Introduction
Enron Corporation, the six-time Fastest Growing Company in America, as honored by Fortune magazine, was a bankruptcy case on December 2, 2001, the largest bankruptcy case ever in United States history. The downfall of such a Houston-based energy giant left ripples in the global financial markets and even shaped the concepts of corporate governance, financial reporting, and business ethics in general.
The Enron debacle was no accounting anomaly or corporate racketeering, but the collective tragedy that ruined the lives of thousands of Enron employees, decimated their retirement funds, and left the whole world with a black eye about corporate America. Over twenty years on, the experiences are still fresh in the minds of business leaders who are still trying to handle the dichotomy between profits and the ethics of doing business, as happened to Enron.
This case study analyzes how a culture of aggressive expansion and the systematic manipulation of the financial statement, only to be followed by unsuccessful controlling, resulted in one of the worst corporate frauds ever committed in history and how it should inform us that financial reporting is an extremely crucial ethical matter.
The Rise of Enron: The Innovation and Development of Ambition
The barbarism of building an energy empire
The story of Enron started in 1985 when Houston Natural Gas merged with InterNorth and formed a classical natural gas pipeline organization. During the reign of Kenneth Lay and later Jeffrey Skilling, Enron had reinvented itself into an upstart energy trading powerhouse and had successfully turned the staid utility into what seemed like a revolution.
The corporation was the first to propose the idea of trading natural gas as a commodity in otherwise non-existing markets. The innovation was actually useful since it allowed deregulating energy markets and developing more effective pricing mechanisms. The initial success of Enron was based on fair innovation of the business concept and reliable implementation.
By the middle of the 1990s, Enron not only had moved beyond natural gas, trading in electricity, water services, broadband, and even weather derivatives. The stock price of the company rose dramatically, more than ten times, from over 20 dollars in 1990 to over 90 dollars in 2000, thus generating billions of dollars of shareholder value and making many of the employees rich by means of stock options.
What Is the Culture of Growth at Any Cost?
But there was a risky culture change accompanying the rapid expansion of Enron. The company created a performance evaluation system condemned by staff as a form of ranking and yanking those ranked low, which meant that the lowest 10 percent of employees were fired on a regular basis. This led to a very competitive nature whereby employees were hired based on their delivery points on creating short-term profits no matter the means employed.
Under its CEO since 2001, Jeffrey Skilling, a corporate culture of risk-taking and chasing with an aggressive financial engineering attitude was promoted. Employees had to think as entrepreneurs, just be adventurous and be creative to increase the earnings. Although the culture with which this innovation was driven first was right, it slowly turned into something worse: a desire to adapt and finally break the rules of accounting to preserve the illusion of steady growth.
The Anatomy of Fraud: How Enron Rigged the Books the Anatomy of Fraud: How Enron Manipulated Financial Reality
Special Purpose Entities: Debt Hiding in Plain Sight
The most important part of the financial shenanigans of Enron was the establishment of thousands of Special Purpose Entities (SPEs), supposedly autonomous partnerships that enabled the firm to avoid debt on its balance sheet and inflate its profits in the books.
An elaborate structure of partnership with such names as Chewco, JEDI, and LJM (named after his wife and children) was formed by Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow. The aim of these entities was to come out as independent, yet in reality they were under the control of Enron executives. The firm sold assets to these partnerships at undervalued amounts; the dealings displayed instant benefits to the firm.
As an example, Enron would sell a power plant to an SPE on payment of 100 million dollars, whilst the asset would only be valued at 80 million dollars. Enron would instantly post a profit of 20 million dollars, and the debt involved in purchasing that asset was assumed by the SPE. Since it seemed that the SPE had a separate existence, Enron was not obliged to reflect the debt in its balance sheet.
Mark-to-Market Accounting: Enlisting Future Fantasies as Current Reality
Another gimmick that Enron was taking advantage of was a mark-to-market accounting rule that enabled the company to report projected profits of long-term contract transactions on a transactions accounting rule. Although there are situations when this accounting system is sufficient to use, Enron has used it wrongly on long-term contracts on energy as well as other business dealings.
