Arthur Andersen, a consulting company, was taken to court for destroying evidence that could have been used in court to support allegations of illegal activities. Arthur Andersen destroyed evidence related to the auditing of Enron to protect both companies from being found guilty of engaging in illegal business practices. Arthur Andersen claimed that it was not trying to destroy incriminating evidence, but was simply destroying records, which is done periodically. Destroying documents is, in fact, routine. The key question is this: “What is being destroyed, and why is it being destroyed?”

1. Is it ethical and socially responsible to delegate the task of destroying documents that may potentially be used as evidence of wrongdoing?

2. What would you do if your boss asked you to destroy documents and you thought the goal was to cover up evidence of wrongdoing by the firm? (Would you just do it? Say nothing but neglect to do it? Question your boss’s motives? Look closely at what you were asked to destroy? Check with your boss’s boss to make sure it’s okay to do it? Tell the boss you will not do it? Tell the boss to do it? Blow the whistle to an outside source?)

3. If you were charged with destroying evidence, do you believe it would be a good defense to say, “I was only following orders”?