The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Applied code
An applied code of ethics model of ethics model
for decision-making in the
accounting profession
Dinah M. Payne and Christy Corey
Department of Management, University of New Orleans, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA Received 9 October 2018
Revised 17 January 2019
Accepted 5 March 2019
Cecily Raiborn
Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA, and
Matthew Zingoni
Department of Management, University of New Orleans, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of paper is to supply a code of ethics that can be easily utilized by working
professional in their day to day decision making. The accounting profession plays a vital role in the
functioning of modern society. It is essential that members of this profession be ethical and stand fast against
the internal and external pressures that might encourage these professionals to engage in fraudulent
activities. Codes of ethics provide a coherent articulation of the ideals, responsibilities and limitations of the
collective ethic of a profession’s members and can assist in guiding ethical behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – Our model is based on the professional values of justice, utility,
competence and utility, i.e. JUCI model, which is a straightforward and easily understandable ethical decision-
making model that the average accounting professional, as well as finance professionals in general, may
reference when challenged with difficult ethical quandaries.
Findings – This code, the JUCI Code, represents a contribution to the literature in that its simple, but not
simplistic, approach could be of enormous benefit to busy and pressured accountants who need help in
constructing independently achieved and defensible rational ethical decisions in the practice of accounting.
Originality/value – In this paper, the authors build upon a review of ethical foundations and codes of
conduct in other professions to construct our code of ethics for accounting professionals.
Keywords Values, Decision-making, Ethics, Accounting
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
According to Karmanska et al. (2017):
Professional ethics (have) become a hot topic in recent years, fueled by scandals [. . .] and the
realization by professional bodies [. . .] that the importance of acting ethically needed more
emphasis in professional training.
The profession of accounting has not escaped its share of scandals or its realization that
ethics in the conduct of accounting services needs more emphasis. Numerous and varied
stakeholders have called for more ethically oriented professional accounting behavior in Management Research Review
light of the scandals associated with Enron, World Com and others (Barman, 2016; Cameron © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
and O’Leary, 2015). In those scandals, accounting professionals were morally culpable and, DOI 10.1108/MRR-10-2018-0380
MRR of course, legally liable for their inappropriate and/or illegal behaviors. Participation by
accounting professionals in widespread fraud has tarnished the image of accountancy, an
image that should be viewed with the highest regard by society. Glen (2017) notes that a
vast number of people will never connect a person with the provision of accounting
information that may be poorly presented or, worse, derived through incompetent or
fraudulent accounting practice: “(T)hese people contribute to pensions, work for companies,
actively invest, or are in some other way [stakeholders] in a company somewhere.” This
comprehensive description of the people who could be adversely impacted by the actions of
careless, incompetent or unscrupulous accountants is telling: the accounting profession
needs to examine how best to promote ethical behavior among its members.
Further, few (or no) accounting specialties have gone unchallenged with regard to the
pressure to act immorally or illegally. James (2017) warns against aggressive accounting,
indicating that it “is the process of employing questionable methods to boost results.”
According to Karmanska et al. (2017), internal and external auditors, bookkeepers, tax
advisors and accountants in practice and business and external consultants have been
pressured to violate personal, professional or legal mandates. Clients, owners of business or
practice, directors and board members, line managers and other colleagues have pressured
accountants to act contrary to their professional judgment. Accountants occupy a unique
position to make a positive contribution to prevent the root causes of financial scandal,
thereby enhancing not only the “brand” of accounting, which has been sorely treated in
recent years by various stakeholders, but also to comprehensively enhance the conduct of
ethical accounting practices.
This unique position is under assault by the pressures accountants feel to violate their
personal or professional codes or legal mandates. To bolster accountants’ abilities to resist
such pressures and to enhance their ethical decision-making abilities, we believe that a
relatively simple code of ethics can be constructed that will reflect the fundamental values
and requirements which form the basis of many accounting codes of ethics. Such a code
could do much to diminish or eradicate misunderstandings of accounting ethics, a laudable
object as “(e)thics in accounting is one of the most important, yet most misunderstood,
concerns in the world of business today (Onyebuchi, 2011, p. 275).”
This article proceeds as follows. First, we discuss the vital role accounting plays in
society by reviewing the accounting professional’s relationship with various stakeholders.
Next, we outline some of the pressures that lead to accountants’ unethical behavior: why
they engage in fraud. Finally, after we build upon a review of ethical foundations and
accountants’ codes of conduct, we construct our code of ethics for accounting professionals.
Our model is based on the professional values of justice, utility, competence and integrity
(i.e. JUCI model). It is a straightforward and easily understandable ethical decision-making
model that the average accounting professional, as well as finance professionals in general,
may reference when challenged with difficult ethical quandaries. Indeed, though not the
subject of this effort, financial professionals are also in need of more aid in achieving ethical
decisions: according to Cowton and San-Jose, 2017, p. 673, citing Prindl and Probhan, 1994,
“ethics is given little consideration within the finance literature,” thus indicating a clear need
to introduce more ethics into that field, as well. Our code for accounting professionals, the
JUCI Code, represents a contribution to the literature in that it is a simple, but not simplistic,
approach that could be of enormous benefit to busy and pressured accountants who need
help in constructing independently achieved and defensible rational ethical decisions in the
practice of accounting. Our code aims to address the difficulties encountered by professional
accountants in an effort to ease the dilemmas accountants face in light of pressures brought
to bear by stakeholders: we hope that accountants will be able to fairly easily, though of
course with critical thinking, determine the most ethically appropriate resolution to the Applied code
quandaries they encounter all too frequently. of ethics model
The vital role of accountants: stakeholder perspective
A stakeholder is any person or entity that can be positively or negatively affected by actions
of a decision-maker. Relative to accounting information, the number of stakeholders who
can be affected is extensive. Obviously, a firm’s stockholders (or other types of owners) and
capital providers (such as lenders) are stakeholders, but Joseph (2007) suggests that other
stakeholders who have not always been considered to have specific, identifiable stakes in
the firm be included. His broad definition of a stakeholder is based in stakeholders’
legitimate claims to be informed about firm activities and reflects the “interdependency in
the economic environment and the nature of human behavior (p. 55).” Thus, stakeholders are
not always known or easily recognizable as being stakeholders, a nebulous thought that
gains clarity in specific accounting reporting instances. More specifically, Baskerville-
Morley (2004) identifies the government, special interest groups, the media, SEC officials,
individual practitioners, associated professional groups and those groups’ disciplinary
committees, clients/customers, employees, students and international constituents, among
others, as organizational stakeholders. Arenas and Rodrigo (2016, p. 168) state that even “the
next generation” should be viewed as stakeholders as they “are at the core of sustainable
development and [. . .] are relevant for both societies’ persistence over time and the long-term
viability of business organizations.” See Table I for a list of primary stakeholders and the
consequences they may face if they engage in fraudulent accounting practices, both short
and long term. This list is illustrative only, but it serves to reflect the large number and
array of stakeholders, as well as some consequences of engaging in unethical accounting
practices.