In one of the more notorious cases, Enron agreed to a 20-year deal to supply broadband services and marked up the profits they were to receive quite literally overnight, even though the services were never performed and never brought in a single cent of revenue. Such phantom profits were used by Enron to achieve the quarterly earnings targets and sustain a share price, yet had nothing to do with the real business performance.
The role of the executives: fraud as a way to get personally enriched
The most criminal thing about the fraud committed by Enron was that the executives themselves were made rich as a result of the schemes that they devised. Andrew Fastow received more than 30 million dollars through partnerships that were allegedly independent of Enron, but they came with huge cases of conflict of interest. Other executives have sold millions of dollars of Enron shares even as they were singing the company’s praises to their employees and investors.
The chairman of Enron, Kenneth Lay, sold his $70 million worth of stock as he urged the employees to purchase more shares in their retirement accounts. Jeffrey Skilling cashed out to the tune of 70 million worth of stock during the months leading to the collapse of the company, although he was still publicly saying that the Enron business model was a good idea.
Human Cost: the cost when financial fraud is turned into personal tragedy
Employee Devastation
The eruption of Enron ruined the lives of simple workers that believed the people running their company. The bankruptcy of Enron left over 20,000 people at the mercy of bankruptcy and usually with nothing in the way of job alerts or severance. People had dedicated their careers and retirement plans to the firm, having spent decades with it, which is why so many were upset when they learned that the company was going under.
Possibly the saddest thing ruined was the retirement savings of employees. Enron had a very lopsided 401(k) plan that relied predominantly on the company stock purchases that employees would make in hopes of being rewarded. Employees lost their life savings in less than 24 hours when the stock price fell overnight from 90 dollars and above to less than a dollar.
An administrative assistant of Enron named Janice Farmer saw the retirement fund of $700,000 evaporate. She told Congress that the company gave her 16 years. I had faith in the company. I had had faith in the leadership. I believed I would manage to retire.” Rather, she had to keep working far beyond her intended retirement age.
Wider economics effect
The implosion at Enron trembled way beyond Houston. The shareholders lost about 74 billion dollars of the market value, which destroyed pension funds and mutual funds as well as individual investors who had believed the financial reports of the company. CalPERS is the largest pension fund in the country, which lost $1.5 billion in the Enron investments.
There was also a wider wave of trust in corporate America, of which the scandal was a part. Stock markets crashed as investors wondered about the possibility of the presence of the same problems in other companies. The investors trust became affected, and this helped to cause the 2001-2002 recession, and legitimate businesses were finding it hard to procure capital.
Failure of Gatekeepers: Collapse of Oversight Systems: The quote points to the danger always present when people with vested interests use the failure of the oversight systems to ensure that the mistakes of the past are repeated using terrorism as a weapon.
Arthur Andersen: The Bean-Counting Coward
Astonishingly, the inability of external control mechanisms that were meant to cushion the investors was one of the most outrageous outcomes of the Enron scandal. Arthur Andersen is a world accounting company considered as one of the top five, or the so-called Big Five, accounting firms, which served as Enron’s auditor and was supposed to give an independent seal of approval to the financial statements of Enron.
Rather, Andersen ended up being part of the Enron fraud. The company obtained an annual of 52 million dollars as fees paid by Enron, 27 million as fees charged as auditors, and 25 million due to consultant services. The given financial relationship generated the conflict of interests that undermined the independence and objectivity of Andersen. By grossly shredding thousands of papers concerning the Enron audit when things began to look bad at Enron, the employees of the now-defunct Andersen further indicated the term of culpability of the firm. Evidence tampering resulted in a criminal conviction of Andersen and bankruptcy of the 89-year-old company, eradicating 85,000 jobs in the world.
What remains to be seen is where the Board of Directors was in all this.
The board of directors of Enron, which comprised reputable businessmenand scholars, performed terribly in their supervisory roles. Board members gave the management a blank check by simply putting a stamp on its work, notwithstanding the millions of dollars in directing fees and stock options.
