Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Call of Duty: A Framework for Auditors’ Ethical Decisions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Accounting for the Public Interest

Part of the book series: Advances in Business Ethics Research ((ABER,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter examines the concept of duty as it applies to audit professionalism. Providing professional literature, examples from practice, and research as support, we assert that duty as an ethical perspective is often subordinated to consequentialist calculations in audit practice. Focus on public interest, a defining attribute of professionalism, tends to fall casualty to self-interested considerations when auditors ignore duty. We explore the concept of professionalism and the roles of duty and virtue in auditing, contrasting them with consequentialism. Then, we examine three obligations of the audit professional—requiring truth-telling, dissenting and confronting, and honestly self-assessing independence and professionalism. Through increased awareness of and attention to duty, auditors may be more able to fulfill their obligations in each of these areas. Making more balanced ethical decisions that are informed by duty could help auditors to maintain professionalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Elsewhere in this volume, Fogarty (2014) provides a complementary analysis of attributes of a profession. The five attributes employed in his chapter correlate highly with the items presented here.

  2. 2.

    Without sensitivity as to the role of duty in a decision context and an understanding of how to incorporate duty into reasoning processes, the auditor cannot reach an appropriate ethical judgment.

  3. 3.

    Auditors are made intellectually aware of their duty as professionals to protect the public interest through accounting education and professional socialization (Frankel 1989).

  4. 4.

    According to Thorne (1998, 298), “… moral virtue is the positive attribute of character which describes an individual’s direct concern for the interests of others despite personal risks (Pincoffs 1986), and ethical motivation describes an individual’s willingness to place the interests of others ahead of his or her own (Rest 1994).” This is the stage at which the auditor assumes the moral duty to protect the public interest.

  5. 5.

    Aristotle (1925, 1103a–1103b) recognizes the importance of ethical behavior in building virtue: “we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” The virtuous person fulfills duties by acting.

  6. 6.

    Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism is the dominant theory in classical economics.

  7. 7.

    Although this chapter focuses on auditors rather than tax accountants, the close professional association between the two groups makes it relevant. For a more detained discussion of professionalism in tax accounting, see Stuebs and Wilkinson’s (2014) chapter in this monograph.

  8. 8.

    Auditing is a systematic process of objectively obtaining and evaluating evidence regarding assertions about economic actions and events to ascertain the degree of correspondence between those assertions and established criteria and communicating the results to interested users (American Accounting Association 1973, 2).

References

  • American Accounting Association. 1973. Studies in accounting research #6: A statement of basic auditing concepts, committee on basic auditing concepts. Sarasota: American Accounting Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association. 2011. Model rules of professional conduct. Available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html. Downloaded 18 Sept 2011.

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 1986. Restructuring professional standards to achieve professional excellence in a changing environment. New York: AICPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2012a. Code of professional conduct. New York: AICPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2012b. Codification of statements on auditing standards. New York: AICPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2012c. CPA vision 2025. New York: AICPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Medical Association. 2011. Principles of medical ethics, AMA code of medical ethics. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page. Downloaded 18 Sept 2011.

  • Aristotle. 1925. Nichomacean ethics. Trans. D. Ross. New York: Oxford University Press. Book II Chapter 3. 1103a–1103b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auditing Practices Board. 2010. Auditor scepticism: Raising the bar (August). London: Financial Reporting Council. http://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/2a1e0146-a92c-4b7e-bf33-305b3b10fcd2/Discussion-Paper-Auditor-Scepticism-Raising-the-Ba.aspx. Downloaded 7 Dec 2012.

  • Bazerman, M.H., K.P. Morgan, and G.F. Loewenstein. 1997. The impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management Review 38(4): 89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M.J. 2002. The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education 31(3): 271–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M.J., and S.J. Thoma. 1999. Intermediate concepts and the connection to moral education. Educational Psychology Review 11(4): 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, R.G., D.J. Lowe, and K. Pany. 2003. Could $51 million be immaterial when Enron reports income of $105 million? Accounting Horizons 17(2): 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan-Low, C. 2003. KPMG didn’t register strategy. The Wall Street Journal, November 17: C1–C9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E. 1791. Letter to a member of the National Assembly. Retrieved February 20, 2013 from Quote it Completely: A World Reference Guide to More than 5,500 Memorable Quotations from Law and Literature, ed. Eugene C. Gerhart at http://books.google.com

  • Carey, J., and W. Doherty. 1966. Ethical standards of the accounting profession. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr-Saunders, A.M., and P.A. Wilson. 1933. The professions. Ann Arbor: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Audit Quality. 2012. Audit committee annual evaluation of the external auditor (October) New York: Center for Audit Quality. http://www.thecaq.org/resources/pdfs/AuditorAssessment.pdf. Downloaded 7 Dec 2012.

