Call of Duty: A Framework for Auditors’ Ethical Decisions

  • Michael K. ShaubEmail author
  • Robert L. Braun
Part of the Advances in Business Ethics Research book series (ABER, volume 4)


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.


Public Interest Audit Committee Audit Firm Accounting Profession Accounting Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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
  2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 1986. Restructuring professional standards to achieve professional excellence in a changing environment. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2012a. Code of professional conduct. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2012b. Codification of statements on auditing standards. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  5. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 2012c. CPA vision 2025. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  6. American Medical Association. 2011. Principles of medical ethics, AMA code of medical ethics. Available at Downloaded 18 Sept 2011.
  7. Aristotle. 1925. Nichomacean ethics. Trans. D. Ross. New York: Oxford University Press. Book II Chapter 3. 1103a–1103b.Google Scholar
  8. Auditing Practices Board. 2010. Auditor scepticism: Raising the bar (August). London: Financial Reporting Council. Downloaded 7 Dec 2012.
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bebeau, M.J., and S.J. Thoma. 1999. Intermediate concepts and the connection to moral education. Educational Psychology Review 11(4): 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryan-Low, C. 2003. KPMG didn’t register strategy. The Wall Street Journal, November 17: C1–C9.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Carey, J., and W. Doherty. 1966. Ethical standards of the accounting profession. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Google Scholar
  16. Carr-Saunders, A.M., and P.A. Wilson. 1933. The professions. Ann Arbor: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Center for Audit Quality. 2012. Audit committee annual evaluation of the external auditor (October) New York: Center for Audit Quality. Downloaded 7 Dec 2012.
  18. 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
  19. Deloitte. 2010. Sustainability reporting: The emerging challenge. New York: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.Google Scholar
  20. Deloitte. 2012. Committed to quality: Deloitte LLP 2012 transparency report (July). New York: Deloitte LLP. Downloaded 16 Aug 2012.
  21. Department of Justice. 2002. Deputy attorney general transcript news conference Arthur Andersen indictment (March 14, 2002), DOJ Conference Center. Downloaded 17 Aug. 2012.
  22. Deutsch, M. 1962. Cooperation and trust: Some notes. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, ed. M.R. Jones. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Frankel, M. 1989. Professional codes: Why? How? And with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics 8: 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenwood, E. 1957. Attributes of a profession. Social Work 2: 44–55.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, W. 1988. What does it take to be an auditor? Journal of Accountancy 165(1): 72–80.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Houghton, C., and J. Fogarty. 1991. Inherent risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  34. Hunt, S.D., and S.J. Vitell. 1986. A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing 6: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurtt, R.K. 2010. Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 29(1): 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2003. Rebuilding public confidence in financial reporting: An international perspective. New York: International Federation of Accountants.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2010. IFAC code of ethics for professional accountants. New York: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Johnson, S. 2009. Deloitte to PCAOB: Don’t second-guess us. (April 21). Available at Downloaded 24 Jan 2012.
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Kee, H., and R. Knox. 1970. Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 14: 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kennedy, J., and M.E. Peecher. 1997. Judging auditors’ technical knowledge. Journal of Accounting Research 35(2): 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Knapp, M.C. 2004. Contemporary auditing: Real issues and cases, 5th ed. Mason: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
  50. Libby, T., and L. Thorne. 2007. The development of a measure of auditors’ virtue. Journal of Business Ethics 71: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacIntyre, A. 1984. After virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mautz, R.K., and H.A. Sharaf. 1961. The philosophy of auditing. Sarasota: American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
  53. McAllister, D.J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38: 24–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mintz, S. 1995. Virtue ethics and accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education 10(2): 247–267.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pincoffs, E. L. 1986. Quandaries and virtues: Against reductionism in ethics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  57. Prentice, R., and J. Koehler. 2003. A normality bias in legal decision making. Cornell Law Review 88: 583–650.Google Scholar
  58. 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 Downloaded 24 Jan 2012.
  59. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. 2011b. Concept release no. 2011–006: Concept release on auditor Independence and audit firm rotation (August 16). Available at Downloaded 24 Jan 2012.
  60. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. 2012. Staff audit practice alert no. 10: Maintaining and applying professional skepticism in audits (December 4). Available at Downloaded 10 Dec 2012.
  61. Public Oversight Board Panel on Audit Effectiveness. 2000. Report and recommendations. Stamford: Public Oversight Board.Google Scholar
  62. 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 or doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1478105
  63. Rachels, J. 1986. The elements of moral philosophy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  64. Rest, J.R. 1979. Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Rest, J.R. 1986. Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. Securities and Exchange Commission. 1999. SEC staff accounting bulletin no. 99: Materiality. Available online at
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shaub, M.K. 2005. Materialism and materiality. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 2(4): 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. Shaub, M.K., and J.E. Lawrence. 2002. A taxonomy of auditors’ professional skepticism. Research on Accounting Ethics 8: 167–194.Google Scholar
  79. Sommers, C.H. 1993. Teaching the virtues. The Public Interest 111: 3–13.Google Scholar
  80. Sonnenfeld, J. 2002. What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review 80: 106–113.Google Scholar
  81. Stuebs, M. 2010. Moral confrontation: An essential companion to moral imagination. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 14: 57–78.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Terrell, T.P., and J.H. Wildman. 1992. Rethinking professionalism. Emory Law Journal 41: 403–405.Google Scholar
  84. 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
  85. 2012. “Trusted Business Advisor” trademark record. Available at Downloaded 15 Aug 2012.
  86. U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co. 1984. 465 U.S. 805, pp. 817–818.Google Scholar
  87. Westra, L.S. 1986. Whose “loyal agent? Towards an ethic of accounting. Journal of Business Ethics 5(2): 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Mays Business SchoolTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Accounting and Finance, College of BusinessSoutheastern Louisiana UniversityHammondUSA

Personalised recommendations