Accountants have a responsibility to present the most truthful and accurate financial pictures of an organization. As auditors, they have a responsibility to evaluate other accountants’ pictures and attest to their truthfulness and accuracy. In doing so, accountants accomplish the purposes of their profession – to meet the needs of the clients or companies for which they work, or to serve the best interests of the stockholders/stakeholders who are entitled to truthful representations of an organization’s financial status.

Individuals have an ethical obligation to perform their jobs. (As we discussed in Chapter 2, the act of accepting a job entails a promise to do that job, and promises should be kept.) Job responsibilities are usually spelled out in a job description, employee handbook, managerial guide book, company code of conduct, and/or, finally, the profession’s code of conduct or ethics.

The accounting profession has developed multiple codes of ethics that set the standards for accountants’ behavior, standards that require more than simply adhering to the letter of the law. We suggest that these sophisticated codes are the equivalent of a binding organizational moral law. Consequently, the codes determine what is ethically required of an accountant. Business Ethics² enumerates six ways that codes of conduct can be valuable:

1. A code can motivate through using peer pressure, by holding up a generally recognized set of behavioral expectations that must be considered in decision making.
2. A code can provide more stable permanent guides to right or wrong than do human personalities or continual ad hoc decisions.
3. Codes can provide guidance, especially in ambiguous situations.
4. Codes not only can guide the behavior of employees, they can also control the autocratic power of employers.
5. Codes can help specify the social responsibilities of business itself.
6. Codes are clearly in the interest of business itself, for if businesses do not police themselves ethically, others will do it for them.

In the United States, there are two major codes for the accounting profession – the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) Code of Professional Conduct, adopted in its current form in 1973, significantly revised in 1988, and updated for all official releases through December 2014,³ and the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) Statement of Ethical Professional Practice, effective July 1, 2017.⁴ Additionally, Texas and other states offer their individual codes and require regular ethics training.

These are also codes for accountants in other countries, the most notable of which is the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, updated in 2009 by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA), which develops ethical standards and guidance for professional accountants. IESBA encourages member bodies to adopt high standards of ethics for their members and promotes good ethical practices globally. The Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB) oversees the work of the IESBA, which also fosters international debate on ethical issues that accountants face. Four of the principles of the IESBA code – integrity, competence, confidentiality, and objectivity – are identical to those in the AICPA code. (The IMA code also addresses the principles of integrity, competence, confidentiality, and objectivity.) The fifth IESBA principle – professionalism – is covered in other areas of the AICPA code.⁵

This chapter examines what constitutes appropriate behavior for accountants. Because we do not have the time or space to examine all accounting codes of conduct, we will concentrate on the AICPA code.

AICPA Professional Code of Conduct

The AICPA Code of Conduct is composed of four sections; the first section is the preface, applicable to all members, it includes the Principles of Professional Conduct. Part 1 of the code lays out the rules for members in public practice. Part 2 of the code presents the rules for members in business and Part 3 of the code includes the rules for all other members. The principles are general norms of behavior, and they provide the framework for the more specific rules. The Council of the AICPA designates bodies to interpret the rules and provide technical standards for them. These interpretations result in Ethical Rulings, which govern specific activities but can also be applied to other similar behavior.

The AICPA code begins by explaining its purpose and scope. It was adopted “to provide guidance and rules to all members in the performance of their professional responsibilities.”⁶ Its purpose, then, is to guide, and its scope encompasses all certified public accountants who belong to the AICPA. It is binding on them and only them. Because, however, the code expresses the “basic tenets of ethical and professional conduct,”⁷ it can serve as a handbook on ethics for all accountants.

