Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

High-tech founds need not sacrifice the moral high ground to achieve success

Sam Bankman-Fried

FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried showed what can happen when a high-tech entrepreneur does not practice good governance.

Gotham/GC Images via Getty Images

Pruthi is an associate professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University. She is also the lead author of “Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation” and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

Sam Bankman-Fried, co-founder and former CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, was convicted in November on seven criminal counts after a month-long trial following the company’s collapse last year. Specifically, Bankman-Fried was convicted of forging financial statements to steal $10 billion deposited by customers in FTX so he could finance political contributions, venture capital investments and luxury real estate purchases.

His misconduct is not to be confused with the mistakes early-stage founders are prone to making. Ethical and responsible governance based on accountability to stakeholders and transparency of information is the hallmark of a liberal and democratic civil society and political system. Yet, in this age of rapidly growing high-tech start-ups, inadvertent breaches of corporate governance are likely to become more rampant unless founders understand the importance of full disclosure and take the lead in ensuring compliance with the ethical and legal code.


The liabilities of newness and smallness along with high personal investments of time, money and energy present difficult trade-offs at critical junctures in the lives of new ventures. Founders’ relative lack of awareness of the law coupled with pressures from stakeholders including co-founders, competitors, investors, governments and even their own families, make them especially vulnerable to ethical and legal misconduct.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The challenge of sudden growth, coupled with pressing capacity constraints, often causes burnout leading to a possible faux pas. Bankman-Fried worked more than 10 hours a day during the 2021 bull market, overseeing several parts of the company. FTX’s difficulties of opening a bank account and its reliance on Alameda Research, another of Bankman-Fried’s companies, to deposit funds are well known. While these operational gaffes may serve as warning signs to other start-ups of the dangers of the lack of attention, clearly it was far more than just negligence in the case of Bankman-Fried.

Safeguarding against misconduct is important to avoid heavy penalties and the loss of credibility – but it can even threaten entrepreneurial firms’ very existence in the extreme. Theranos, a private healthcare and life sciences company based in Palo Alto, California, is a case in point. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, co-founder Elizabeth Holmes defrauded doctors, patients, and investors by making false claims about her company’s ability to provide accurate and reliable blood tests and results. Once a rising icon of success, Holmes was convicted in 2022 and sentenced to 11 years in prison for her actions.

Early-stage ventures are not the sole violators of the ethical and legal code; their more established counterparts are as guilty. Elon Musk’s electric vehicle maker, Tesla, has been fined for air quality violations, criticized for alleged child labor involvement in its supply chain, and disproportionate director’s pay and poor tax conduct, and sued for widespread and ongoing racial abuse of its Black employees at one of its manufacturing plants. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general sued Jeff Bezos’ Amazon for using unfair strategies to stop rivals and sellers from lowering their prices and maintaining monopoly power. Amazon allegedly made $1 billion by using a secret algorithm to raise its prices while still staying lower than its competitors.

To say that dealing with governance in entrepreneurial firms has been sidestepped would be misleading. While state agencies work tirelessly to ensure compliance with the law, fast-growing start-ups draw inspiration from their publicly listed counterparts to train employees and institute written codes of conduct. Yet formal mechanisms have not prevented companies from violating the very principles they have espoused.

Google’s famous “Don’t Be Evil” tagline did not deter co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page from partnering with the Chinese government to sell Google Analytics in that country despite the government previously imposing strict censorship requirements on Google’s search engine technology. No surprise that the “Don’t be Evil” stand has since gone missing from Google’s Code of Conduct.

The question of reawakening the consciousness of the entrepreneurial firm remains. The onus is on the individual founder to promote a strong ethical culture and lead by example. Creating and sustaining flat, non-hierarchical organizations, and building trust, transparency, and open communication with stakeholders are informal safeguards that founders can usefully combine with more formal mechanisms to ensure accountability. Exponential growth of the entrepreneurial firm need not come at the expense of compromising integrity so long as the conscientious founder is truly serious about treading the moral high ground.

Read More

Mark Zuckerberg holding a pair of glasses

Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth more than $200 billion, shows off new wearabel tech at the Meta Connect developer conference in September.

Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images

We have extreme inequality in America, and it’s getting worse

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

Bloomberg recently reported that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is now worth over $200 billion. He’s not alone. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, and LVMH founder Bernard Arnault are also worth north of $200 billion.

The news is a searing reminder of the uneven distribution of wealth in America. In the same country as Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk reside millions of people without a reliable source of food. (Arnault lives in France.) Redistributing just a small portion of the richest Americans’ wealth could alleviate tremendous human suffering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mobile phone listing Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft

Like black holes, the largest companies have a reach seemingly exceeds human capabilities, writes Frazier.

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Corporate black holes prevent fair play in the U.S. economy

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

NASA defines a black hole as “a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out.” This celestial abnormality can even distort space-time. Though invisible to the human eye, a black hole is detectable by the extent to which everything around it is morphed to its will.

The same is true of our biggest corporations. The total reach of companies like Amazon, Meta and Google seemingly exceeds human capabilities. Yet, the extent to which our laws, culture and daily lives revolve around these corporate black holes reveals a hard truth: Fair play does not characterize our economy. The best ideas may never come to fruition and the smartest people may never realize their potential — they lack the escape velocity necessary to operate beyond the pull of the black holes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less