Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Strength of an Accounting Firm’s Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors’ Judgments

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the impact of the strength of an accounting firm’s ethical environment (presence and reinforcement vis-à-vis the presence of a code of conduct) on the quality of auditor judgment, across different levels of audit expertise. Using a 2 × 2 full factorial ‹between subjects’ experimental design, with audit managers and audit seniors, the impact of different levels of strength of the ethical environment on auditor judgments was assessed with a realistic audit scenario, requiring participants to make judgments in respect of an inventory writedown. Based on prior research, and as hypothesized, participants possessing greater auditing experience made higher quality technical judgments. While there were no significant differences between the quality of audit judgments made by participants in the stronger ethical environment, over-all results indicate that managers are more sensitive to differences in the strength of the ethical environment than seniors. This is consistent with the hypothesis, and with prior research which suggests that the impact of the code will only be significant if it has been bilaterally internalized by individuals. This has important implications for accounting firms and regulators, given that the International Standard on Quality Control 1, requires the communication and reinforcement of ethical principles as part of firms' quality control processes. It suggests that firms will need to carefully consider the means by which they communicate and reinforce ethical principles, as it is possible to differentially impact auditors of different rank.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AASB:

Australian Accounting Standards Board

APES:

Accounting and Professional Ethical Standard

APESB:

The Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board

AQRB:

Audit Quality Review Board Limited

ASA:

Australian Auditing Standard

CPA:

Certified Practising Accountant

IAASB:

International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board

ICAC:

Independent Commission Against Corruption (1998) of New South Wales, Australia

IFAC:

International Federation of Accountants

ISA:

International Standard on Auditing

References

  • Abdolmohammadi, M., & Wright, A. (1987). An Examination of the Effects of Experience and Task Complexity on Audit Judgments. Accounting Review, 62(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Accounting Professional and Ethical Standard Board, Accounting Professional and Ethical Standard APES 320 ‹Quality Control for Firms’, May 2006

  • Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board, Accounting Professional and Ethical Standard APES 110 ‹Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’, June 2006

  • Adams, B.L., Malone, F.L., & James, W. (1995). Confidentiality Decisions: The Reasoning Process of CPAs in Resolving Ethical Dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 1015–1020. doi:10.1007/BF00872117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, U., L. Koonce and G. Marchant: 1994, The Effects of Source Competence Information and Its Timing on Auditors’ Performance of Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13(1), 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B.H., & Maletta, M. (1994). Auditor Attendance to Negative and Positive Information: The Effect of Experience-Related Difference. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, U., & Wright, W.F. (1988). Expertise and Explanation Effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 250–269. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(88)90015-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, V., Lampe, J.C., & Sutton, S.G. (1999). Understanding the Factors Underlying Ethical Organisations: Enabling Continuous Ethical Improvement. Journal of Applied Business Research, 15, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, V., Lampe, J.C., & Sutton, S.G. (2000). Creating an Ethically Driven Organisation: A Model for Fostering an Epidemic of Ethical Intensity. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 3, 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, R. (1992). Effects of Justification and a Mechanical Aid on Judgment Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance, 52(1), 292–306. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90040-E

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, R.H., Kleinmuntz, D.N., Sullivan, J.B., & Tomassini, L.A. (1989). Audit Decision Making. In: I. Soloman, A.R. Abdel-Khalik (eds), Research Opportunities in Auditing: The Second Decade (pp. 95–132). American Accounting Association: Auditing Section.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, R.H., & Kramer, S.S. (1980). Students as Surrogates in Behavioural Accounting Research: Some Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 1–15. doi:10.2307/2490389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, Australian Auditing Standard ASA 220 ‹Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information’, June 2007

  • Audit Quality Review Board Limited (AQRB): ‹Second Report on the Quality of Auditors Performed by Participating Auditors of Public Interest Entities’, www.aqrb.org.au, May 2008

  • Australian Accounting Standards Board, Accounting Standard AASB 102 ‹Inventories’, May 2007

  • Barnett, T., & Vaicys, C. (2000). The Moderating Effect of Individuals’ Perceptions of Ethical Work Climate on Ethical Judgments and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 351–362. doi:10.1023/A:1006382407821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beu, D., & Buckley, M.R. (2001). The Hypothesized Relationship between Accountability and Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 57–73. doi: 10.1023/A:1011957832141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, S.F., Mock, T.J., & Watkins, P.R. (1988). Auditors Use of Analytical Review in Audit Program Design. Accounting Review, 63(1), 148–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. E. and B. L. Lewis: 1990, ‹Determinants of Auditor Expertise’, Journal of Accounting Research 28(Suppl), 1–20. doi: 10.2307/2491243