The code specifies three constituencies to whom accountants have ethical responsibilities: the public, clients, and colleagues. In the accounting profession, particularly for “public” accountants, the responsibility to the public is paramount. This primary responsibility is different in accounting than in various other professions, such as law and medicine, in which the primary responsibility is to the client or patient. The accountant’s responsibility to the public is so important that it overrides his or her obligations to companies or clients. In the case of an external audit, for example, even though the firm being audited hires and pays the accountant, the accountant’s first responsibility is to those in the public constituency entitled to view the company’s financial statements. This creates an anomalous situation in which the accountant technically is not working for the person or company that pays him or her.

Because accountants have responsibilities to the public, clients, and colleagues, we need to examine all the relationships and the incumbent obligations. Studying the provisions of the AICPA code helps to clarify the various relationships.

Let’s turn now to an examination of the principles in the AIPCA code. Chapter 6 will focus on the rules covered in Parts 1, 2, and 3.

Code Principles

“[The] Principles of the Code … express the profession’s recognition of its responsibilities to the public, to clients, and to colleagues. They guide members in the performance of their professional responsibilities and express the basic tenets of ethical and professional conduct. The Principles call for an unswerving commitment to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage.”⁸ There are six principles, as follows:

The AICPA code explains each of its principles in detail. They are similar to those in most professional codes – service to others, competency, integrity, objectivity and independence, professionalism (including continuing education), and accountability to the profession. Let’s review each of the code principles more fully.

0.300.020.01 – Responsibilities Principle

In carrying out their responsibilities as professionals, members should exercise sensitive professional and moral judgments in all their activities.¹⁵

This principle simply and clearly states that professional responsibilities require moral judgment, thereby equating professional behavior with moral behavior. The interpretation of the principle reads as follows:

As professionals, members perform an essential role in society. Consistent with that role, members of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants have responsibilities to all those who use their professional services. Members also have a continuing responsibility to cooperate with each other to improve the art of accounting, maintain the public’s confidence, and carry out the profession’s special responsibilities for self‐governance. The collective efforts of all members are required to maintain and enhance the traditions of the profession.¹⁶

This paragraph, which notes the essential role that CPAs play in society, has great import. Accountants have a responsibility to “all those who use their professional services.” Here, again, is the anomaly we noted earlier. Most professionals’ prime responsibility is to their clients. Accountants, however, who play a critical role in the free‐market system (see Chapter 2) by providing an organization’s financial picture, have numerous constituencies. Because the scope of their responsibility extends to all those who use the information – data that is essential to doing business – accountants have prima facie responsibilities beyond those to their clients or whoever pays them. Even though Enron paid Arthur Andersen, for example, as an external auditor, Andersen did not work for Enron. Andersen’s primary responsibility was therefore to the general public.

The Responsibilities Principle also indicates the responsibility to cooperate with fellow professionals to maintain the integrity of the accounting profession. As we saw in Chapter 4, one of the obligations of a professional is to the profession itself. Specifically, the principle mentions three obligations: “to improve the art of accounting, maintain the public’s confidence, and carry out the profession’s special responsibilities for self‐governance.”¹⁷

Although the code gives little guidance on the obligation to improve the art of accounting, it pays particular attention to the obligation to maintain the public’s confidence in the profession and the obligation to self‐governance. Chapter 6, which addresses the code rules, will explore these obligations more fully. For now, suffice it to say that critics of the accounting profession – most of whom are accountants themselves – have maintained for years that accounting standards are inadequate for today’s complex financial transactions. Recent accounting scandals have made their inadequacies only too clear. These events have also eroded the public’s confidence in the profession. Thus, it is an ethical imperative that the profession carry out its responsibility for self‐governance. It is arguable that the current practice of peer review is sufficient to fulfill that responsibility.