The accountant’s ethical role: under pressure

Professional conduct is currently of extreme importance to accountants and their
stakeholders as evidenced by many surveys about accountants’ levels of ethical behavior
(Shafer, 2015; Mohd Ghazali and Ismail, 2013; Hagel, 2012). A 2012 survey by the American
Institute of CPAs (AICPA) and the Chartered Global Management Accountants (CGMAs)
found that 35 per cent (up from 28 per cent four years earlier) of respondents “felt some
pressure from colleagues or a manager to compromise their organization’s standards of
ethical business conduct (Hagel, 2012, p. 22).”
A different 2015 global survey indicated that two-thirds of 648 respondents had been
pressured “to act contrary to (1) their professional ethics or (2) tax and/or accounting
legislation at some point in their professional career,” and that the majority of these had
been placed under pressure more than once (Lang et al., 2016).
Given the fairly negative nature of the responses, it seems that the integrity of the
accounting profession could be viewed as being at risk to succumbing to pressure exerted
by colleagues, superiors and clients. Such circumstances make it difficult to reconcile
Mintz’s (2016) conclusion that certified public accountants are expected to be the watchdogs
of the public interest, and that auditors are the gatekeepers entrusted with investor and
creditor protection with the reality that internal and external environmental pressures may
be sufficient to cause ethical behaviors of accountants to falter or fail. This conflict has
evolved over time, in part, because tighter personal and business relationships have
developed among auditors, managers and clients (Menendez and Mintz, 2016).
An additional conundrum is faced by external auditors. External auditors face the
stresses of not only needing to make fair and accurate accounting assessments but also the
 MRR

practice
Table I.

and consequences of
unethical accounting
Primary stakeholders
Potential short-term impacts of using unethical Potential long-term impacts of using unethical
Accounting firm stakeholders accounting practices accounting practices

