Comments on: THE CITIGROUP CASE STUDY:IS CORPORATE MALFEASANCE AVOIDABLE? http://hybridvigor.org/2008/11/23/the-citigroup-case-study-is-corporate-malfeasance-avoidable/ Improving decisions and outcomes through collaboration and deliberation Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:58:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Denise Caruso http://hybridvigor.org/2008/11/23/the-citigroup-case-study-is-corporate-malfeasance-avoidable/comment-page-1/#comment-12403 Denise Caruso Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:50:58 +0000 http://hybridvigor.org/2008/11/23/the-citigroup-case-study-is-corporate-malfeasance-avoidable/#comment-12403 Absolutely it's avoidable. Malfeasance lives in secrecy, in the dark. It cannot live in the light of disclosure. Transparency -- far more transparency than we've got now in corporate infrastructure -- would significantly decrease the ability for malfeasance to take root. Inviting others to view our actions (with ensuring integrity as the motive) solves all the very real issues you raise: it challenges the existing social structure, provides outsider perspectives to judge our actions, and opens our field of perception. This kind of transparency is (as you know) at the core of the risk methods for assessing innovative technologies that I love so dearly: bring together stakeholders and interested parties and ask the question at hand. I'm sure it would work just as well if the problem on the table was "Is anything we are doing right now putting us on the path to becoming greedy, malfeasant boneheads?" Absolutely it’s avoidable. Malfeasance lives in secrecy, in the dark. It cannot live in the light of disclosure. Transparency — far more transparency than we’ve got now in corporate infrastructure — would significantly decrease the ability for malfeasance to take root.

Inviting others to view our actions (with ensuring integrity as the motive) solves all the very real issues you raise: it challenges the existing social structure, provides outsider perspectives to judge our actions, and opens our field of perception.

This kind of transparency is (as you know) at the core of the risk methods for assessing innovative technologies that I love so dearly: bring together stakeholders and interested parties and ask the question at hand. I’m sure it would work just as well if the problem on the table was “Is anything we are doing right now putting us on the path to becoming greedy, malfeasant boneheads?”

]]>