To meet the moral obligations, according to the Responsibilities Principle, accountants must “exercise sensitive professional and moral judgments.”¹⁸ To do so, they must determine whether an activity harms others, is respectful of others and their rights, is fair, and is in accord with the commitments the accountants have made. Sensitive moral judgment is incompatible with selfish behavior. Thus, accountants are bound by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

0.300.030.01 – The Public Interest Principle

Members should accept the obligation to act in a way that will serve the public interest, honor the public trust, and demonstrate commitment to professionalism.¹⁹

In the interpretation of this principle, the code asserts that “acceptance of its responsibility to the public” is a “distinguishing mark of a profession.”²⁰ That is a somewhat idiosyncratic view. As mentioned above, professions such as law and medicine – even, to an extent, teaching – are clearly client‐oriented. Doctors and lawyers would likely indicate that their first – possibly only – obligation is to their patients or clients (subject only to the constraints of some higher, inviolable moral principle – for example, a lawyer cannot suborn perjury). A distinguishing mark, if not the distinguishing mark, of a public accountant, on the other hand, is that the accountant’s primary obligation is to the public, and in a broader sense to the truth – the accuracy and veracity of the financial statements with which they deal.

The code spells out who is included in the public, naming “clients, credit grantors, governments, employers, investors, the business and financial community and others who rely on the objectivity and integrity of members to maintain the orderly functioning of commerce.”²¹ This principle explains that the public nature of accounting is grounded in the social purpose of the orderly functioning of commerce. Ethical behavior is necessary to the public interest, which is defined as “the collective well‐being of the community of people and institutions the profession serves.”²²

Conflicts of interest between clients and the public, or between employers and the public, are bound to occur. To resolve these conflicts, the code issues this mandate:

In discharging their professional responsibilities, members may encounter conflicting pressures from among each of those groups. In resolving those conflicts, members should act with integrity, guided by the precept that when members fulfill their responsibility to the public, clients’ and employers’ interests are best served.”²³

The code states unequivocally that accountants must act with integrity (we will discuss the Integrity Principle shortly). But what is remarkable is the assertion that fulfilling the responsibility to the public best serves the accountant’s clients or employers.

Is it indeed true that clients’ interests are always best served when accountants fulfill their responsibility to the public? Suppose a client’s business will go bankrupt if the company cannot obtain a loan from the bank, and there will be no loan unless the accountant misrepresents the company’s financial status. According to the code, good ethics is good business; when the accountant tells the truth, everyone will be better off, even if it does not look that way at first glance. But is that realistic? Whether it is or not, the precept is still a powerful normative principle in the heart of the code, one worth looking at, arguing for, and developing.²⁴ Those who rely on certified public accountants expect them to discharge their responsibilities with integrity, objectivity, due professional care, and a genuine interest in serving the public. These are the characteristics the code identifies and the public expects.

To be an AICPA member is to promise or contract to act on behalf of the public interest. All accountants who voluntarily accept membership in the AICPA commit themselves to honor this public trust. But does this commitment apply to accountants who are not AICPA members? We need to look at other grounds to establish nonmembers’ responsibility to the public.

0.300.040.01 – Integrity Principle

To maintain and broaden public confidence, members should perform all professional responsibilities with the highest sense of integrity.²⁵

In the interpretation of the Public Interest Principle, the code calls for members to resolve conflicting pressures with integrity. The Integrity Principle specifies the requirements of that integrity. The code defines integrity as follows:

Integrity is an element of character fundamental to professional recognition. It is the quality from which the public trust derives and the benchmark against which a member must ultimately test all decisions. … [It] requires a member to be, among other things, honest and candid within the constraints of client confidentiality. Service and the public trust should not be subordinated to personal gain and advantage. … [It] is measured in terms of what is right and just.”²⁶

This interpretation is quite general. It identifies integrity as “an element of character that is fundamental to professional recognition,” and it maintains that “the public trust derives” from the recognition of this quality.²⁷ It further identifies integrity as “the benchmark against which a member must ultimately test all decisions.”²⁸ None of this, however, tells us what integrity is.

Clearly, the decision to misrepresent a company’s financial picture or to overlook some red flags in a company’s financial statement violates an accountant’s integrity. But what is the integrity being violated?