Board Directors or Senior Increased level of profitability for firm Loss of job
Management More positive reputation in industry leading to greater Prison
Management/partners/members ability to attract new business. Loss of reputation, status
Improved reputation leading to more personal business Loss of professional credentials
opportunities
Accounting professionals actually Increase reputation in field due to track record of success. The accountant goes to jail
engaging in unethical accounting Financial gain due to making goals and attracting new Loses his license
practice and their families business. The family suffers at loss of income and/or prestige
Increase level of stress due to possible guilt of illegal
actions
Accounting professionals Personal conflict arises when ethical accountants are Increase in job seeking behavior to exit firm
engaging in only ethical asked to violate personal or professional ethics Loss of job due to decline in firm reputation/success
accounting practice and their The families of that accountant are pressured by the Family environment and household financial stability are
families conflict the accountant faces strained due employment uncertainty
Internal auditors Potential hostile work environment due to “whistle Increase in job seeking behavior to exit firm
who report irregularities blower” perception Leaves his job
Loss of job due to decline in firm reputation/success
Internal auditors who do not report Guilty associated with not reporting illegal activity Increase in job seeking behavior to exit firm
irregularities Leaves his job
Loss of job due to decline in firm reputation/success
Loses professional credentials
Administrative employees who Personal conflict arises when administrative employees Increase in job seeking behavior to exit firm
play no role in accounting discover unethical practices Leaves his job
practices, whether ethical or not Feel pressure based on dysfunctional organizational Loss of job due to decline in firm reputation/success
norm to keep the unethical conduct secret
Creditors Enhanced reputation for backing a growing, successful Loss of reputation, status
firm Loss of revenue
More revenue as firm requires more credit to meet Pursue debt collection due to defaults on loans/
growing business demands investments
Stakeholders of audited firms Potential short-term impacts of using unethical Potential long-term impacts of using unethical
accounting practices accounting practices
(continued)
 Potential short-term impacts of using unethical Potential long-term impacts of using unethical
Accounting firm stakeholders accounting practices accounting practices

Board Directors of audited firms Pay increases/bonuses for performance Loss of position
Industry/societal recognition of firm growth/strength Damaged reputation
Acknowledgement of what appears to be a job well done Loss of ability to secure another Board seat.
Increased business opportunities
Governmental regulatory agencies No consequences till actions are discovered New laws are passed when unethical practices are
revealed
Legal action brought against those who commit illegal
actions
Professional regulatory bodies (i.e., No consequences till actions are discovered Sanctions may be imposed
the AICPA) Rules may be adapted to new or changing professional
standards
Investors Financial reward due to positive company performance Significant financial loss due illegal activity
Bankruptcy
Supply chain partners More clients may come to the accounting firm thinking Other clients may choose other accounting firms
that the firm is providing such sound accounting advice
that their clients can use as competitive advantages
Competitors May lose business to the firm who engages in fraudulent May develop more business when clients desert firm
practices engaging in fraudulent practices
of ethics model
Applied code

Table I.
MRR stress of needing to generate client business so public accounting firms can remain
profitable. Those auditors also need to manage potentially conflicting objectives of the
various stakeholders (e.g. client company stockholders, client company board of directors,
client company managers and society) (Baskerville-Morley, 2004). This need to generate or
retain clients was noted by Lang et al. (2016) that though there were no explicit rewards for
professional misbehavior, there was a “perceived reward in the sense of a continuing
relationship” between the auditor and audited. Indeed, the suggestion is that “a lack of
explicit rewards being offered could indicate that the pressure accountants come under is
seen as ‘normal behavior’ in business.” The Lang et al. study also indicates an even graver
conclusion: some respondents had actually encountered threats to force them to act
unprofessionally. The threats included a variety of financial losses: the loss of income to the
practice, the loss of professional employment and the cessation of the professional
relationship between the accountant and the client exerting the pressure. Accountants and
their firms face fierce competitive pressure to continuously develop client business revenue:
[. . .] the strong growth of non-audit services, especially management consulting, created conflicts
of interest for the accounting firms. On the one hand, the firms wanted to generate profitable
growth and on the other hand, they were expected to stand up to clients when they took
questionable accounting positions in their financial statements (Sorensen et al., 2017, p. 176).
To intensify the challenge to maintain an ethical professional persona, auditors have the
added pressure of the investing public’s expectation gap: the reality of what auditors
actually do as opposed to what the public believes auditors do. As stated by the profession,
an audit’s purpose is to provide an opinion as to whether the “financial statements are
presented fairly, in all material respects in accordance with an applicable financial reporting
framework” to provide users with a higher level of confidence than if the statements were
unaudited (AICPA, 2014: AU-C §200.04). In contrast, the investing public’s common
misconception of an audit’s purpose is that auditors search for and discover any and all
fraud existing within audited client data. Given some of the recent audit failures and
regardless that the majority of audits are performed with care and expertise, that the
majority of executives are honest and that the majority of financial statements are fairly
presented, the lack of public trust in the auditing profession looms large. This dissonance in
what auditors do and what the public believes they do is a major cause of a lack of trust in
the accounting profession: stakeholders who misunderstand the auditor’s charge question
the trustworthiness of the source of accounting information, intensifying trust issues
stakeholders might already feel as a result of their ignorance of accounting practice in
general.

