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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 2002a, Professional Standards, Volumes 1 and 2 (New York, NY: AICPA).
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 2002b, Annual Report 2001-2002. New York, NY: AICPA. Available at www.aicpa.org.
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.
Brewster, M.: 2003, Unaccountable: How the Accounting Profession Forfeited a Public Trust (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons).
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.
Doucet, M. S. and K. L. Hooks: 1999, 'Toward an Equal Future', Journal of Accountancy 187(6)(June): 71–76.
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.
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, 'A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing', Journal of Marketing 49: 87–96.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB): 2002, Original Pronouncements: Accounting Standards, Volumes 1 and 2 (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
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.
Hackenbrack, K. and M. Nelson: 1996, 'Auditors' Incentives and Their Application of Financial Standards', Accounting Review 71(1)(January): 43–59.
Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell: 1986, 'A General Theory of Marketing Ethics', Journal of Macromarketing 6: 5–16.
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.
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.
Kohlberg, L.: 1984, Essays in Moral Development, Volume II: The Psychology of Moral Development (Harper and Row, New York).
Levitt, A.: 1998, The Numbers Game. Address delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York: September 28.
Levitt, A.: 2000, Renewing the Covenant with Investors. Address delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York: May 10.
Levitt, A.: 2002, Take on the Street (New York: Pantheon Books).
MacDonald, E.: 1999, 'SEC Crackdown on Merger Write-Off May Make Some Deals More Difficult', Wall Street Journal (January 4, 1999): A4.
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.
Melcher, R.: 1998, 'Where Are the Accountants? Why Auditors End Up Missing So Many Danger Signs', Business Week (October 5): 144–146.
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.
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.
Randall, D. M. and M. F. Fernandes: 1991, 'The Social Desirability Bias in Ethics Research', Journal of Business Ethics 10: 805–817.
Ratneshwar, S. and D. W. Stewart: 1989, 'Nonresponse in Mail Surveys: An Integrative Review', Applied Marketing Research 29(3): 37–46.
Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (Praeger, New York).
Salterio, S.: 1996, 'The Effects of Precedents and Client Position on Auditors' Financial Accounting Policy Judgment', Accounting, Organizations and Society 21(5): 467–486.
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.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. United States House of Representatives, 107th Congress.
Schuetze, W.: 1994, 'A Mountain or a Molehill?', Accounting Horizons 8(1): 69–75.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): 1999a, Materiality. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office).
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): 1999b, Revenue Recognition. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office).
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.
Shockley, R. A.: 1982, 'Perceptions of Auditor Independence: A Conceptual Model', Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 5(2): 126–143.
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.
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.
Weil, J.: 2001, 'Going Concerns: Did Accountants Fail to Flag Problems at Dot-Com Casualties?', Wall Street Journal (February 9): C1–C2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shafer, W.E., Ketchand, A.A. & Morris, R.E. Auditors' Willingness to Advocate Client-Preferred Accounting Principles. Journal of Business Ethics 52, 213–227 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000037530.25174.30
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000037530.25174.30