The obvious answer is that the misrepresentation involves dishonesty. Indeed, integrity is sometimes equated with honesty. But to stop at that meaning is not enough. Nor is it enough to avow that integrity entails subordinating personal gain and advantage to the public trust or doing what is right and just. Exactly what does all this mean? What sort of character does a person of integrity have?

We need further analysis. To understand integrity as an element of character we must consider what is called virtue or character ethics. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of virtue ethics.) At its most basic, integrity is related to the word “integer,” which refers to whole numbers. Thus, one definition of integrity is “the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.”²⁹ Integrity, therefore, means wholeness, the kind of wholeness referred to as “having it all together.” But what does it take to have it all together? The primary definition of integrity is relevant: “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.”³⁰ But these definitions, while instructive, are still rather vague.

Limiting the concept of integrity simply to being honest is analogous to describing Walt Disney’s story of “Pinocchio”³¹ merely as the tale of a boy whose nose grew when he lied. Certainly, the story tells us not to lie, just as integrity tells us to be honest. But honesty is not a synonym for integrity.Lying and dishonesty are merely symptoms of the lack of integrity, and identifying the lack of integrity only with lying does not embrace the core meaning, any more than Pinocchio’s growing nose is the whole story of “Pinocchio.”

What does the story tell us? Think back. Geppetto creates a special puppet, Pinocchio, who walks and talks by himself. But he is a wooden puppet, not a real boy. To be a real boy, Pinocchio must become morally complete. What does it take for Pinocchio to become “whole, entire, and undiminished” – that is, to achieve integrity – and become a real boy?

First, he must develop a conscience. Since puppets don’t come equipped with consciences, he is given Jiminy Cricket. But Jiminy is external to Pinocchio. With Jiminy, Pinocchio hears from the outside what is right and wrong. The code of conduct, which Jiminy represents, is not yet part of Pinocchio. He needs to internalize that code. Similarly, just learning the rules of a profession is not enough. An accountant must internalize and live by those rules.

In his incomplete state, Pinocchio goes off to school. On the way, he meets Gideon and Honest John (who is anything but honest), who entice Pinocchio to join a puppet show. They promise him fame, convincing him that a puppet who can walk without strings and talk by himself will become an instant celebrity. Pinocchio soon learns, though, that celebrity and fame do not make him complete. As a matter of fact, celebrity and fame entrap Pinocchio when the puppet‐master puts Pinocchio in a cage because he is too valuable to be set free.

Jiminy Cricket helps Pinocchio escape, only to see him lured to Pleasure Island, where he can engage in the self‐centered pursuit of pleasure without restraint. Unrestrained pleasure, however, does not lead to his completeness either. Rather, it turns him into a jackass, including ears and a tail. With Jiminy’s help, Pinocchio flees the island and returns to Geppetto’s workshop.

Meanwhile, Geppetto, who had gone to sea to rescue Pinocchio from Pleasure Island, has been swallowed by a giant whale, Monstro. Pinocchio, with wisdom and self‐control, devises a plan to rescue Geppetto. After the brave and selfless act of entering Monstro’s belly, Pinocchio finally becomes a real boy. He is complete. He has integrity.

The story of Pinocchio illustrates that lying is only a symptom of the lack of integrity. People lie because they are self‐absorbed. They lie to prevent unpleasantness, look better, avoid a harm, or gain an advantage. People with integrity do not need to lie, because their values are sound. Moreover, they have the wisdom to recognize that there is nothing for which they should compromise those values. Individuals with integrity have the courage to live with the consequences of the truth and the self‐assurance to give others their due (justice) without unduly fearing for themselves.

Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, traditional ethical theories have placed a high emphasis on integrity, or wholeness. A person was not whole unless he or she possessed what were called the four cardinal virtues – wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. The individual had integrity only if he or she possessed all four virtues; each virtue required the others.