  • Dellaportas, S., B. Jackling, P. Leung, and B.J. Cooper. 2011. Developing an ethics education framework for accounting. Journal of Business Ethics Education 8: 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. 2010. Sustainability reporting: The emerging challenge. New York: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. 2012. Committed to quality: Deloitte LLP 2012 transparency report (July). New York: Deloitte LLP. http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AERS/us_aers_transparency_report_committed_to_quality_080312.pdf. Downloaded 16 Aug 2012.

  • Department of Justice. 2002. Deputy attorney general transcript news conference Arthur Andersen indictment (March 14, 2002), DOJ Conference Center. http://www.justice.gov/archive/dag/speeches/2002/031402newsconferncearthurandersen.htm. Downloaded 17 Aug. 2012.

  • Deutsch, M. 1962. Cooperation and trust: Some notes. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, ed. M.R. Jones. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, M., J. Gramlich, and S. Gupta. 2009. Special purpose vehicles: Empirical evidence on determinants and earnings management. The Accounting Review 84(6): 1833–1876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1977. Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 3: 552–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogarty, T. 2014. The bloom is off the rose: Deprofessionalization in public accounting. In Accounting for the public interest: Perspectives on accountability, professionalism and role in society, ed. S. Mintz. 51–72. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. 1989. Professional codes: Why? How? And with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics 8: 109–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins, M.S., S. Salterio, and A. Webb. 2001. Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning clients’ financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 76(December): 535–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, E. 1957. Attributes of a profession. Social Work 2: 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W. 1988. What does it take to be an auditor? Journal of Accountancy 165(1): 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, J., K. Jamal, and H.-T. Tan. 2007. Are auditors overconfident in predicting the knowledge of other auditors? Working paper, University of Hong Kong, University of Alberta, and Nanyang Technological University. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=977362

  • Hatfield, R.C., R.W. Houston, C.M. Stefaniak, and S. Usrey. 2010. The effect of magnitude of audit difference and prior client concessions on negotiation of proposed adjustments. The Accounting Review 85(5): 1647–1668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, C., and J. Fogarty. 1991. Inherent risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.D., and S.J. Vitell. 1986. A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing 6: 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.D., and S.J. Vitell. 1993. The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. In Ethics in marketing, ed. N.C. Smith and J.A. Quelch, 775–784. Homewood: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.D., and S.J. Vitell. 2006. The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and three questions. Journal of Macromarketing 26(2): 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurtt, R.K. 2010. Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 29(1): 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). 2008. Stakeholder expectations of audit. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2003. Rebuilding public confidence in financial reporting: An international perspective. New York: International Federation of Accountants.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2004. International education standard IES 4: Professional values, ethics, and attitudes. New York: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2010. IFAC code of ethics for professional accountants. New York: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2011. Proposed revised international education standard IES 4: Professional values, ethics, and attitudes. New York: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. 2009. Deloitte to PCAOB: Don’t second-guess us. CFO.com (April 21). Available at http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/13524221. Downloaded 24 Jan 2012.

  • Jones, J., D. Massey, and L. Thorne. 2003. Auditors’ Ethical reasoning: Insights from past research and implications for the future. Journal of Accounting Literature 23: 42–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadous, K., and M. Mercer. 2011. Jury verdicts against auditors under precise and imprecise accounting standards. Unpublished working paper, Emory University and DePaul University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kee, H., and R. Knox. 1970. Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 14: 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J., and M.E. Peecher. 1997. Judging auditors’ technical knowledge. Journal of Accounting Research 35(2): 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, L.A., D.G. Fisher, R.L. Braun, and D.L. Swanson. 2012. Learning objectives for ethics education. Accounting Education: An International Journal 21(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M.C. 2004. Contemporary auditing: Real issues and cases, 5th ed. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, T., and L. Thorne. 2007. The development of a measure of auditors’ virtue. Journal of Business Ethics 71: 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. 1984. After virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mautz, R.K., and H.A. Sharaf. 1961. The philosophy of auditing. Sarasota: American Accounting Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D.J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38: 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, S. 1995. Virtue ethics and accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education 10(2): 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M., S. Smith, and Z. Palmrose. 2005. The effect of quantitative materiality approach on auditors’ adjustment decisions. The Accounting Review 80/3(July): 897–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pincoffs, E. L. 1986. Quandaries and virtues: Against reductionism in ethics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, R., and J. Koehler. 2003. A normality bias in legal decision making. Cornell Law Review 88: 583–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. 2011a. Concept release no. 2011–003: Concept release on possible revisions to PCAOB standards related to reports on audited financial statements and related amendments to PCAOB Standards (June 21). Available at http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket034/Concept_Release.pdf. Downloaded 24 Jan 2012.

