capable of governing itself): we have grown too timid as citizens, acquiescing to deregulation and privatization (altlines, accounting firms, banks, media conglomerates, you name it) and a growing tyranny of money over politics.15 Newton then explains that we need, as Theodore Roosevelt well knew (20 years before his cousin presided over the aftermath of the 1929 disaster), democratic oversight of the market, or it will run amok. As it has. Her conclusion? "Ultimately, our whining and hand-wringing about corporate culture, or executive incentives, or other technicalities of the way businesses run themselves, is useless, Business was never supposed to run itself, at least not for long. We the people were supposed to be taking responsibility for its operations as a whole. We have evaded this responsibility for almost a quarter of a century now, and that's long enough. It is time to remember that we have a public responsibility hat as well as a private enterprise hat, to put it on and put the country back in order." is taking public responsibility the answer to ethical lapses in business? What else might you need to know in order to effectively evaluate Professor Newton's conclusion? What ethical issues are involved in the challenges she addresses? Who are the stakeholders? (continued In evaluating the causes of the Enron debacle and its implications for change scholar Lise Newton analyzes the possible responses we could utilize as a society Contemplate her arguments that some responses will not work and consider whether you agree or disagree More regulation: The people who are making the money est regulations for breakfast You can't pass regulations fast enough to get in the way. Regulations are bad for business, she states they do not have sufficient foresight, and virtual and global business leaves us with little to grasp in terms of regulation Business ethics courses: Newton contends that they are ineffective in guiding future action, and they do not sufficiently impact motivations. Changes in corporate cultures: "What the company's officers do, when they act for good or more likely evil does not proceed from the corporate culture, as if the corporate culture coused their actions.... What people do, habitually, just is their character, which they create by doing those things. What a corporation does, through its officers, just is its culture, created by the behavior. To say that if we change the culture we'l change the behavior is a conceptual mistake-trivial or meaningless." Does anything work? -Back to those other eras: this is not the first time that, up to our waists in the muck of corporate dishonesty, we have contemplated regulations and ethics classes and using large rough weapons on the corporate culture. And nothing we did in the past worked Instead. Newton posits. "Capitalism was always known not to contain its own limits: the limits were to be imposed by the democratic system, whose representatives were the popularly elected watchdogs of the economy." Business crime comes not from "systemic capitalist contradictions or sin; instead it ...arises from a failure of the instruments of democracy, which have been weakened by three decades of market fundamentalism, privatization ideology and resentment of government. Capitalism is not too strong democracy is too weak. We have not grown too hubristic as producers and consumers (as if the market were, when working right, capable of governing itself): we have grown too timid as citizens, acquiescing to deregulation and privatization (altlines, accounting firms, banks, media conglomerates, you name it) and a growing tyranny of money over politics.15 Newton then explains that we need, as Theodore Roosevelt well knew (20 years before his cousin presided over the aftermath of the 1929 disaster), democratic oversight of the market, or it will run amok. As it has. Her conclusion? "Ultimately, our whining and hand-wringing about corporate culture, or executive incentives, or other technicalities of the way businesses run themselves, is useless, Business was never supposed to run itself, at least not for long. We the people were supposed to be taking responsibility for its operations as a whole. We have evaded this responsibility for almost a quarter of a century now, and that's long enough. It is time to remember that we have a public responsibility hat as well as a private enterprise hat, to put it on and put the country back in order." is taking public responsibility the answer to ethical lapses in business? What else might you need to know in order to effectively evaluate Professor Newton's conclusion? What ethical issues are involved in the challenges she addresses? Who are the stakeholders? (continued