We can readily apply the lessons of Pinocchio and traditional ethics to accounting. The accountant who is tempted to misrepresent a financial statement or to condone dubious accounting practices must undergo a transformation similar to Pinocchio’s. To be a real professional, the accountant must acquire the virtues of wisdom, justice, self‐control, and courage. The accountant must act with integrity, which is measured in the following terms:

Integrity is measured in terms of what is right and just. In the absence of specific rules, standards, or guidance, or in the face of conflicting opinions, a member should test decisions and deeds by asking: “Am I doing what a person of integrity would do? Have I retained my integrity?” Integrity requires a member to observe both the form and the spirit of technical and ethical standards; circumvention of those standards constitutes subordination of judgment.³²

This passage is subject to individual interpretation. It says, for example, that if there aren’t any specific rules, standards, or guidance, or if there are conflicting opinions, a member should ask, “Am I doing what a person of integrity would do?” The answer should lead to doing what is right and just. Determining what is right and just, however, can be difficult. It seems, therefore, that we are caught in a vicious circle.

There may be a way out. One way is to use the Golden Rule to test the justice and rightness of an action. Propose a course of action and ask whether you would approve of that action if it were done to you. Generally, but not always, that is a reasonable test. At least it assures that you do not follow your interests exclusively and that you show concern for another’s needs and dignity. Another test is to ask whether or not you can live with yourself after you make a certain decision. If you can’t, the action will undermine your integrity.

This is another important aspect of the integrity principle: the explicit requirement that members “observe both the form and the spirit of technical and ethical standards.”³³ Circumventing those standards, the code says, means “subordination of judgment.” In tax accounting, for example, bypassing the intent of the tax legislation is unethical. The invention of “black box” accounting – financial statements based on accounting methodologies so complex that numbers, even though they are accurate and legal, confuse rather than clarify – clearly violates the spirit of accounting standards, which were set up precisely to guarantee the public and other users accurate financial pictures. Restatements of revenues, inventory, and earnings, and the use of derivatives and off‐the‐books partnerships all circumvent the accountant’s responsibility to present a company’s financial status accurately. It is difficult to imagine, in the case of the KPMG tax dodges, for example, how an accountant could defend such behavior on the basis that no laws were actually broken, when the behavior clearly violated the spirit of the law.

Finally, the Integrity Principle says, integrity requires a member to observe the principles of “objectivity and independence and of due care.”³⁴ Objectivity and independence are perhaps the most important of the principles in the AICPA code. We turn to that principle now.

0.300.050.01 – Objectivity and Independence Principle

A member should maintain objectivity and be free of conflicts of interest in discharging professional responsibilities. A member in public practice should be independent in fact and appearance when providing auditing and other attestation services.³⁵

“Objectivity,” according to the code, “is a state of mind, a quality that lends value to a member’s services.”³⁶ Hence, objectivity is a virtue; it is a habit to be developed. The principle requires that the objective person be impartial, intellectually honest, and free of conflicts of interest. The code also makes this powerful statement: “Independence precludes relationships that may appear to impair a member’s objectivity in rendering attestation services.”³⁷ It is difficult to imagine that anyone could think that Arthur Andersen could “appear” to be objective with respect to Enron, when Andersen “depended on Enron for $52 million in fees, more than half of which, $27 million, was derived not from auditing its books, but from providing other services.”³⁸

Achieving objectivity is not easy. Consider these two statements: “He believed because it was a fact,” and “Because he believed, it was a fact.” People, in general, often see things as they think they are or as they want them to be, rather than seeing them as they actually are. This also applies to accountants. If you believe that all the people in the company you are auditing are honest, you give them the benefit of the doubt and don’t see things that a more skeptical auditor would see. It is interesting that the interpretation of the code thus cautions auditors to adopt a skeptical attitude.

Specifically, “the principle on objectivity imposes the obligation to be impartial, intellectually honest, and free of conflicts of interest.”³⁹ We’ll take a closer look at the obligations to be impartial and to be free of conflicts of interest.