The unethical initiated: why accountants engage in fraud?

Within business organizations, accountants are the individuals who have direct access to
organizational assets. They often have the ability to override internal controls; they are
skilled in practices that would allow financial statement manipulation and are typically
intimately aware of organizational needs and weaknesses. Amernic and Craig (2010, p. 81)
state that internal accountants could be seen as conformists (active and dependent,
uncritical thinking) and passive (passive and dependent, uncritical thinking) and who are
highly “prone to be influenced by the policies, action and language” of unethical CEOs or
other high-level managers. Glen (2017) summarizes why accountants act in an unethical
way: “most reasons tie back to a financial one as the payout, through stock price or
something as direct as stealing cash.” Further, the article notes that many companies are
pressured to provide short-term results to avoid market retribution and/or loss of employees
as a result of poor performance. To compound the pressure issue, accountants could also be Applied code
viewed as being in more opportunistic positions to create their own ethical dilemmas by of ethics model
engaging in fraud.
Whenever accounting fraud is examined, it is not long before the discussion moves to Dr
Donald R. Cressey’s (1972, p. 30) fraud triangle: pressure, opportunity and rationalization.
Pressure is an innately inherent condition felt by humans and exists in every stage of
Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs or motivations. Accountants, despite their prescribed
codes of ethics, are not immune from pressure to commit financial fraud, whether such
pressure is exerted internally from the need, i.e. for job promotion or externally from a top
level executive who wants financial statements figures to meet a designated target level.
Thus, no code of ethics, no matter how severe the penalties for lack of adherence, will
eliminate pressure (West, 2018). As previously noted, given the nature of their activities,
accountants clearly have the opportunity to commit financial fraud [Furthermore,
accountants have the necessary capability, a fourth dimension suggested by Wolfe and
Hermanson (2004)]. In most circumstances, opportunity is seen as the dimension of the fraud
triangle most susceptible to external modification, usually through the installation of human
and physical internal controls.
However, within the accounting profession, the dimension of rationalization may be the
one that “holds all the cards” to minimizing financial fraud. As rationalization is considered
the ability to inappropriately justify an action in a logical or rational manner to one’s self or
others, then, practically speaking, many or all people must rationalize to some extent and at
some point, i.e. “it’s only a white lie: I don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings.” Most
rationalizations can be categorized as self-deception, self-indulgence, self-protection, self-
righteousness or faulty reasoning (Albrecht, 1992, pp. 18-19). Rationalization is, however,
more difficult if a code of ethics delineates certain actions as expressly “right” or “wrong”
without attempting to dictate actions down to minutiae. Such codes “may inhibit and/or
prohibit Machiavellian-type behaviors (e.g. manipulation, opportunism)” in accountants’
performance of their professional responsibilities (Wakefield, 2008, p. 116). For example, the
preamble to the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct calls “for an unswerving commitment
to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage (AICPA, 2014:
§0.300.010.02).” Thus, implementation of, and adherence to, codes of ethics may be the most
effective deterrent tools against immoral and illegal behaviors by accountants because such
codes make the commission of fraud more internally intolerable to accountants.

