
Scandals suggest standards have slipped in corporate America - js2
https://www.economist.com/business/2019/04/06/scandals-suggest-standards-have-slipped-in-corporate-america
======
sn41
Nonsense. Trying to get away with whatever you can, has always existed as a
principle. Nowadays, it is easy to forget Dow Chemicals, Philip Morris etc.
which were nothing short of nefarious in their pursuit of profits. Bhopal
still takes the cake in industrial disasters, not Chernobyl [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

~~~
onetimemanytime
Bhopal might have caused the most _direct_ deaths or injuries but opioids
have, IMO, surpassed that. Not to mention broken families, psychological
problems etc etc. [https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-
epidemic/index.html](https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-
epidemic/index.html)

~~~
apathy
Indeed, the Sackler family is a scourge.

Behind every great fortune lies a great crime...

------
roenxi
We live in an era where it is very, very challenging to cover up scandals.
Previously, we lived in an era where it was very easy to cover up a scandal
_and_ what was counted as a scandal was a much higher bar.

It is unlikely standards have slipped. Standards are likely rising.

~~~
scruple
Is that true? Or, have the scandals occurred in places on the edges?

It used to be that DuPont, etc..., would dump chemicals into rivers in the
literal middle of America. Now, they seem to be operating in more remote
places, i.e., like Down Chemical in central/southern Argentina, where
information, perhaps, doesn't flow quite as readily or quite as quickly.

------
banach
When will we start recognizing fake surprise as an enabling linchpin of the
current economic system? These "bad apples" aren't outliers, they are the very
essence of the system.

------
duxup
Is there a good way to measure this?

I can't remember a time when I didn't read some article ... just like this
one.

This seems like a very easy sentiment to sell / belive at anytime.

~~~
skybrian
You certainly can't say air travel is more dangerous than it used to be.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety)

~~~
duxup
Well you shouldn't say that.... someone probabbly is selling it though.

------
anonymouspeon
im shocked. shocked.

the company i work for is 100% ethical, never even once have i whiffed a sense
of even the most brief impropriety.

at least thats what they told me to say if i didnt want to be fired,
blacklisted, and have my career destroyed.

------
spectramax
Is this specific to corporate America? Scandals are all over from Vodafone to
Nestle.

I am not convinced. Also, the fact that America houses larger percentage of
Fortune 500 corporations, there will be more examples of American vs non-
American due to the population size.

This is a generic problem with large corporations.

------
taeric
Me thinks this is allowing for some crap that old corporates used to try. That
is to say, older companies weren't exactly saints.

If anything, we are starting to show that we do hold corporations to a high
standard. Hell, have we ever held cigarette companies truly to task for all of
the crazy additives they did simply to make things more addictive?

Now, there is some irony that some industries that came into being with
intense regulations are showing the value of those regulations as they lose
them. But that is a different story than corporate America slipping in
standards. Quite the contrary, that is a fairly predictable story that
regulations can serve a purpose.

------
untilHellbanned
“Slipped” implies unintentional. A better headline is corporate America is
getting away with more.

~~~
ptaipale
I would say that is hardly true. Corporate America is getting more scrutiny
than ever.

~~~
praptak
Scrutiny alone does not imply any real consequences.

~~~
ptaipale
But lack of scrutiny surely implies lack of real consequences. Anyway, I would
say that in terms of consequences, even there corporations face more of them,
simply because the public gets to know more.

------
anbop
Why not? It’s economically rational even for the company now. It used to be
rational just for the executives.

------
4sak3n
"For critics of capitalism none of this will be a surprise. They argue that
firms controlled by private shareholders are especially unethical. Yet it is
easy to poke holes in this."

The existence of a handful of outliers does not a thesis disprove.

------
cannonedhamster
We had 8 years of Republicans curbing back regulatory oversight, increasing
regulatory capture. The sitting President won on "draining the swamp" and
proceeded to hire lobbyists to his staff because "they know how the system
works" and yet there's been only further deregulation and destruction of
government entities. If Americans want it to stop they will stop voting for
people who literally base their party platform on destroying government
oversight. There was literally an article yesterday about how when the IRS
went after the wealthy for tax evasion, their budget was cut by Congress. The
solution to this is a political one. Vote in people who believe differently if
you want different outcomes. Otherwise quit complaining, you've got the
government the people voted for.

~~~
tengbretson
If I were to increase regulatory capture while cutting back regulations how
exactly would I do that?

~~~
mirimir
Huh?

Regulatory capture (i.e., capture by whatever's being regulated) and cutting
back regulations both have the same effect: weaker regulation.

~~~
chris_t
Sadly it is often not so simple. Complex regulations can advantage large
incumbent firms by making it harder for newer entrants to their markets.