To be impartial, AICPA members must try to remove their personal feelings and interests from any judgments or recommendations being made or any actions being taken. Members must detach themselves from the situation and look on it as a disinterested third party.

Moreover, the code prohibits conflicts of interest – not only real conflicts of interest but also appearances of a conflict. If the accountant is auditing a company in which she has stock and an unfavorable audit would decrease the stock’s worth, for example, there is a conflict of interest. Similarly, if the accountant is consulting with one client and the advice would hurt another client, there is a conflict. Members should either avoid such conflicts or free themselves from them.

Also, a member who is overlooking discrepancies in an audit in order to secure a consulting job from the firm being audited faces a huge conflict of interest. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act addressed that conflict by prohibiting accountants from auditing clients with which they are engaged in other activities such as consulting.⁴⁰ Because consulting often yields larger financial benefits to an accounting firm than auditing, this creates a huge temptation to “go soft” on the auditing, and makes the requisite skepticism difficult to achieve.

The code stresses the appearance of independence for AICPA members in public service (this does not apply to private service):

For a member in public practice, the maintenance of objectivity and independence requires a continuing assessment of client relationships and public responsibility. Such a member who provides auditing and other attestation services should be independent in fact and appearance. In providing all other services, a member should maintain objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest.⁴¹

Although it is clear‐cut that in performing attestation services, the accountant must be objective and independent, that may not be possible, some might argue, for internal auditors or management accountants. Yet the code does not make that distinction. In fact, it recognizes those different interests. “Members often serve multiple interests in many different capacities,” the code states, but “must demonstrate their objectivity in varying circumstances.”⁴² It even describes the various functions AICPA members perform:

Members in public practice render attest, tax, and management advisory services. Other members prepare financial statements in the employment of others, perform internal auditing services, and serve in financial and management capacities in industry, education, and government. They also educate and train those who aspire to admission into the profession.⁴³

In spite of the different roles accountants play for different constituencies, the code demands objectivity: “Regardless of service or capacity, members should protect the integrity of their work, maintain objectivity, and avoid any subordination of their judgment.”⁴⁴

Just as the ideal researcher is motivated to search for true knowledge, the ideal accountant is motivated to present as true a financial picture as possible. Accountants cannot accomplish this if they subordinate their judgment to others, or if out of fear (note the need for courage) or greed (note the need for temperance), they tell the boss what the boss wants to hear. To maintain their integrity, accountants must, first and foremost, be true to themselves and their profession. Thus, the interpretation of Principle IV concludes with these strong words on the responsibilities of members not in public practice, who by nature of their job are not independent:

Although members not in public practice cannot maintain the appearance of independence, they nevertheless have the responsibility to maintain objectivity in rendering professional services. Members employed by others to prepare financial statements or to perform auditing, tax, or consulting services are charged with the same responsibility for objectivity as members in public practice and must be scrupulous in their application of generally accepted accounting principles and candid in all their dealings with members in public practice.⁴⁵

Thus, we can conclude that all accountants – public and private – have one primary responsibility: to make their work as honest and true as possible. Anything short of that, for whatever reason, damages their integrity and their dedication to the goals of the accounting profession. Any unethical activity – even legal activities that violate the spirit of the code – is prohibited.

0.300.060.01 – Due Care Principle

A member should observe the profession’s technical and ethical standards, strive continually to improve competence and the quality of services, and discharge professional responsibility to the best of the member’s ability.⁴⁶

The principle of due care sets a very high bar for the accountant. The interpretation of the principle identifies the “quest for excellence” as the “essence of due care.”⁴⁷ That excellence requires both competence and diligence. The accountant must perform to the best of her ability with a “concern for the best interest of those for whom the services are performed and consistent with the profession’s responsibility to the public.”⁴⁸