Ethical foundations
The profession of accounting has several directives to help guide accountants’ behavior
such as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS). Rockness and Rockness (2010) state that accountants who
merely focus on rule compliance may miss the ethical consequences of their actions, instead
using the rules as the reason for their unethical behavior. Thoughtless compliance with
GAAP is the equivalent of ignoring transactional substance (actuality: the spirit of the
transaction) in favor of form (appearance: the letter of the transaction), leading to distorted
presentations of reality. Thus, the message is clear: abiding by legal strictures alone
(whether in the guise of GAAP, IFRS, generally accepted auditing standards, or any other
professionally pronounced edict) is insufficient to ensure, to the greatest extent possible,
honest, open, transparent and accurate information development or presentation by good
faith practitioners.
The provisions of GAAP, IFRS, etc. provide the first set of directives for ethical
accounting standards. Before focusing on a second set of directives to guide moral behavior
MRR (a code of ethics), the nature of ethics should first be examined. De George (2010) defines
business ethics as business morality, while morality is the determination of the right and
wrong based on values and beliefs of the cultures that produced the morality. Velasquez
notes that there are many definitions of ethics: the principles used to govern conduct in
society or the principles by which individuals assess the right and the wrong. Velasquez
(1998, p. 11) defines ethics specifically as:
The activity of examining one’s moral standards or the moral standards of a society, and asking
how these standards apply to our lives and whether these standards are reasonable or
unreasonable, that is, whether they are supported by good reasons or poor ones.
Addressing accounting as a profession, Velasquez (1998, p. 7) offers that “[w]e use the term
‘accounting ethics’ to refer to the code that guides professional conduct of accountants.”
Tormo-Carbo et al. (2016, p. 163) define ethics as the “system of beliefs that supports a
particular form of morality.”
Mintz and Morris (2011, p. 5) begin their discussion on the nature of ethics by referencing
Greek and Latin words such as ethikos and mores or, respectively, custom or character and
manners, moral or character. These authors equate the concepts of ethics and morals and
simplify the concept of ethics by indicating that ethics relates to right and wrong.
Additionally, they emphasize the importance of ethics with regard to the effect our actions
have on stakeholders. Writing about accounting ethics specifically, Onyebuchi (2011, p. 275)
defines ethics as “the systematic study of conduct based on moral principle, reflective
choices, and standards of right and wrong.” He also cites ethics as it relates to auditing,
noting that auditing ethical standards are no different than general business or indeed
general business ethics.
Other definitions of ethics have also been offered. Youseff and Rachid (2015, p. 4) define
ethics as a:
Philosophical discipline that aims to apply actions and rules in keeping with the concepts of right
and wrong [. . .] General ethics aims to articulate criteria that confirm respectful behaviors in a
practical situation and when making responsible choices.
They suggest as well that ideals of ethics are closely related to the concept of legitimacy
and/or concepts of legality, justice or equity. Legitimacy theory encompasses the idea that
business and society exist symbiotically, as previously noted, each owing the other
responsibilities and each owing the other corresponding rights. Justice and equity can be
used synonymously, representing the concepts of fairness and reasonableness. All of these
concepts can be applied to a determination of whether an accountant has complied with not
only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law in fulfilling his professional duties
ethically.

Professions and codes of conduct

A system of self-regulation based on a code of ethics (or conduct) is one of the three primary
criteria characterizing a profession, with the other two being significant training and education
and governmental review and licensure (i.e. credentialing) (Magill and Previts, 1991, p. 5).
Training and education speak to the professional’s indispensable knowledge, while
governmental oversight in the credentialing of accountants speaks to the maintenance of high
professional standards of competence. This element of professionalism, including legal
mandates, is also associated with deterrence of unethical behavior. Professionals are also
generally viewed as having a higher level of autonomy than non-professionals. However, such
autonomy carries with it the responsibility to:
 Serve the public good, to set higher standards of conduct for their members than those required of Applied code
others, and to enforce higher discipline on themselves than others do [. . .] (S)ociety [. . .] imposes
less social control, on the condition that the profession be self-regulating and self-disciplinary of ethics model
(DeGeorge 2010, p. 490).
Stuebs and Wilkinson (2010) identify two key characteristics of professions; first, as noted
above, accountants possess of a body of indispensable theoretical and technical knowledge.
Second, professions have an orientation toward service, asserting that these characteristics
build trust among stakeholders. The premise that members of a profession embrace the
concept of serving the public interest is imperative and, very importantly and aptly in this
effort, key for accountants: accountants serve the public trust (Mintz, 2016). Such services “are
required by society at large” and are often “needed to remedy perceived or actual ills, the relief
of which will allow society to go forward” (Behrman, 1988, p. 99). Bollom (1988) reiterates the
importance of service to the public interest by stating that a primary objective of all the
professions is to serve and protect the public. These characteristics indicate that accounting is,
by any measurement bases, a profession. In light of the diminution of accountants’ reputation
regarding trust, however, it is also a profession that needs to reestablish the public service
orientation: accountants should provide relevant and reliable information for decision-makers
and provide this information ethically. Trust in the accounting profession’s reputation and the
information accountants provide has indeed been tarnished or questioned, prompting a call to
action to engage in a rebuilding of trust and reputation for accounting professionals. We have
chosen to answer this call in our proposal of a model code of ethics that accountants can easily
and quickly, yet comprehensively, use to make sound moral judgments.
Within their working environments, accountants (as do most professionals) face a wide
variety of issues giving rise to ethical dilemmas. Undeniably (Hagel, 2012; Karmanska et al.,
2017; Lang et al., 2016), the pressures felt by accountants to engage in unethical behavior are
significant and are growing as today’s competitive and global environments expand
(Onyebuchi, 2011). While recognized professions have codes of ethics, those codes (even for a
single profession such as accounting) differ in listed standards and acceptable conduct.
However, culture (both of an organization and of geography) may affect how individuals
perceive and act upon the delineated canons. One early study of internal auditors found that
a “single universal code of ethics may not reflect the needs of [an] international group”
because countries’:
[c]ultural differences often limit the effectiveness of a uniform international code of ethics because
they create a lack of consensus within a profession as to what constitutes acceptable behavior
(Vanasco, 1994, p. 13).
Also, codes may be ineffective because codal provisions are not enforced or implemented
(Brien, 1998), in part because such enforcement is deemed to be contradictory to the main
purpose of the professional association: to protect and promote the interests of their
members (Tomasic and Bottomley, 1993 as cited in Brien, 1998). Given the circumstances of
potentially conflicting advice from counseled individuals, different tenets among codes, an
inability to extrapolate to a global professional population, and potential dereliction of
enforcement, the accounting profession (and possibly other professions) may need ethical
codes of conduct that are more easily and effectively referenced.