  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. 2011b. Concept release no. 2011–006: Concept release on auditor Independence and audit firm rotation (August 16). Available at http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket037/Release_2011-006.pdf. Downloaded 24 Jan 2012.

  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. 2012. Staff audit practice alert no. 10: Maintaining and applying professional skepticism in audits (December 4). Available at http://pcaobus.org/Standards/QandA/12-04-2012_SAPA_10.pdf. Downloaded 10 Dec 2012.

  • Public Oversight Board Panel on Audit Effectiveness. 2000. Report and recommendations. Stamford: Public Oversight Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadackers, L., T. Groot, and A. Wright. 2009. Auditors’ skeptical characteristics and their relationship to skeptical judgments and decisions. Working paper, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1478105 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1478105

  • Rachels, J. 1986. The elements of moral philosophy. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R. 1979. Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. 1983. Morality, In Manual of child psychology: Vol. 3, Cognitive development, vol. eds. J. Flavell and E. Markman, gen. ed. P. Mussen, 556–629. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R. 1984. The major components of morality. In Morality, moral behavior and moral development, ed. W. Kurtines and J. Gerwitz, 24–38. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R. 1985. An interdisciplinary approach to moral education. In Moral education: Theory and application, ed. M.W. Berkowitz and F. Oser, 9–25. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R. 1986. Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R. 1994. Background: Theory and research. In Moral development in the professions, ed. J. Rest and D. Narvaez, 1–26. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J.R., D. Narvaez, M.J. Bebeau, and S.J. Thoma. 1999. Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission. 1999. SEC staff accounting bulletin no. 99: Materiality. Available online at http://www.sec.gov

  • Shaub, M.K. 1988. Restructuring the code of professional ethics: A review of the Anderson committee report and its implications. Accounting Horizons 2(December): 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaub, M.K. 1996. Trust and suspicion: The effects of situational and dispositional factors on auditors’ trust of clients. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8: 154–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaub, M.K. 2004. Trust as a threat to independence: Emotional trust, auditor-client interdependence, and their impact on professional skepticism. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 9: 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaub, M.K. 2005. Materialism and materiality. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 2(4): 347–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaub, M.K., and D.G. Fisher. 2008. Beyond agency theory: Common values for accounting ethics education. In Advancing business ethics education, ed. D. Swanson and D. Fisher, 305–328. Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaub, M.K., and J.E. Lawrence. 1996. Ethics, experience, and professional skepticism: A situational analysis. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8(Suppl): 124–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaub, M.K., and J.E. Lawrence. 2002. A taxonomy of auditors’ professional skepticism. Research on Accounting Ethics 8: 167–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, C.H. 1993. Teaching the virtues. The Public Interest 111: 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenfeld, J. 2002. What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review 80: 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuebs, M. 2010. Moral confrontation: An essential companion to moral imagination. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 14: 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuebs, M., and B. Wilkinson. 2014. Professionalizing the tax accounting profession: Fulfilling public-interest reporting responsibilities. In Accounting for the public interest: Perspectives on accountability, professionalism and role in society, ed. S. Mintz. 27–49. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrell, T.P., and J.H. Wildman. 1992. Rethinking professionalism. Emory Law Journal 41: 403–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, L. 1998. The role of virtue in auditors’ ethical decision making: An integration of cognitive-developmental and virtue-ethics perspectives. Research on Accounting Ethics 4: 291–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trademarkia.com. 2012. “Trusted Business Advisor” trademark record. Available at http://www.trademarkia.com/trusted-business-advisor-74034893.html. Downloaded 15 Aug 2012.

  • U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co. 1984. 465 U.S. 805, pp. 817–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westra, L.S. 1986. Whose “loyal agent? Towards an ethic of accounting. Journal of Business Ethics 5(2): 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Michael K. Shaub

  2. Department of Accounting and Finance, College of Business, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA, 70402, USA

    Robert L. Braun

Authors
  1. Michael K. Shaub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert L. Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael K. Shaub .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Acounting & Law, California Polytechnic State University,, San Luis Obispo, California, USA

    Steven Mintz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shaub, M.K., Braun, R.L. (2014). Call of Duty: A Framework for Auditors’ Ethical Decisions. In: Mintz, S. (eds) Accounting for the Public Interest. Advances in Business Ethics Research, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7082-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation