FINAL BLOG : ENRON COMPANY

Background

 Enron Corporation is the best global energy trading company , that beginning from the natural gas and electricity , after that enron has expand the business faster and widely, such as Product trade hedging natural gas and electricity to retail energy etc. which is make a lot of profit , but in reverse that is high risk also, and no asset to support, in the glorious past of enron company , enron was growing fast become number 7 of all company of the world fortune 400, but for now enron is consulting in bankruptcy which is biggest bankruptcy of the world for america and affected to 21,000 employees of enron.

 Problem 

 Cause of bankrupt enron company is come from aggressive business strategy and high risk , enron company can separate to 2 type the first one is investment business and trading business which is no asset to support. for the business that passed some investing is disconnect from main electric trading operation , and natural gas such as the investment to build Dabhol power plant in India , investment of water business and Broad band Communication which affected to create obligation 9 billion dollar . the accounting is not detected, although the account must be checking from auditor such as andersen company which is 1 of 5 biggest company leading the world , and resource is not public and reveal for normal people and shareholder, in addition the governent that should have to checking the account , they are not come to checking anythings of enrom company , even the analyst told that the account is not transparent because many politician from Governments and parliaments has good relationship with enron, from past enron spend a lot of money to help the politician , enron also have a position to set the National energy policy , with the U.S. Vice President (Dick Cheney).

Theory 

 according to russell powell of Seattle University School of Law. talking that analyzes the trial of Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay, including an empirical analysis of jury comments made after the trial. The study indicates that the jury was influenced by the scope of the Enron collapse and its impact on employees, in particular. I argue that if juries (or judges) are influenced by the magnitude of harm caused by fraudulent, disloyal behavior, especially when it impacts large numbers of working and middle-class employees, it is likely that the same factors will impact the outcome of derivative suits claiming breaches in fiduciary duties brought against officers and perhaps even directors. If concern for employees and communities plays a role in deliberation of federal fraud charges, it may play a role in civil fiduciary duty suits even when the only factual question concerns duties owed to shareholders. Officers and directors who want to avoid personal liability for alleged duty violations may choose to consider impact on corporate stakeholders, especially employees. This appears consistent with stakeholder and related models for corporate governance advocating that corporate fiduciaries should be able to consider the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders in making business decisions.

 Conclusion 

 Enron company is the biggest one of electronic business fortune 400 , in longtime ago but for now is the company that have a lot of bankruptcy there are no transparent about the accounting, and shareholder doesn't know the financial statement, the bankruptcy is affected to other company and many employees of enron . but this cause is not make a problem to the global energy .

CASE: HOW SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS THINK GLOBAL

Background:  

Companies that embrace the mission of social entrepreneurship utilize business practices in the solution of societal evils, the concept of building a profitable business model in which doing good is an essential part of the business and not just a philanthropic sideline has grown in popularity, especially in light of turbulence in the global economy. Both governments and the private sector have been searching for innovative ways to bring back prosperity, and many regard these entrepreneurs as a powerful tool for change. Social enterprises are born global for three reasons. First, social problems exist on a large scale in many developing countries. Second, the resources (funds, institutions, and governance systems) are mainly in the developed world. Third, global for-profit social enterprises that tackle specific conditions can often be adapted to other similar countries and situations.

 

Problems:

Social problems exist on a large scale in many developing countries.    

Theories:

Contemporary writers in management and business have presented a wide range of theories of entrepreneurship. Many of the leading thinkers remain true to the Say-Schumpeter tradition while offering variations on the theme. For instance, in his attempt to get at what is special about entrepreneurs, Peter Drucker starts with Say’s definition, but amplifies it to focus on opportunity. Drucker does not require entrepreneurs to cause change, but sees them as exploiting the opportunities that change (in technology, consumer preferences, social norms, etc.) creates. He says, “This defines entrepreneur and entrepreneurship—the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity.” The notion of “opportunity” has come to be central to many current definitions of entrepreneurship. It is the way today’s management theorists capture Say’s notion of shifting resources to areas of higher yield. An opportunity, presumably, means an opportunity to create value in this way. Entrepreneurs have a mind-set that sees the possibilities rather than the problems created by change.

 

Conclusion:

Social entrepreneurs are the entrepreneurs who “recognize that a part of society is stuck and provide new ways to get it unstuck” They act as change agents in the social sector: they innovate and act according to the desire to create and sustain social value and consider themselves to be accountable “to the constituencies they serve for the outcomes they achieve”. In short, they are “one species within the genus ‘entrepreneur’. They are entrepreneurs with a social mission” Such a definition captures a whole spectrum of social entrepreneurial activity, however, not all of which needs to be either generating revenues or growing and making an economic as well as social contribution over the long term.

       

Reference:

J. Gregory Dees1 (October 31, 1998). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”

 Stanford University, America.

Y DANIEL J. ISENBERG (December 2008). The Global Entrepreneur.

 Best Practice, USA.

Bosma, N.S.; Levie, J. (2009). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 Executive Report.

Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, USA. 

Paul C. Light (2006). Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship, Stanford Social Innovation Review, America.