? If there’s anything that we could learn from the recent events in the corporate world is that ethics has been undervalued. Many organizations have been destroyed or heavily damaged financially and took a hit in terms of reputation, for example, Enron. The word Ethics is derived from a Greek word called Ethos, meaning “The character or values particular to a specific person, people, culture or movement” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2007, p. 295). Ethics has always played and will continue to play a huge role within the corporate world. Ethics is one of the important topics that are debated at lengths without reaching a conclusion, since there isn’t a right or wrong answer. It’s basically depends on how each individual perceives a particular situation. Over the past few years we have seen very poor unethical business practices by companies like Enron, which has affected many stakeholders. Poor unethical practices affect the society in many ways; employees lose their job, investors lose their money, and the country’s economy gets affected. This leads to people start losing confidence in the economy and the organizations that are being run by the so-called “educated” top executives that had one goal in their minds, personal gain. When Enron entered the scene in the mid-1980s, it was little more than a stodgy energy distribution system. Ten years later, it was a multi-billion dollar corporation, considered the poster child of the “new economy” for its willingness to use technology and the Internet in managing energy. Fifteen years later, the company is filing for bankruptcy on the heels of a massive financial collapse, likely the largest in corporate America’s history. As this paper is being written, the scope of Enron collapse is still being researched, poked and prodded. It will take years to determine what, exactly, the impact of the demise of this energy giant will be both on the industry and the economy as a whole. However, in examining articles already written about the debacle, it is possible to develop mini case studies, analyze what went wrong, and to suggest recommendations on how to avoid it from happening again. There is no doubt about it, in conducting business, Enron’s management acted solely without any kind of ethics, accountability or responsibility, holding financial off the balance sheet by burying them in various partnerships on one hand, and by inflating the value of the company by reassuring investors that the company was in fine financial shape on the other. Very simply, when it was learned that revenues were not just millions, but billions of dollars below expectations, the bottom fell out. The stock was dumped, and it lost value. The stock has lost 99 percent of its value and, in its wake, 20,000 Enron employees who had stocks in their 401(k)s lost their retirement savings (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). But on the other side of the coin, Enron chairman Kenneth Lay made $205 million in stock-option profits, and other executives, who sold out before the bottom fell out, made out well, too (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). Where is the justice in this? The other questions here are, who was responsible for the fallout? Who can one point a finger at for restitution? The answer: not any one thing or person. The blame spreads over a variety of people and parties (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). According to writer, Allan Sloan of Newsweek, Enron’s failure was a systematic failure of the checks and balances that are supposed to, as he writes, “keep a company from running amok . . .” (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). In short, company executives have a moral and legal responsibility to keep their books and records honestly (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). Outside auditors – in this case, Arthur Andersen – are supposed to ensure that financial reports meet strict regulations and provide an accurate picture of what is going on (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). Wall Street analysts are supposed to analyze company numbers properly (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). And one main reason why none of this happened in the above was money, and the money that Enron generated both through its contributions and deal-making (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). Wall Street, for example, loved Enron because trades and deal-making meant huge cash flows for Wall Street investment banking houses, with the result being that as soon as Enron’s questionable bookkeeping was made public, the investment houses should have suggested selling the stock a lot sooner than it did (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). On the accounting end, if Arthur Andersen had called out Enron on its sloppy bookkeeping, the firm would have been fired (Sloan, 2002, p. 18). Even more alarming is that the contributions Enron made to political parties also caused regulators at national and state levels to look the other way in regards to Enron’s practices (Sloan, 2002, p. 19). Even employees sight site of their own ethics and vision in light of the perks they were receiving from the corporation, which include