Boatright argues that the best way of achieving the deterrent effect for which laws governing corporate responsibility are intended, is by placing the weight of responsibility for misconduct on the corporation (and derivatively on the shareholders) as opposed to individuals who actually conduct the misconduct.
Do you agree with his assessment on pragmatic grounds? On moral grounds? Why?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 8:29 am ad1c9bdddf
The attached document is merely one view on the argument presented. It is not intended as an assignment completion.
Encouraging corporate responsibility should be approached in a manner that sends a strong message to deter irresponsible behavior. However, the decision about whether to hold individuals or the corporation and its shareholder liable is a hotly debated topic. John Boatright argues that the responsibilities lies on the corporation as a whole and on shareholders. He cites the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as evidence that the corporation should be held accountable (2006). If individuals were accountable the notion of corporate fiscal transparency ...
The following posting answers questions regarding the laws that govern corporate responsibility.
Does SOX imply that the primary purpose of laws governing corporate responsibility is deterrence? And what ethical theories support the regulation?View Full Posting Details