Accountants attain competence through education and experience. First, they must learn the common body of accounting knowledge. To maintain a high level of facility and acumen, they must supplement this knowledge by a continual commitment to professional improvement. Due care further requires that when accountants recognize the limitations of their competence, they consult with others or refer a client to another who has the requisite competence. “Each member is responsible,” according to the code, “for assessing his or her own competence – of evaluating whether education, experience, and judgment are adequate for the responsibility to be assumed.”⁴⁹

Diligence, which “imposes the responsibility to render services promptly and carefully, to be thorough, and to observe applicable technical and ethical standards,”⁵⁰ is another aspect of due care. To be prompt, careful, and thorough requires that an accountant “plan and supervise adequately any professional activity for which he or she is responsible.”⁵¹ Hence, sloppy planning that leads to less than competent service to clients can be characterized as unethical behavior – although some accountants might disagree that sloppiness can be considered an ethical dimension.

0.300.070.01 – Scope and Nature of Services Principles

A member in public practice should observe the Principles of the Code of Professional Conduct in determining the scope and nature of services to be provided.⁵²

This principle ties all the principles together. It begins with professionalism: “The public interest aspect of members services requires that such services be consistent with acceptable professional behavior for members. Integrity requires that service and the public trust not be subordinated to personal gain and advantage.”⁵³ The principle also states, “Objectivity and independence require that members be free from conflicts of interest in discharging professional responsibilities. Due care requires that services be provided with competence and diligence.”⁵⁴

A member must decide in what circumstances to provide specific services by considering each of the six principles. The code notes:

In some instances, they may represent an overall constraint on the nonaudit services that might be offered to a specific client. No hard‐and‐fast rules can be developed to help members reach these judgments, but they must be satisfied that they are meeting the spirit of the Principles in this regard.”⁵⁵

In other words, the prudent practitioner must apply the principle of scope and nature of services in the spirit of justice. To accomplish this, the code calls for AICPA members to do the following:

Practice in firms that have in place internal quality‐control procedures to ensure that services are competently delivered and adequately supervised.

Determine, in their individual judgments, whether the scope and nature of other services provided to an audit client would create a conflict of interest in the performance of the audit function for that client.

Assess, in their individual judgments, whether an activity is consistent with their role as professionals.⁵⁶

The practical implications of this are monumental. It means that members should not practice in firms that do not have adequately supervised internal quality control procedures for competent services. Members must also be aware of and determine what other services for a client would create a conflict of interest. Finally, members must assess the propriety of their activities against what the true professional would do.

Criticisms of the Code of Conduct

The code principles, taken as a whole, establish the framework for an accountant’s ethical approach to the accounting profession. Critics say, however, that the principles have at least two insufficiencies: (i) They are too broad and amorphous, and (ii) they lack sanctions.

The first principle, for example, says, “In carrying out their responsibilities as professionals, members [of the AICPA] should exercise sensitive professional and moral judgments in all their activities.” That statement is too broad, critics contend, because no one acts as a CPA in all activities, and too amorphous because it does not specifically define “sensitive” professional judgments. A rejoinder, however, is that language is always general and in need of interpretation and that rules and interpretations of code principles address the lack‐of‐specificity problem. Furthermore, principles are meant to be inspirational; rules are meant to be concrete.

The second drawback to codes, overall, is that they are seldom enforced. And a code without enforcement may be worse than no code at all. To mitigate this deficiency in accounting codes, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, in addition to establishing the Public Accounting Oversight Board (PAOB), gave the SEC greater power to enforce standards.

Nevertheless, despite these drawbacks, codes of conduct are tremendously important in establishing professional standards. Specific rules can clear up any vagueness in a code principle. Chapter 6 discusses the AICPA rules that clarify the principles in its code of professional conduct.

Discussion Questions

1. What purpose do the Principles of Professional Conduct serve?
2. Discuss how each of the principles could be violated and what could be done to prevent the violation.
3. Address the criticisms of the principles and construct an argument in response.

In the News