A Qualitative Examination of Auditors’ Differing Ethical Characterizations Across the Phases of the Audit ^☆

Data availability: Because of the need to preserve respondents’ anonymity, data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Abstract

Over the last decade, many published papers lament auditors’ shift from professionalism to commercialism and call for increasing auditors’ commitment to the public interest (see, e.g., Bailey, 2008; Fogarty & Rigsby, 2010; Lampe & Garcia, 2013; Wyatt, 2004; Zeff, 2003a, 2003b). At the same time, suggesting effective methodologies for improving auditors’ commitment to the public interest is particularly challenging because issues arising in the audit context are complex, and often involve tradeoffs between multiple stakeholders (e.g., Gaa, 1992; Massey & Thorne, 2006). An understanding of auditors ethical characterizations across separate phases of the audit process is needed so that methodologies can be devised to improve auditors’ commitment to the public interest. Thus, in this paper we interviewed 24 auditors and asked them to describe critical ethical incidents that they have encountered throughout the various phases of the audit process. Our results not only document the tension underlying the shift between professionalism and commercialism in auditing suggested by others, but also show that ethical conflicts are found in each phase of the audit and there are cross-phase differences in the auditors’ ethical characterizations. Limitations of the findings are also discussed as are suggestions for future research.

Citation

Chow, C.W., Massey, D.W., Thorne, L. and Wu, A. (2014), "A Qualitative Examination of Auditors’ Differing Ethical Characterizations Across the Phases of the Audit ^☆

Data availability: Because of the need to preserve respondents’ anonymity, data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

", Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting (Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Vol. 17), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 97-138. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-0765(2013)000017007