No, they absolutely are accountable - theoretically, owners (capitalist mostly) made sure of that, they (SB) hold CEO by their private parts very firmly & they could do a lot to them & even even directly to their personal wealth (in most countries that’s the standard agreement that can be enforced via courts if need be).
But shareholders do what’s best for them & their pov.
So if someone embezzled & they don’t see a clear way to get the money back even paying half a golden parachute can make sense to them (they don’t get extra work, the matter is closed immediately, and CEOs don’t really get paid that much in the context of company/shareholders profits … it’s a different world where CEOs are mere workers and actual workers are factory equipment).
So, CEO are accountable, they just don’t often get held accountable bcs it’s never to, for, or by the public (and pubic values, common morals, etc).
CEOs get held accountable by the SB, the whole point of having a MB is to let them deal with the pleb (“peers”). Shareholders are not the peers of CEOs, it’s a master & dog situation.
A computer can 100% be held accountable. Someone made the decision to put a computer in charge. That person is 100% responsible.
Unless that person leaves and the system they implemented remains
Keep going up and up the chain of command. There is no situation where no one us responsible.
Ok, and you fired him, and the replacement… did they accept all the risk too?
If they accepted the job, absolutely yes. ignorantia juris non excusat.
Well, yes, except not for executives because they’re special. And they have golden parachutes.
But wow if I was to take over some of the VP roles I’ve seen with the risk they accept, there would be years of work just patching shit.
No, they absolutely are accountable - theoretically, owners (capitalist mostly) made sure of that, they (SB) hold CEO by their private parts very firmly & they could do a lot to them & even even directly to their personal wealth (in most countries that’s the standard agreement that can be enforced via courts if need be).
But shareholders do what’s best for them & their pov.
So if someone embezzled & they don’t see a clear way to get the money back even paying half a golden parachute can make sense to them (they don’t get extra work, the matter is closed immediately, and CEOs don’t really get paid that much in the context of company/shareholders profits … it’s a different world where CEOs are mere workers and actual workers are factory equipment).
So, CEO are accountable, they just don’t often get held accountable bcs it’s never to, for, or by the public (and pubic values, common morals, etc).
That’s true, and but the part
Is the “special” part of it. If they were held accountable by their peers, their peers might also be held accountable. Class solidarity in action.
CEOs get held accountable by the SB, the whole point of having a MB is to let them deal with the pleb (“peers”). Shareholders are not the peers of CEOs, it’s a master & dog situation.
Someone should take responsibility. If they don’t want to be responsible, they should not take the job.
That’s how it should be, not how it is