Are Public Companies More Unethical Than Private Companies?

Public vs. Private

Do publicly held companies foster an environment conducive for committing criminal acts more than privately held companies?

By XXX

MNGT 6000

Webster University

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine and determine whether or not publicly traded companies are more prone to foster an environment conducive for criminal acts than those of privately held companies. Due to the enormity of the research, only companies owned in the United States will be examined. Of course, a company is an inanimate object and therefore incapable of doing something, let alone committing criminal acts. So the purpose of the study is really to examine if public or private businesses tend to have more criminal activities emanate from them on behalf of the executives working within. The executives are separated out from the rest of the employee populace due to the fact that they are responsible for the direction and guidance of the company. Given this fact, the executives are in essence, identified with the company. To clarify, an executive is anyone in a position of President and above including board members. For the sake of the study, when one of these executives is indicted or investigated for committing a criminal act, this author will speak in terms of the corporations committing a criminal act. This is not unusual when lawsuits are filed or indictments made. Articles and publications also tend to equate executives with the companies they lead. Think Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Anderson.

Premise

This author contends that after a thorough examination of the facts, it will be determined that publicly held companies foster an environment conducive for committing criminal acts more than privately held companies that operate within the United States. This author is basing this premise on three factors: 1.) public companies exposure