Particularly the SPEs that made the Enron scheme possible were created by the board on a standard basis without always knowing the point of what it was doing or the danger. The members of the board were conscious of the personal bank association of Andrew Fastow with these partnerships, but they overrode the policy on conflict of interest, which would have discouraged such an arrangement.
Worse than this, the members of the board sold their stock at Enron as they privately opposed the CEO publicly. Such breach of fiduciary duty showed that even fiduciary mechanisms, put in place to guard the shareholders, were corrupted by the quest forpersonal gain.
Wall Street Analysts: The Pep Squad, Not the Watch Dogs
The analysts on Wall Street who were to give an unbiased review of the business outlooks of Enron turned out to be the stock cheerleaders of the company. Sixteen out of 17 analysts who recommended Enron in October 2001, only two months before the company declared bankruptcy, bought the stock, whereas only one recommended selling the stock.
These analysts were involved in conflicts of interest like Andersen was. Their companies received large amounts of investment banking fees from Enron, and there was pressure to conduct positive coverage irrespective of the real outlook of the company. The analyst oversight failure took away the independent analysis, which the investors required in making their decisions.
The Immediate Action Plan on Regulatory Reform and Corporate Accountability
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
The outcry of the people after the collapse of Enron caused the quick response of the regulator. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is the most important piece of corporate governance reform since the Securities Acts of the 1930s that was passed by the Congress in July 2002. The Act presented some major changes that were meant to avoid future Enrons:
CEO/CFO Certification: Directors of corporations must certify themselves that financial statements are accurate, and false certification is punishable criminally. With this provision, the top executives could not excuse themselves by saying that they were not aware of the financial abnormalities.
Improved Internal Controls: Businesses are required to put in place and abide by good internal financial controls and report on the effectiveness of the control. The external auditors also have to test these controls and report about them.
Auditor Independence: The Act limited consulting services that auditing firms could offer to their audit clients, and this cut down on conflicts of interest that undermined the independence of auditors in Enron.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB): It formed a new governing body to monitor auditing companies and set the auditing standards that worked to eliminate self-regulation of the industry.
Personal accountability and criminal prosecutions
The Enron scandal resulted in a number of criminal cases in which financial fraud had personal consequences. Jeffrey Skilling was found guilty of conspiracy, fraud, and securities insider trading and received a 24-year sentence in prison (the sentence was lowered to 14 years). Fastow Andrew Fastow pleaded guilty to conspiracy and served a 6-year jail term.
Kenneth Lay was charged with fraud and conspiracy, but he suffered a heart attack and died before he could be sentenced. Prison sentences were also dealt out to other Enron executives, such as Treasurer Ben Glisan and Chief Accounting Officer Richard Causey.
These prosecutions served to deliver a clear point that financial fraud has bad personal ramifications for the executives besides corporate consequences. The sight of ex-corporate giants wearing handcuffs gave people some hope that, finally, justice will be done.
It is all about long-term lessons. What Enron Teaches About Ethical Business Practice
The Corporate Culture Supremacy
Maybe the greatest lesson learned from Enron is that the culture of a company always defines whether the company is running an ethical operation or a house of cards. The high-growth culture of Enron, short-term perspective, and win-at-all-costs attitudes formed the environment in which fraud could not be avoided.
It is the performance evaluation system in the company that rewarded employees because of making profits without any regard to how the profits were made. This cultural communication was promoted by the executive gesture, in which the key goal was the price of the stocks rather than the way the business was functioning in the long-term point of view. When leaders put emphasis on proving that outcomes rather than the processes are important, the staff across the enterprise has the carte blanche to shortcut ethical issues.
This is in comparison with other companies that have nurtured high-ethos cultures over a long period of time. The common characteristics of these organizations include transparency of values, effective internal controls, and examples of ethical leadership. They spend money on training of employees, they reward whistleblowers, and they reward long-term thinking as opposed to short-term benefits.
The value of autonomous oversight
The failure of Enron showed that various independent regulating bodies need to be operational to safeguard the stakeholders. There is practically no chance of stopping fraud when all the auditors, board members, analysts, and regulators fail together.