The development of a model code of conduct for accounting professionals

Codes of ethics provide a coherent articulation of the ideals, responsibilities, and limitations
of the collective ethic of a profession’s members. According to Frankel (1989, p. 110), codes
embody “the collective conscience of a profession and (are) testimony to the group’s
MRR recognition of its moral dimension.” Unfortunately, Velayutham (2003) argues that
professional codes of conduct have moved from a focus on moral responsibility to technical
specifications and rules. Frankel (1989, p. 110) believes a professional code of ethics should
serve as a moral anchor, a means of public evaluation, a source of strengthened professional
identity and pride, a way to enhance the profession’s reputation and public trust, a
mechanism to preserve “entrenched professional biases,” a deterrent to unethical behavior, a
source of support against demands for inappropriate professional actions, and a basis for
adjudicating professional disputes. De George (2010, pp. 342-343) postulates that a code
should have four primary functions: regulative; protective of clients and the public interest;
specific, honest and both policeable and policed; and non-self-serving. Raiborn and Payne
(1990) assert that codes should be clear, comprehensive, positive, and enforceable by
reducing or eliminating ambiguity or doubt in the ethical decision-making process. Codes of
ethics should emphasize service to the client, while censuring inappropriate conduct by the
professional (Sager, 1992). Ethics codes also stipulate penalties for departures from the code:
from reprimands to professional expulsion.
Frankel (1989, pp. 110-111) succinctly offers that there are three types of codes:
aspirational, educational, and regulatory. Aspirational codes present ideal professional
behaviors. Educational codes “(seek) to buttress understanding of its provisions with
extensive commentary and interpretation.” Regulatory codes provide professional mandates
and “serve as a basis for adjudicating grievances.” Thus, one intent of codes of ethics is to
help deter professionals from engaging in behaviors that, individually or collectively, would
bring disgrace to the profession and impede its ability to be of public service, diminishing
further trust in accountants’ reputation. Our proposed model contributes to the field by
offering aspirational, educational and regulatory structures for the accountant faced with a
moral dilemma.
The profession of accounting encompasses a diverse group of people performing
innumerable activities in a wide array of employment venues. However, the same reality
exists for the medical and the legal professions, both of which have comprehensive model
rules of professional conduct to address certain basic duties that are owed to patients or
clients. Similarly, a model code of conduct can be developed for professional accountants,
regardless of certification, licensure, or location.
A model code would require an understanding of what professional duties are required
and who the stakeholders of accounting information previously addressed are. Further, such
a code would also need to consider concepts such as values and ethical frameworks. For
example, Mintz (2016, p. 8) suggests that the two most important values for accountants are
integrity and objectivity, “two values that, along with independence, form the foundation for
rules of conduct. Voicing and acting on those values is essential to carrying out one’s
professional responsibilities.”
A model code of ethics for a profession should be grounded in the values that members of
that profession deem to be desirable. Adler (1999) defined values as the amalgamation of the
learning that occurs from childhood as a result of interaction with family, friends, church
and school. Values originate from one’s community and culture and aid in a person’s
determination of the important considerations in their decision-making processes. When
values are added to attitudes, beliefs and behavior, culture is formed, culture upon which a
model code of ethics can be developed. Such a code would include guidelines that are
distilled from professional certification and licensure requirements to increase or decrease
the level of specificity to the individual or to the public interest.
Principles of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct (2014) and the International
Ethics Standards Board for Accountants Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the
Code, AESBA, 2016) were used to form the basis of a more generic code that we will shape Applied code
into our proposed code of profession ethics for accountants. Similarities between the codes of ethics model
are presented in Table II to reflect to fundamental principles describing ideals of service for
accounting professionals. Thus, the last column is a synthesis of the principles of the AICPA
and AESBA standards, reflective of broad societal ethical edicts as applicable to accountants.
The descriptive words identifying the principles from the identified codes are extremely
similar, which would indicate at least some basic agreement on the fundamental principles
for the profession of accounting (see also, inter alia, professional practices developed by the
Institute of Internal Auditors and the Institute of Management Accountants).
First, justice is a critical value. Professionals are expected to “do the right thing” or
perform in a just and moral manner; justice entails the use of equity and fairness in decision-
making. Information will be sought and weighted appropriately, fairly. The value of utility
refers to the usefulness of the information supplied by the accountant to stakeholders.
Regardless of the type of organization in which an accountant works, the information he or
she provides is relied upon by internal and external, known and unknown parties: in other
words, all stakeholders rely on such information. Utility mandates that information that will
help ascertain the impact a decision might have on stakeholders be provided; simply, the
information the accountant provides must be meaningfully useful. Without a continual
focus on the generalized needs of what information will be useful to stakeholders,
accountants could generate information that could topple companies and invoke economic
chaos.
Accountants must also be mindful of the maintenance of the skills that allowed entry into
the profession. Thus, a professional perspective must engender the creation of a life-long
adherence to learning and competency. Integrity reflects the dedication of a profession to the
public. The public can place no trust or reliance in the information generated by accountants
without integrity. Integrity reflects a consistency of actions that reflect honesty, good faith,
honor, sincerity and candor in professional and interpersonal relationships. Finally, these
four high-level epithets of justice, utility, competence and integrity portray qualities that are
unassailable. We name our model after these values: the JUCI model; if these values are
followed, the accountant should be able to reason out and adopt a morally sound and
defensible decision to any difficult moral question. Our position is that this model code of
ethics is useful and efficient, requiring review of a minimum of fundamental canons that can

