From HP and Oracle to Nvidia and Tesla: CEO Ethics and Social Responsibility
Does corporate success exempt a leader from ethical responsibility?
Global capitalism has created enormous wealth through technological innovation and entrepreneurship. Behind that success, however, lies a question we cannot afford to overlook: as the economic power of the chief executives who run the world’s largest companies grows, is their ethical responsibility growing with it?
On the morning of the 12th, Jensen Huang resigned as CEO of Nvidia. Just before that, Elon Musk had said it would be an honor to hire Huang. The episode resembles what happened in 2010, when Larry Ellison of Oracle brought on Mark Hurd right after Hurd resigned as CEO of HP. Both cases ask the same thing. Can managerial ability that grows a company outrank an individual’s ethical responsibility?
A company is an economic organization that pursues profit, but it is also a community woven together from workers, consumers, suppliers, and investors. A CEO’s conduct therefore does not stay in the private sphere. It must be judged as a matter of social responsibility.
1. 2010: HP and Oracle
In August 2010, HP’s board investigated CEO Mark Hurd over a personal relationship with a person connected to an outside contractor, and over inaccuracies in his expense reports. The investigation found no violation of the sexual harassment policy, but it did find violations of the company’s Standards of Business Conduct, and Hurd stepped down as CEO. This is stated in HP’s official announcement.
What happened next deserves attention. Ellison publicly criticized the HP board’s decision and brought Hurd into Oracle as co-president. This is also confirmed in Oracle’s SEC filing.
Here we need to separate two standards of evaluation. One is a manager’s ability and economic performance. The other is whether the person upheld the company’s ethical rules. Outstanding managerial skill does not erase ethical responsibility, and an ethical lapse does not negate all of a person’s expertise. The real question is how seriously the side recruiting that person weighed the ethical responsibility and the effect on the organization.
2. 2026: Nvidia and Musk
On November 8, 2026, Jensen Huang acknowledged in a message to employees that he had been unfaithful to his wife, and apologized. The same day, Nvidia’s board announced it would begin an independent investigation, overseen by a committee of independent directors with outside legal counsel, following reports that Huang had been the target of a foreign intelligence effort. At that point the board said it had no reason to believe that secrets or national security had been compromised.
The matters must be kept distinct. The extramarital relationship is an acknowledged fact. The foreign intelligence matter rests on reports; it is an allegation, and the investigation is ongoing. On the 11th, reports emerged that the board was preparing to remove him, and according to one report Huang had also had a relationship with a senior executive who reported to him. Because it involves power dynamics inside the organization, this cannot be dismissed as a purely private matter.
That very night, Musk replied on X to a post reading “Elon please hire Jensen” with “That would be an honor.” The reply was not a formal job offer, nor was it a blanket defense of Huang’s conduct. Still, as coverage of the exchange shows, it drew attention as a question of talent recruitment among global tech executives. On the morning of the 12th, Huang resigned as CEO, president, and board member, and Nvidia said in an SEC filing that CFO Colette Kress had been appointed interim CEO.
In fairness, this time the board opened an independent investigation, Congress moved, and Huang ultimately stepped down. The checks worked. But a question remains. At the very hour the board was weighing his removal, why did a fellow CEO from the industry reach for the word “honor” first? Even after the resignation, political figures responded by praising his record and floating a successor. Why do global CEOs readily acknowledge a peer’s technical ability and business value, yet fail to demand the same rigor on ethical responsibility? The point is not to judge anyone’s character. It is to question the culture of corporate power.
3. Three Faces of Selective Ethics
The HP–Oracle case and the Nvidia–Musk case are not the same event. But they share a structure: when a CEO is engulfed in an ethics controversy, the chief executive of another company evaluates that person mainly by economic value and managerial ability. This structure produces three problems.
First, economic performance pushes aside ethical responsibility.
An executive who has grown a company is highly valued by the market, but performance cannot stand in for responsibility. If employees are held to strict codes of conduct while the CEO is held to a different yardstick, the fairness of the organization collapses.
Second, the greater the authority, the more favorable the standard applied.
A CEO’s influence is incomparably larger than that of an employee or an ordinary citizen. It follows that demands for conflict-of-interest prevention, transparency, and accountability should rise accordingly. In reality, the larger the success and influence, the greater the resources available to fend off criticism, and social checks tend to weaken.
