Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 213–227 | Cite as

Auditors' Willingness to Advocate Client-Preferred Accounting Principles

  • William E. Shafer
  • Alice A. Ketchand
  • Roselyn E. Morris
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that independent auditors have lost sight of their obligation to be truly impartial, and have increasingly adopted an attitude of client advocacy. We argue that auditors have a professional obligation to go beyond merely passing judgment on whether client accounting methods are acceptable under GAAP, and to judge whether the principles adopted are the most appropriate under the circumstances. We then review recent evidence which suggests that auditors have abandoned this objective in favor of advocating client-preferred principles. The results of a survey of public accountants employed by small CPA firms indicates that, in a scenario in which an auditor did not feel that the client's accounting treatment was the most appropriate under the circumstances but it was recognized as an acceptable alternative under GAAP, advocacy of the client-preferred approach is considered appropriate and is very likely to occur in practice. In less subtle cases (e.g., when the auditor did not feel that the client's treatment provided the best reflection of the economic substance of the underlying transactions), survey participants as a group were ambivalent regarding the appropriateness of client advocacy, and felt that subordination of judgment was likely to occur in practice. The results also indicate that engagement risk, or the risk that the firm will be harmed by aggressive behavior, affects judgments of both the appropriateness and likelihood of subordination of judgment. These findings suggest that auditors have adopted an ideology of client advocacy, within the constraints of engagement risk.

subordination of judgment auditor independence client advocacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Advisory Panel on Auditor Independence: 1994, Strengthening the Professionalism of the Independent Auditor. Report to the Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, AICPA. Stamford, CT: Public Oversight Board.Google Scholar
  2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 2002a, Professional Standards, Volumes 1 and 2 (New York, NY: AICPA).Google Scholar
  3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 2002b, Annual Report 2001-2002. New York, NY: AICPA. Available at www.aicpa.org.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, D. F. Sr., R. A. Bernardi and P. E. Neidermeyer: 1999, 'The Effect of Independence on Decisions Concerning Additional Audit Work: A European Perspective', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18(Suppl): 45–67.Google Scholar
  5. Brewster, M.: 2003, Unaccountable: How the Accounting Profession Forfeited a Public Trust (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J., L. Pant and D. Sharp: 1995, 'Measuring the Ethical Awareness and Ethical Orientation of Canadian Auditors', Behavioral Research in Accounting 8(Suppl): 98–119.Google Scholar
  7. Doucet, M. S. and K. L. Hooks: 1999, 'Toward an Equal Future', Journal of Accountancy 187(6)(June): 71–76.Google Scholar
  8. Farmer, T., L. Rittenberg and G. Trompeter: 1987, 'An Investigation of the Impact of Economic and Organizational Factors on Auditor Independence', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 6 (Fall): 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, 'A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing', Journal of Marketing 49: 87–96.Google Scholar
  10. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB): 2002, Original Pronouncements: Accounting Standards, Volumes 1 and 2 (New York: John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
  11. Gramling, A. A.: 1999, 'External Auditors' Reliance on Work Performed by Internal Auditors: The Influence of Fee Pressure on This Reliance Decision', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18(Suppl): 117–135.Google Scholar
  12. Hackenbrack, K. and M. Nelson: 1996, 'Auditors' Incentives and Their Application of Financial Standards', Accounting Review 71(1)(January): 43–59.Google Scholar
  13. Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, 'A General Theory of Marketing Ethics', Journal of Macromarketing 6: 5–16.Google Scholar
  14. Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1991, 'The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision', in N. C. Smith and J. A. Guelch (eds.), Ethics in Marketing. (Homewood, IL: Irwin), pp. 775–784.Google Scholar
  15. Jenkins, B.: 1999, 'Discussion of The Effect of Independence on Decisions Concerning Additional Audit Work: A European Perspective', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18(Suppl): 75–77.Google Scholar
  16. Kohlberg, L.: 1984, Essays in Moral Development, Volume II: The Psychology of Moral Development (Harper and Row, New York).Google Scholar
  17. Levitt, A.: 1998, The Numbers Game. Address delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York: September 28.Google Scholar
  18. Levitt, A.: 2000, Renewing the Covenant with Investors. Address delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York: May 10.Google Scholar
  19. Levitt, A.: 2002, Take on the Street (New York: Pantheon Books).Google Scholar
  20. MacDonald, E.: 1999, 'SEC Crackdown on Merger Write-Off May Make Some Deals More Difficult', Wall Street Journal (January 4, 1999): A4.Google Scholar
  21. McFadgen, D. N.: 1999, 'Discussion of External Auditors' Reliance on Work Performed by Internal Auditors: The Influence of Fee Pressure on This Reliance Decision', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18(Suppl): 143–146.Google Scholar
  22. Melcher, R.: 1998, 'Where Are the Accountants? Why Auditors End Up Missing So Many Danger Signs', Business Week (October 5): 144–146.Google Scholar
  23. Ponemon, L. and D. L. Gabhart: 1990, 'Auditor Independence Judgments: A Cognitive-Developmental 226 William E. Shafer et al. Model and Experimental Evidence', Contemporary Accounting Research (Fall): 227–251.Google Scholar
  24. Public Oversight Board (POB): 1993, In the Public Interest: A Special Report by the Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, AICPA. Stamford, CT: POB.Google Scholar
  25. Randall, D. M. and M. F. Fernandes: 1991, 'The Social Desirability Bias in Ethics Research', Journal of Business Ethics 10: 805–817.Google Scholar
  26. Ratneshwar, S. and D. W. Stewart: 1989, 'Nonresponse in Mail Surveys: An Integrative Review', Applied Marketing Research 29(3): 37–46.Google Scholar
  27. Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (Praeger, New York).Google Scholar
  28. Salterio, S.: 1996, 'The Effects of Precedents and Client Position on Auditors' Financial Accounting Policy Judgment', Accounting, Organizations and Society 21(5): 467–486.Google Scholar
  29. Salterio, S. and L. Koonce: 1997, 'The Persuasiveness of Audit Evidence: The Case of Accounting Policy Decisions', Accounting, Organizations and Society 22(6): 573–587.Google Scholar
  30. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. United States House of Representatives, 107th Congress.Google Scholar
  31. Schuetze, W.: 1994, 'A Mountain or a Molehill?', Accounting Horizons 8(1): 69–75.Google Scholar
  32. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): 1999a, Materiality. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office).Google Scholar
  33. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): 1999b, Revenue Recognition. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office).Google Scholar
  34. Shafer, W. E., R. E. Morris and A. A. Ketchand: 1999, 'The Effects of Formal Sanctions on Auditor Independence', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. 18(Suppl), 85–101.Google Scholar
  35. Shockley, R. A.: 1982, 'Perceptions of Auditor Independence: A Conceptual Model', Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 5(2): 126–143.Google Scholar
  36. Trevino, L. K., K. D. Butterfield and D. L. McCabe: 1998, 'The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors', Business Ethics Quarterly 8(3): 447–476.Google Scholar
  37. Trompeter, G.: 1994, 'The Effect of Partner Compensation Schemes and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles on Audit Partner Judgment', Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13(2): 56–68.Google Scholar
  38. Weil, J.: 2001, 'Going Concerns: Did Accountants Fail to Flag Problems at Dot-Com Casualties?', Wall Street Journal (February 9): C1–C2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Shafer
    • 1
  • Alice A. Ketchand
    • 2
  • Roselyn E. Morris
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and FinanceLingnan UniversityTuen Mun, NTHong Kong
  2. 2.Sam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, TXHong Kong
  3. 3.Southwest Texas State UniversitySan Marcos, TXHong Kong

Personalised recommendations