Corzine paper
- Corzine did not act appropriately. He violated the responsibility of the firm to protect customer assets and investments. Legally, the customer assets cannot be liquidated by the company with their discretion. The customers need to be informed about the situation if any such situation arises. In terms of ethics, he has breached the Utilitarianism context. His decision does not favour the greater good, and the people are not informed about the situation. The customers must be informed about the assets and its movement if the situation occurs. In this context, ethically Corzine has failed in the case. On terms of a manager, he might have done to the interest of the organisation, but it is his liability to protect the customer asset. The customers are stakeholders, and they need to be informed about the situation.
- Ms O’Brien has failed to behave appropriately. It is because as a subordinate manager of the company Ms O’Brien has the responsibility of protecting stakeholder interest. As the customers have invested in buying assets of the company, they are one of the stakeholders who have invested in the company. As a manager, Mx O’Brien has to protect the interest of the company as well as the stakeholders. Though she accepted the words of the CEO and liquidated the funds, the greater good was to protect the asset of the customers could have acted as a whistle-blower and informed the management and board about the action of CEO. The customer assets could have been protected in the process, and an ethical approach could have been fulfilled in the process. Whistleblowing, in this case, would have full filled the Utilitarian ethics as this would be for the greater good of the people.
- The action of O’Brien could be identified as criminally negligent in the process. It is because O’Brien is subordinate, and she is to follow her CEO and protect the interest of the company. As the company was on the verge of losing bank funding, O’Brien acted to preserve the benefit of the organisation. In that case, she tried to ethically stand by the company and help to revive the emergency. One side O’ Brien was ethical in the approach. She chose consequentialism and supported the business in the process. Her judgement could not be identified as bad because she was in a dilemma. One side was the protection of individual interest and others to protect the company. But it cannot be called a complete mistake of the subordinate manager in O’Brien.
- Ethics and Compliance officer of the firm must investigate the entire case. Both the position of CEO and subordinate manager while taking the decision has to be appropriately analysed. It will eventually help to identify who had made the mistake which could have been averted. Ethics and Compliance Officer has to identify the person who had radically misused the power and overlooked the responsibilities.
The given context both of the people did not have the same liability. One of the people had tried to protect the interest of the company. But the other person misused the position which could have been dealt with the situation. Hence, the Ethics and Compliance officer has a crucial role in identifying the problem and its root.