  • Booth, P., & Schulz, A.K.D. (2004). The Impact of an Ethical Environment on Managers’ Project Evaluation Judgments under Agency Problem Conditions. Accounting Organizations and Society, 29, 473–488. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00012-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A.P., Dukerich, J.M., Brown, P.R., & Brett, J.F. (1996). What’s Wrong with the Treadway Commission Report? Experimental Analyses of the Effects of Personal Values and Codes of Conduct on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 183–198. doi: 10.1007/BF00705586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckless, F.A., & Ravenscroft, S.P. (1990). Contrast Coding: A Refinement of ANOVA in Behavioral Analysis. Accounting Review, 65(4), 933–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchman, T., Tetlock, O., & Reed, R. (1996). Accountability and Auditors’ Judgment About Contingent Events. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 23(3), 379–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5957.1996.tb01128.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charters, W.W. Jr, & Newcomb, T.M. (1958). Some attitudinal effects of experimentally increased salience of a membership group. In: E.E. Maccoby, T.M Newcomb, E.L. Hartley, (eds), Readings in social psychology 3rd Edition (pp. 1–2). New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A.Y.S., Sawyers, R.B., & Williams, P.F. (1997). Reinforcing Ethical Decision Making Through Corporate Culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 855–865. doi: 10.1023/A:1017953517947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleek, M.A., & Leonard, S.L. (1998). Can Corporate Codes of Ethics Influence Behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 619–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Trompeter, G.M. (1997). Babyboomers Inc. Issues in Accounting Education, 12(2), 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, S., Helton-Fauth, W., & Mumford, M.D. (2004). A Managerial In-Basket Study of the Impact of Trait Emotions on Ethical Choice. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 245–267. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000032494.51162.d3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuccia, A., Hackenbrack, D., & Nelson, M. (1995). The Ability of Professional Standards to Mitigate Aggressive Reporting. Accounting Review, 70, 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, L. (1981). Auditor Independence, “Low Balling” and Disclosure Regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3, 183–199. doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeZoort, T., Harrison, P., & Taylor, M. (2006). Accountability and Auditors’ Materiality Judgments: The Effects of Differential Pressure Strength on Conservatism, Variability and Effort. Accounting Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 373–390. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2005.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaa, J. C.: 1994, ‹The Ethical Foundation of Public Accounting’, Research Monograph 22 (Canada Research Foundation, Vancouver, CGA).

  • Hackenbrack, V., & Nelson, M. (1996). Auditors’ Incentives and Their Applications of Financial Accounting Standards. Accounting Review, 71, 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herron, T.L., & Gilbertson, D.L. (2004). Ethical Principles vs. Ethical Rules: The Moderating of Moral Development on Audit Independent Judgements. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(3), 499–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, V.B., & Patton, J.M. (1997). Accountability, the Dilution Effect, and Conservatism in Auditors’ Fraud Judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 227–237. doi: 10.2307/2491362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Standard on Quality Control (ISQC) 1, ‹Quality Control for Firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of Historical Financial Information, and Other Assurance and Related Services Engagements’, 2007 Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance and Ethics Pronouncements.

  • International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 220, ‹Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information’, 2007 Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance and Ethics Pronouncements

  • Jones, J., Massey, D.W., & Thorne, L. (2003). Auditors’ Ethical Reasoning: Insights From Past Research and Implications for the Future. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 45–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karcher, J.N. (1996). Auditors’ Ability to Discern the Presence of Ethical Problems. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(10), 1033–1050. doi: 10.1007/BF00412045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1955). Salience of membership and resistance to change of group-anchored attitudes. Human Relations, 8, 275–290. doi: 10.1177/001872675500800303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., Margheim, L., & Pattison, D. (1999). Survey on the Differential Effects of Time Deadline Pressure Versus Time Budget Pressure on Auditor Behavior. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 15(4), 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, C.A. 1971, “The Psychology of Commitment: Experiment Linking Behavior to Belief”, New York and London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koonce, L., Anderson, U., & Marchant, G. (1995). Justification of Decisions in Auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 33(2), 369–384. doi: 10.2307/2491493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogstad, J.L., R.T. Ettenson and J. Shanteau: 1984, “Context and Experience in Auditors’ Materiality Judgments”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 4(1), 54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laczniak, G.R., & Inderrieden, E.J. (1987). The Influence of Stated Organizational Concern Upon Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(4), 297–307. doi: 10.1007/BF00382939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton, B., Mihalek, P.H., & Smith, C.S. (2005). The Tone at the Top and the Ethical Conduct Connection. Strategic Finance, 86(9), 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J.M. (2000). The Ability of Internal Auditors to Identify Ethical Dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4), 401–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1006150718834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R., & Luft, J. (1993). Determinants of Judgment Performance in Accounting Settings: Ability, Knowledge, Motivation and Environment. Accounting Organizations and Society, 18(5), 425–450. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(93)90040-D