AICPA IESBA Synthesis

Responsibility Professional competence Competence: use of sensitive professionalism

and due care and moral judgment
Do the right thing
Public interest Professional behavior Utility: serve the public interest
Respect of and responsibility to stakeholders
Respect of and responsibility to the profession
Integrity and Integrity Integrity: be candid without breaching confidentiality
honesty Confidentiality Subrogate personal gain to public service Table II.
Do the right thing
Comparison and
Objective and Objectivity Justice: embrace impartiality and intellectual honesty
independent Refuse conflicts of interest synthesis of the
Respect of and responsibility to stakeholders AICPA (2014) and
Due Care Professional competence Competence: quality of Services IESBA (2006) Codal
and due care Observe technical and ethical professional standards Principles
MRR be easily comprehended by practicing accountants and non-accountants alike. A serviceable
model should help practicing accountants make uncomplicated ethical choices when they
encounter ethical dilemmas (in contrast to other codes of ethics and decision-making models
that are very good but astonishingly complicated, such as Hunt and Vitell, 2006; Laczniak,
1983). Such a model will also be easily relatable to stakeholders who might be interested in
knowing why an accountant presented information in the way that he did.
This condensation of codal information supports the delineation of values essential for
codes of ethics as proposed by Raiborn and Payne (1990). Their model, derived from
standards used in cost accounting, takes into consideration both levels of morality and
ethical values deemed important to society. The values they present are commensurate
with the values presented above, but they also base their model in levels of morality: the
relevant question here is at what level of moral excellence would the actor chose to adopt
in any decision. The levels of morality reflect the degree of difficulty associated with
achievement, in this case, of the desired level of moral behavior, from laudable to
shameful. The theoretical level, the most difficult level of morality sought to be achieved
by any business, including that of accounting professionals, represents ideal behavior or
the spirit of morality. It is posited that this level of morality is difficult, if not impossible,
to reach because we are required to interact with counterparts that might not seek to
attain such a high level of moral development. Such interaction with less morally
laudable behavior on the part of our business associates will, pragmatically, require our
business morality to be adjusted to meet that of our associates’ levels of morality. If such
accommodation is not accepted, the most highly desirable ethical business strategy
cannot be implemented, unless all business associates also accept the goal of attainment
of the theoretical level of morality. Such a thought is clearly untenable as evidenced by
the sheer number and magnitude of all sorts of corporate scandal, which is sadly not
limited to malfeasance of accounting firms.
The practical level of morality reflects behavior that the majority of firms could
achieve through considered and careful effort (Raiborn and Payne, 1990). The hallmark of
the practical standard of ethical behavior is that the concept of morality is deemed to be
sufficiently important so as to be considered in decision-making processes. This level of
morality is difficult to achieve, but is indeed, practically speaking, attainable by
conscientious decision-makers. This level of morality is also more closely attuned to
adherence to the spirit of the law rather than merely the letter of the law. The third level,
the currently attainable level of morality represents adherence to standards of behavior
considered to be our normal behavior: it has “the characteristic of being accepted by
society, but not lauded as it really does not call for enormous amounts of effort to ‘do
right’ (p. 884).” In each level of moral behavior, the level of independently assessed and
careful thought as to the spirit of the law declines, finally to the lowest level of moral
behavior, the basic level. This level “reflects minimally acceptable behavior; the letter of
the law (p. 885).” It reflects behavior that society has judged, as reflected in legal edicts, to
be acceptable behavior: this behavior is legal, but it goes no further into searching for or
adopting adherence to the law’s spirit or the true meaning/intent of the regulation. This
behavior is more closely associated with adherence only to the letter of the law. Thus, the
decision maker at this level of morality will only seek to fulfill legal requirements as
specifically stated in the promulgated law, with no attempt to understand or obey the
spirit of the law.
In assessing an ethical situation and related decision, an accounting professional could
examine Table III, which contains all pertinent and important values as reflected in two
actual codes of professional conduct and ascertain which values he will be using. The
Level of ethical behavior
Synthesis: values derived Theoretical level Practical Level Currently attainable level Basic level