Third, mutual recognition among corporate powers blurs accountability.
It is normal business practice for executives to recognize one another’s abilities and to recruit talent. It becomes a problem when those relationships work to neutralize ethical scrutiny and weaken the pursuit of accountability. What we should guard against is not personal friendship, but a structure in which economic power evades social checks.
4. Looking at the Structure of Power, Not the Individual Musk
Through Tesla and SpaceX, Musk exerts major influence in electric vehicles, the space industry, and artificial intelligence. His technological innovation and business results deserve recognition. But achievements must not determine the judgment of social responsibility.
What concerns me is less Musk himself than the structure in which he stands: economic and technological power concentrated in the CEOs of giant tech companies; a structure in which profitability and competitive advantage can come before the interests of workers and society; and the question of whether independent checks and accountability on CEOs wielding enormous influence are sufficient.
The greater the economic power, the greater the social responsibility must be. A society in which power grows while responsibility shrinks can hardly be called a healthy market economy.
5. The Market Does Not Judge Morality
On news of Huang’s resignation, Nvidia’s shares fell more than 10%, while in the same market Tesla’s shares surged. On the day Nvidia faltered, the stock of the company whose chief had voiced a willingness to hire him soared.
Of course, share price movements cannot be explained by a single event or a single remark. Markets reflect earnings outlooks, technological competitiveness, industry conditions, interest rates, and investor sentiment together. Even so, this scene reveals something important. Nvidia’s shares did not fall because the market was passing ethical judgment. One Wall Street analyst calculated that Nvidia without Huang is worth 25% less. The market read the resignation not as a matter of morality but as a loss of value. The stock market is a place that assesses a company’s future earnings, not an institution that judges an executive’s morality. A rising share price must therefore not be read as an acceptance of social responsibility.
Capital markets look at profitability, corporate value, managerial efficiency, competitive advantage, and return on investment. Society looks at moral responsibility, trust, fairness within the organization, social impact, and sustainability. Economic success and social legitimacy are separate matters. Even a company that earns high profits can lose public trust if it neglects workers’ rights, business ethics, and transparent governance.
6. Implications for Korean Chaebol
This issue is not confined to American tech companies. In Korea, too, the managerial ability and economic performance of controlling chairmen have often been emphasized. But a company is not the personal property of its chairman. It is an economic community formed by the labor of employees, the capital of shareholders, the technology of suppliers, the trust of consumers, and social infrastructure. The following responsibilities are required of those who control it:
- Ethical responsibility: Consider how one’s conduct affects family, organization, and society.
- Restraint of power: Do not use one’s position and authority for private ends.
- Independent governance: The board must be able to genuinely check the chairman’s judgment.
- Transparent management: Conflicts of interest and ethical problems require independent investigation and explanation.
- Social responsibility: Look beyond profit to the interests of workers, consumers, the nation, and society.
ESG management, too, must not stop at declarations about the environment and society. The accountability of top executives and the transparency of governance must actually be secured. That Nvidia’s board finally acted is both a cautionary tale and a lesson, showing what difference a structure in which a board can truly check power makes.
7. What We Must Guard Against
Should an executive who has grown a company also face strict evaluation of his ethical responsibility? Yes. Economic achievement deserves respect, but it cannot be grounds for exempting anyone from ethical responsibility. Nor is resignation the end of accountability. A U.S. senator has already pointed out that stepping down does not erase responsibility for national security and possible violations of the law.
What worries me more is the possibility that a corporate culture will repeat itself, one that waves through ethical scrutiny on account of economic value and managerial ability. I do not see this merely as the moral failing of a particular businessman. I see it as a structural risk, in which economic power can weaken social checks and accountability.
What we should guard against is not only the one executive caught in controversy. It is the ecosystem of corporate power that covers for the controversy in the name of economic success, then hands enormous power back to him.
In a society where money and power stand in for morality, public trust can collapse even amid prosperity. A CEO’s greatness should be judged not by how much wealth he has accumulated, but by how responsibly he used the power entrusted to him.
What determines the sustainability of capitalism is not the size of capital, but the responsibility of those who wield it.
Peter Yang