Law.com has a series of articles on "Penetrating the Private World of Corporate Monitoring," http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1190192573192. The first, "Someone to Watch Over You," discusses the roles a monitor may take in an organization and offers suggestions on choosing a monitor, limiting the monitor's power, and how to use a monitor to better the company. The second article, "Bristol-Myers Takes Its Medicine," reveals an antitrust violation that the company engaged in while a monitor was working with the company.
The need for corporate monitors and the Bristol-Myers example show that all of this talk of corporate ethics seems to fall on many deaf ears. This is frustrating for companies who do walk the line (and myself, who supports and represents those companies). When news of Enron, Worldcomm, and Tyco was on the front page, it was "corporate America" that became the devil, not only those companies. And many companies who never did anything wrong have paid for it - thousands or millions of dollars spent to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, loss of goodwill, and suspicious customers and regulators watching their movements with narrowed eyes. This is similar to the problems that the legal profession has when attorneys misuse their power, take advantage of clients, or simply break the law - it reflects poorly on all lawyers, and that is why the Board of Law Examiners screens applicants to the Bar to attempt to weed out future trouble-makers. (No comments on their lack of success - they can only see so far into the future!)
Alas, there really is no good solution for the business community. Forcing all executives or managers to go through some kind of screening process could be possible for public companies, but it has its limits just as with potential lawyers. Many business schools require corporate ethics courses, but teaching the rules of ethics is not the same as instilling values. Just because lawyers know the Rules of Professional Conduct does not ensure that they cannot willfully violate the rules.
I believe that the source of the problem goes much deeper. The source is the same that has made ours a culture of cheating, that credits Barry Bonds with breaking Aaron's recond, and that exhibits unbelievably high levels of marital infidelity. It is a culture of Me First, or dishonesty or cheating, or whatever label you like. I believe that only parents have the power to undo this, not Congress. Unfortunately, parents are often the problem. The best thing to do, then, is to ensure that there continue to be negative consequences for those who lie and cheat. When we begin to let things slide, huge ethical abuses are sure to follow.
