Enron Scandal: Ethics, Auditing Failures, and Reforms
This paper examines the ethics and regulatory failures surrounding the Enron accounting scandal, with a focus on the role played by auditing firm Arthur Andersen & Co. It analyzes key related-party transactions — including those involving Chewco, LJM1, LJM2, and CalPERS/JEDI — that resulted in materially misstated earnings and debt figures. The paper then identifies the logical and professional failures of Arthur Andersen, presents a comprehensive checklist of standards external auditors must follow under GAAP, and concludes with proposed regulatory reforms, including the adoption of internationally accepted accounting laws and practices, to prevent similar corporate fraud in the future.
- Introduction: Overview of Enron's accounting scandal and collapse
- Related Party Transactions Reported on by Arthur Andersen & Co.: Fraudulent transactions involving Chewco, LJM, and CalPERS
- Flaws in Arthur Andersen's Audit Logic: Arthur Andersen's failures, conflicts of interest, and document shredding
- Checklist for External Auditors on Special Projects: GAAP-based standards and responsibilities for external auditors
- Proposed Rules and Laws to Prevent Similar Occurrences: Regulatory reforms to prevent future accounting fraud
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves logically from a concrete case study (Enron's related-party transactions) to abstract principles (auditor checklists and regulatory reform), giving readers a clear cause-and-effect understanding of the scandal's implications.
- The checklist format in the auditing standards section makes complex GAAP requirements accessible and directly applicable, demonstrating practical understanding of professional auditing obligations.
- The use of specific financial figures (e.g., $258 million equity reduction in 1997, $711 million in additional reported debt) grounds the ethical argument in concrete, verifiable evidence.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a case-based analytical approach, using the Enron scandal as an empirical anchor to evaluate broader accounting and regulatory standards. By juxtaposing what auditors should have done (via the GAAP checklist) against what Arthur Andersen actually did, the paper constructs an implicit normative argument about professional responsibility without overstating its claims.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into five sections: a brief contextual introduction to the Enron collapse; a detailed analysis of related-party transaction irregularities; an examination of Arthur Andersen's professional failures; a structured checklist of external auditor responsibilities under GAAP and international standards; and a forward-looking section proposing regulatory reforms. Each section builds on the previous, moving from diagnosis to prescription.
Introduction
Enron was one of Wall Street's favorite blue-chip stocks before an accounting scandal surfaced in 2000. The revelation that the company had been misreporting its profits and losses throughout the 1990s crashed its stock price. Earnings and debt statements were not representative of actual accounting transactions, and a serious bankruptcy crisis ensued following this revelation. There were several ethical dimensions to this issue as well. The following sections detail the accounting malpractices carried out by Enron through its auditing firm, Arthur Andersen & Co. (Benston, 2003).
References
Benston, G. J. (2003). Following the money: The Enron failure and the state of corporate disclosure. Brookings Institution Press.
Carcello, J. V., & Nagy, A. L. (2004). Client size, auditor specialization and fraudulent financial reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(5), 651–668.
International Federation of Accountants. (2009). Overall objectives of the independent auditor and the conduct of an audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. International Standard on Auditing 200. New York, NY: IFAC.
Powers, W. C., Troubh, R. S., & Winokur, H. S. (2002). Report of investigation by the special investigative committee of the board of directors of Enron Corp.
Public Oversight Board. (2000). The panel on audit effectiveness report and recommendations. Retrieved from
Ramos, M. (2003). Auditors' responsibility for fraud detection. Journal of Accountancy, 195(1), 28–36.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.