Corporate failure and ethical resources: a case study of Steinhoff and Carillion

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the impact of disregarding ethical resources on company performance, with a particular focus on Carillion and Steinhoff as case studies. A pragmatist research philosophy was employed using a mixed methods approach, utilizing deductive inferencing to produce archival research. Data was collected from annual financial statements and existing literature on Steinhoff and Carillion's corporate failures. Both content analysis and statistical analysis were employed to analyse the data. The study found that both Carillion and Steinhoff were at the top of their respective industries when they began to underperform due to poor governance. On the part of Carillion, much of its failure can be attributed to aggressive bidding, while for Steinhoff, its failure was due to unscrupulous accounting practices. Corruption and fraud at the top echelon of each of these respective companies began to trickle down to the bottom of the hierarchy. Additionally, Steinhoff used a two-tier board system that promotes information asymmetry between a management board and a supervisory board. This gave Steinhoff's management board leverage to manipulate company reports and hide information from the supervisory board. Steinhoff equally violated the board's independence by making former management executives part of the supervisory board, who could potentially be lenient to the management board due to past relationships. This was further exacerbated by the CEO duality, which contributed to Steinhoff's lack of board independence. Furthermore, Steinhoff's board was reported to have served as board members for a long time, eventually leading them to create a group culture that negatively affected its board's independence. Different from Steinhoff, which lacked board independence and board diversity, at face value, Carillion appeared to have a predominantly independent board with diverse experience and external commitments. However, Carillion also lacked board independence in a different way, as some of its board members were previously employed by KPMG. KPMG was also the external auditor of Carillion. This created a scenario where Carillion and KPMG were conniving, which may have affected the objectivity of the external audits on financial performance. Further to this, the CEO held outsized power over the board, which could have also resulted in a lack of independence. This, in turn, facilitated corrupt behaviour within the organisation, which may have contributed to its corporate failure. iv The findings of the study highlight the following three conclusions: i) profits that are premised on reckless, irregular, and fraudulent business and accounting practices are not sustainable; ii) governance structures that do not adhere to sound corporate governance principles result in impaired board independence and negatively affect firm performance; and iii) companies that reach the pinnacle of their success through unethical conduct are ultimately short-lived.