Freedom of judgment is important and should come in the form of independence, which does not involve a conflict of interest. Auditors are unable to give objective evaluations of companies, which are their major sources of consulting revenue. The directors are not able to make independent judgments when they owe their appointment and remunerations to the management.
The lesson is that oversight mechanisms should be established so that they are structured independently and are designed with the right incentives in order to work well. This will involve paying more money or less convenient schedules in order to get better scrutiny.
Transparency and communications to stakeholders
The financial reports that Enron produced in compliance with the technical requirements of accounting were actually made up to hide the actual fact of the financial status of the business. It teaches a lesson that ethical reporting of finances involves more than meeting technical criteria; it involves open communication in a way that allows the stakeholders to know the actual performance of a company and the risks the company faces.
Such transparency should not be limited to the financial statements but should also offer clear information about the business strategy, risk factors, and choices made by management that may impact the interest of stakeholders. Transparent companies also establish a high level of trust between them and their stakeholders, as well as blocks of accountability, which can prevent fraud.
The Individual Responsibility Role: The Role of Individual Responsibility
Although systemic forces saw the failure of Enron, it is the individual decisions of the executives who decided personal welfare at the expense of stakeholders that led the company to the scandal. Until they are ready to engage in fraudulent activities, no degree of regulation is going to stop it, but well-known accountability systems would serve to make the cost of dubious acts prohibitive.
The moral of the story is that sound business needs good systems and that person should call on their own integrity. Companies have to identify people with sound ethical bases as the leaders, give instructions on what behavior to adhere to, and be willing to blame them in case they act against the values.
The Current Applicability: Enron and What It Has to Teach Us in the Modern Business World
New Parallels and Unwanted Threats
Over 20 years after Enron went under, most of the aspects that facilitated the scandal come to light today in the business world. The pressure of quarterly earnings is highly enforced on the public companies. Compensation paid to executives remains mainly inclined towards stock-based rewards, which may lead to shortsightedness. This has made financial instruments more complex to the extent that even investors and members of the board of directors have little knowledge of the operations of the company.
A number of recent corporate scandals (Wells Fargo and its scam of creating fake accounts to Theranos and its misleading blood testing services) prove that the lure and the pressure that caused Enron to engage in fraud is still a potent force in corporate America. The details of the procedures might change, yet the generic principles of the aggressive corporate cultures, conflicting governance, and poor transparency still pose threats.
Corporate Governance Challenge and Continuing Awareness
As a result of the collapse of Enron, there has been great enhancement of corporate governance, though there are still difficulties facing it. There is an enhanced independence of the board; however, directors have natural shortcomings in their ability to govern sophisticated global companies. The independence of the auditors has been enhanced, but the very nature of the business model of auditing, in which customers are charged for services aimed at analyzing the way they behave, is a source of constant conflict.
The surge in demand of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing has resulted in a new demand to have transparent corporate reporting as well as the new opportunities to evade the responsibility to have reasonable reporting by using selective reporting or greenwashing practices, as Enron did with its financial reporting.
Technology and New Challenges
The contemporary business world poses emerging concerns, which was not the case in the Enron era. With the emergence of cryptocurrency, complicated derivatives, and algorithmic trading, new avenues of financial manipulation have emerged that are hard to decipher by regulators and supervision institutions. The use of social media and digital communication methods led to the hastening of the process of occurrence of corporate crises, disrupting the effectiveness of the traditional methods of control.
Meanwhile, new anti-fraud detectors and better transparency have been invented with technology. Data analytics has the capability to detect suspicious patterns in financial statements, blockchain technology has the potential of increasing transparency in record-keeping, and cyberspace communication provides audit trails that make destruction of documents more challenging.
The Remarkable Legacy of Ethical Leadership: Conclusion
The Enron debacle is one of the most significant cautionary tales of modern business because it is not a story of failure that is isolated, but rather the exposure of the inherent conflict between profit maximization and healthy business practices that remains prevalent in the business world in modern times.
