In Con Edison we take ethics and compliance very seriously. Con Ed’s ethics and compliance department offer various tools to employees with the goal of raising awareness about our company values, policies, and commitment to integrity. There are ways the message is being communicated e.g. elevator screens designed to look like tweets, or the table tents with humorous pictures in common areas like dining tables and conference rooms. All employees need to undergo mandatory electronic training every quarter which incorporates relatable hypothetical situations to help employees analyze situations and recognize potential integrity-related issues in the work they do every day. Still the biggest challenges are getting everyone committed to action when
…show more content…
Besides money, some of the men demanded other payoffs, including tickets to a New York Giants-Dallas Cowboys football game, a BlackBerry Curve phone, a watch and sunglasses. These defendants used their positions at Con Ed to line their own pockets at the expense of utility customers and the residents of the New York City. These supervisors were sentenced to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. …show more content…
This factor can be exploited by unethical employees involved in this case. Looking at the ethics toolkit, this is an act of dishonesty and violations of Loyalty. Anything that could be considered a bribe or kickback is a clear conflict of interest [2]. It doesn’t matter whether the bribe or kickback is in the form of money or something else of substantial value that is offered in exchange for access to specific products, services, or influence. The supervisors cheated their employer by demanding money in kickbacks for work expedition or even to start the work. This severely damaged Con Edison’s image. Management had to clarify questions raised by Media and the State government. Coned fully co-operated with investigation. This behavior was totally against standard of conduct guideline of company. They deceived Con Edison by approving invoices for the work which wasn’t needed at all. Accepting personal items or gifts from customers or vendors is interpreted as a conflict of interest. Their action caused multiple conflict of interest situations with main motive of corruption e.g. they accepted valuable gifts and payoffs from customers (construction companies who were responsible for construction near ground zero). This was clear act of fraud and betrayal with employers and NYC residents. These supervisors used power of their positions at Con Ed to fill their own pockets at the
Besides money, some of the men demanded other payoffs, including tickets to a New York Giants-Dallas Cowboys football game, a BlackBerry Curve phone, a watch and sunglasses. These defendants used their positions at Con Ed to line their own pockets at the expense of utility customers and the residents of the New York City. These supervisors were sentenced to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. …show more content…
This factor can be exploited by unethical employees involved in this case. Looking at the ethics toolkit, this is an act of dishonesty and violations of Loyalty. Anything that could be considered a bribe or kickback is a clear conflict of interest [2]. It doesn’t matter whether the bribe or kickback is in the form of money or something else of substantial value that is offered in exchange for access to specific products, services, or influence. The supervisors cheated their employer by demanding money in kickbacks for work expedition or even to start the work. This severely damaged Con Edison’s image. Management had to clarify questions raised by Media and the State government. Coned fully co-operated with investigation. This behavior was totally against standard of conduct guideline of company. They deceived Con Edison by approving invoices for the work which wasn’t needed at all. Accepting personal items or gifts from customers or vendors is interpreted as a conflict of interest. Their action caused multiple conflict of interest situations with main motive of corruption e.g. they accepted valuable gifts and payoffs from customers (construction companies who were responsible for construction near ground zero). This was clear act of fraud and betrayal with employers and NYC residents. These supervisors used power of their positions at Con Ed to fill their own pockets at the