No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company in a vacuum. A CEO is absolutely not absolved of crimes committed in the name of the company, especially over the span of a decade.
That's absolutely absurd. Would a teenaged cashier be absolved of all guilt for murdering a troublesome customer? But the CEO should be held accountable?
If I literally cannot break a law as long as I'm working for a company, then why don't bank robbers get a job at Walmart first and claim robbing banks was for the benefit of Walmart? How could you ever convict anyone if the excuse "my boss implied that this might possibly be beneficial" gets you off Scott free?
People are always responsible for their own actions. As an extreme example, the nazis were all "just following orders". Do you think they are guilty and should be held accountable for their actions, even though someone else asked them to do what they did?
GP isn't saying that employees can't break the law. They're saying that if an employee breaks the law for the benefit of the company, it's probably because they know the company will reward them for it somehow.
> People are always responsible for their own actions.
Leaders also bear some responsibility for the actions of those within their purview. Why do CEOs get paid so much? Because they get credit (and blame) for the aggregate actions of everyone in the company.
Responsibility isn't zero sum. If the CEO orders a cashier to murder someone, they're an accomplice. If your boss knows you're robbing banks at work and says nothing, they're an accessory.
Let's flip the Nazi analogy around. The foot soldiers should certainly be held accountable for their actions. But — given that all he did was ask others to carry out his wishes — should Hitler?
> No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company
That's am absolute statement that employees are not to be held accountable.
> Responsibility isn't zero sum.
I totally agree. Doing a bad thing is bad. Ordering someone to do something bad is bad. Absolving someone who did something bad to fulfill your own twisted worldview is also bad.
> No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company in a vacuum.
In other words: "in a vacuum" (i.e. without any influence or incentives from the company), employees will not break the law for the benefit of the company (as opposed to their own benefit). It's describing their behavior, not absolving them of guilt.
Sure they can. There might for example be sales people who are operating in countries where bribes are common and despite clearly stated no bribes policies they will still bribe or behave unethically to win deals and further their career/compensation.
If it is reasonable to think that the leadership should have known about it then sure they can be blamed as well but often that is not something that is reasonable to expect.
That's absolutely absurd. Would a teenaged cashier be absolved of all guilt for murdering a troublesome customer? But the CEO should be held accountable?
If I literally cannot break a law as long as I'm working for a company, then why don't bank robbers get a job at Walmart first and claim robbing banks was for the benefit of Walmart? How could you ever convict anyone if the excuse "my boss implied that this might possibly be beneficial" gets you off Scott free?
People are always responsible for their own actions. As an extreme example, the nazis were all "just following orders". Do you think they are guilty and should be held accountable for their actions, even though someone else asked them to do what they did?