The fact that Enron ended up costing thousands of jobs, ruining their retirement, and destroying the trust of the general population shows that financial reporting scams are definitely not victimless crimes. When companies engage in the manipulation of their statements, they rob employees, investors, and communities that rely on these statements to make important decisions related to their respective financial futures.
These systemic weaknesses in the financial systems that facilitated the fraud committed by Enron, namely compromised auditors, entrenched-faced board members, and ineffective regulations, reveal that safeguarding the stakeholders cannot be pursued through mere intentions. It must have strong systems, a clear accountability chain, and be willing to be more transparent than what is required by the law.
Most importantly, the downfall of Enron definitely shows that it is eventually the corporate culture that decides upon whether organizations act in an ethical manner or are fraudulent. New regulations and other improved controls are needed but not enough. To avoid future Enrons, we need leaders who care more about the long-term value they add to the stakeholders rather than the short-term profit motives they get and who establish corporate cultures that reward ethics rather than performances. The collapse of the company is a warning as well as a challenge to new generations of business leaders who are exposed to the same temptation and pressures that tempted Enron to take the plunge. The message is quite obvious: ethical failure is disastrous and extensive. The task is also straightforward: to develop businesses and institutions that not only add value to all stakeholders but also retain the trust and transparency that are necessary to have an effective functioning of markets.
Enron’s story is the story of choice, and that is in essence about short-term profits and sustainability, personal gain and the welfare of stakeholders, and technical compliance versus being open with integrity. The business leaders of today grapple to make the same decisions more than 20 years later. The Enron teaching is that the manner in which we arrive at these decisions is what defines not only the future of companies but also that of our very economic system.
When we think of Enron, we give a tribute to all workers and shareholders, people who lost their houses and families due to its failure, by following the rules of ethics and open operation, which can eliminate future such disasters. The final measure of whether we have learned the lessons of Enron’s failures will be whether future generations of business leaders would prefer to do the right thing rather than that which is expedient had they been placed in similar situations as was faced by Enron.
References:
Benston, G. J. (2003). Regulation of the before and after Enron accountants and public accounting. Emory Law Journal, 52 (4), 1325-352.
According to Bratton, W. W. (2002). The dark side of shareholder value, Enron. Tulane Law Review 76 (4), 1275-1361.
J. C. Coffee Jr. (2002). The Enlightening on Enron: It is about the gatekeeper’s stupidity. Business Lawyer 57(4), 1403-1420.
Cooper C (2008). It is an unprecedented situation: the adventure of a business whistleblower. Wiley.
Cullinan, C. P. (2004). Enron as the symptom of the failure of the audit process: Will the Sarbanes-Oxley Act solve the problem? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 15(6-7), 853-864. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00072-4
Duska, R.F. (2014). Modern thoughts on business ethics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02069-1
Eichenwald, K. (2005). Conspiracy of fools: A true story. Broadway Books.
Free, C., Macintosh, N., and Stein, M. (2007). Management controls: the Enron triangle of leadership, the Enron triangle of culture, and the Enron triangle of control. Ivey Business Journal, vol. 71, no. 6, p. 1-5.
Healy, P. M., and Palepu, K. G. (2003). The fall of Enron. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17 (2), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003765888403
Jennings, M. M. (2006). Seven signs of ethical breakdown. St. Martin’s Press.
Li, Y… (2010). The scandal of the Enron case analysis. International Journal of Business and Management 5(10):37-41. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n10p37
McLean-B., & Elkind-P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. Portfolio.
Zarrinash Rezaee (2005). Reasons, effects, and prevention of financial statement fraud. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16 (3): 277-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00072-8
Sims, R. R., and Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: Culture is more important than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 3, 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024194519380
C. W. Thomas (2002). In the case of Enron. Journal of Accountancy, 193 (4), 41-48.
B. L. Toffler and J. Reingold, 2003. End of accounts: ambition, greed, and the downfall of Arthur Andersen. Broadway Books.
Werhane, P. H. (2002). The Enron scandal: breakdown of ethics in the system. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 2 169-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857816