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R., & Tan, H. (1994). Modelling the Determinants of Audit Expertise. Accounting Organizations and Society, 19(8), 701–716. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(94)90030-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K.Z., Fraser, I.A.M., & Hatherly, D.J. (2003). Auditor Analytical Review Judgment: A Performance Evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 35, 19–34. doi: 10.1016/S0890-8389(02)00107-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinov, N.: 2004, ‹An Investigation of the Moral Intensity Construct on Auditors’ Decision Making and Independence’, PhD Thesis, UNSW

  • Noreen, E. (1988). The Economics of Ethics: A New Perspective on Agency Theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 13, 359–369. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(88)90010-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, D.M., R.A. Leitch and D.H. Wedell: 2004, “The Effects of Immediate Context on Auditors’ Judgements of Loan Quality,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 23(1), 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peecher, M.: 1996, `The Influence of Auditors' Justification Processes on Their Decisions: A Cognitive Model and Experimental Evidence', Journal of Accounting Research 34(1), 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflugrath, G., Martinov-Bennie, N., & Chen, L. (2007). The Impact of Codes of Ethics and Experience on Auditor Judgments. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(6), 566–589. doi: 10.1108/02686900710759389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pincus, K.V. (1991). Audit Judgment Confidence. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 3, 39–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, R.J. (1994). Senior/Manager Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(1), 127–135. doi: 10.2307/2491391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckers, P.M.J., & Wong-On-Wing, B. (1991). Management’s Motive and Its Effect on Selected Audit Decisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 3, 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. (1997). Personal Responsibility: Applications of the Triangle Model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 241–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M.S. (2004). Effective Corporate Codes of Ethics: Perceptions of Code Users. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 323–343. doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-2169-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, S.W. (1999). The Effect of Experience on the use of Irrelevant Evidence in Auditor Judgment. Accounting Review, 74(2), 217–224. doi: 10.2308/accr.1999.74.2.217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, P. H., O’Shaughnessy, J., & Rigsby, J.T. (1995). A Re-examination of the Internal Auditors’ Code of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(11), 949–957. doi: 10.1007/BF00882073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, I. and C. Brown: 1992, ‹Auditors’ Judgments and Decisions Under Time Pressure: An Illustration and Agenda for Research’, Proceedings of the 1992 Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems, pp. 73–98.

  • Tan, H.-T. (1995). Effects of Expectations, Prior Involvement, and Review Awareness on Memory for Audit Evidence and Judgment. Journal of Accounting Research, 33(1), 113–135. doi: 10.2307/2491295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueker, W.C., A.P. Brief and W.R, Jr, Kinney. (1981). Perceptions of the Internal and External Auditor as Deterrent to Corporate Irregularities. Accounting Review, 56, 465–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, A.L., Hillison, W., & Morecroft, S.E. (2004). Audit Quality: A Synthesis of Theory and Empirical Research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 23, 153–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Y.: 1982, `Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View', Academy of Management Review 7(3), 418–428.

  • Wotruba, T.R., Chonko, L.B., & Loe, T.W. (2001). The Impact of Ethics Code Familiarity on Manager Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 59–69. doi: 10.1023/A:1011925009588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W.F.: 2001, “Task Experience as a Predictor of Superior Loan Loss Judgments”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 20(1), 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Nonna Martinov-Bennie

  2. The University of New South Wales , Sydney, Australia

    Gary Pflugrath

Authors
  1. Nonna Martinov-Bennie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary Pflugrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nonna Martinov-Bennie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martinov-Bennie, N., Pflugrath, G. The Strength of an Accounting Firm’s Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors’ Judgments. J Bus Ethics 87, 237–253 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9882-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9882-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation