I believe the word “is” is missing from the first sentence, between the words ‘risks’ and ‘creating’. But that may depend on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. :)
What nonsense from both PwC and London School. One would think that they would be promoting swift and sure punishment for those who break laws & or compromise their ethics. But of course they both “earn” their income{retainers, endowments} from these financial wrongdoers and are themselves compromised!
The article is comparing unethical behavior when negative consequences or punishment for poor performance are highlghted and innovative behavior when positive outcomes of success were highlighted? I guess you can’t be unethical if you are innovative? Is that how businessmen and politicians justify their behavior? “I’m being innovative; so, I cannot be unethical!”
I believe the word “is” is missing from the first sentence, between the words ‘risks’ and ‘creating’. But that may depend on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. :)
What nonsense from both PwC and London School. One would think that they would be promoting swift and sure punishment for those who break laws & or compromise their ethics. But of course they both “earn” their income{retainers, endowments} from these financial wrongdoers and are themselves compromised!
The article is comparing unethical behavior when negative consequences or punishment for poor performance are highlghted and innovative behavior when positive outcomes of success were highlighted? I guess you can’t be unethical if you are innovative? Is that how businessmen and politicians justify their behavior? “I’m being innovative; so, I cannot be unethical!”