Recent surveys have shown that the name “Arthur Anderson,” the accounting firm used by Enron during a tumultuous period of book-cooking, is associated with being “ethical” by over 80% of financial professionals in the US and Canada, and by a large majority of those in France and Britain. This, along with some other factors, has led the current right-holders to this name to decide to bring it back. From where did this association come? One possibility is that teaching about Arthur Anderson in business ethics classes for the past decade or so, as well as the large amount of publicity the company has received regarding ethics, has led many to associate the company name with “ethics.” Likewise, business ethics courses spend hours discussing the (un)ethical practices associated with other firms like Wal-Mart, Volvo, Texaco, and Nike. Is all this attention providing a free marketing service for such companies? Ought business ethicists only focus on positive ethical role models in order to foster more appropriate associations between ethics and the companies discussed in business ethics classrooms? Should all case studies be anonymous? What are the potential drawbacks of such approaches?
Answer these questions with facts!