Justice: embrace All are treated in a just Credible and legitimate Best efforts in the Deviations from the just
impartiality and manner, regardless of reasons for deviation from circumstances will be position will be legally
intellectual honesty position justice exist made to treat stakeholders defensible
Refuse conflicts of interest justly
Respect of and
responsibility to
stakeholders
Utility: serve the public Information of decision As much information as is All readily accessible Information will be
interest impacts on stakeholders readily or reasonably information will be selectively sought and
Respect of and will be assiduously available will be sought considered used in decision-making
responsibility to sought and weighed and all aspects are given processes
stakeholders equal consideration
Respect of and
responsibility to the
profession
Competence: quality of A competent workforce The workforce will keep Professional competency Job performance will not
services will always be initiated pace with state of the art will be maintained harm stakeholders
Observe technical and and maintained at the information
ethical professional highest level
standards
Use of sensitive
professionalism
and moral judgment
Do the right thing
Integrity: be candid Values of sincerity, The letter and spirit of the The codal provisions will Firm members will
without breaching honesty and candor will firm’s codal provisions be adhered to the best of attempt to act within
confidentiality be upheld at the highest and the law will be the firm members’ codal value structures and
Subrogate personal gain level respected abilities the law
to public service
Do the right thing

Source: Adapted from Raiborn and Payne (1990)

Table III.

accountant’s ethical
of ethics model
Applied code

decision-making
The JUCI Model for
MRR accountant can decide at what level of morality his decision should be made: some things are
not to be compromised in any way, while others may be reviewed at a lower level of
importance. The model code can then be filtered down to individual accounting disciplines
that can provide more detailed guidelines for actions.
An example of the utilization of this proposed model code might be aggressive tax
avoidance. While it is well-established that tax avoidance is eminently reasonable,
aggressive tax avoidance can be considered unethical (Payne and Raiborn, 2015; Raiborn
et al., 2015). Table IV represents possible approaches to tax avoidance or evasion. As can be
seen from the practical application of the model to the real instance of whether an
accountant should engage in aggressive tax evasion, the top two levels of compliance are
very positive in nature: this is an indication that the code does in fact advocate for the
adherence to the spirit of the law, hopefully encouraging the accountant to choose the more
appropriate response.
A model code does not preclude the desire for other, more focused, codes of ethics or
professional conduct for accountants. However, there are several reasons why a model code,
transferable across accounting, business and societal behaviors, is a valuable resource for
accounting professionals. First, the model code’s values are applicable to the whole populace
of professional accountants rather than stylized codes that address only accountants who
are in “this” or “that” discipline area, hold “this” or “that” certification, or are licensed in
“this” or “that” state or country. Second, the model code is drafted in “plain English,”
making it clearly understandable by accountants and non-accountants. Third, though not

Levels of ethics Theoretical Tax Practically Attainable Current Aggressive

Values Overpayment Tax Avoidance tax avoidance Basic Tax Evasion

Justice Failure of Payment of Payment of Non-payment of taxes

fairness to the taxpayer’s fair share taxpayer’s potentially
client too little share
Utility Harmful to Benefit to Benefit only to Benefit only to
shareholders stakeholders, shareholders; other shareholders and
including stakeholders are only if the evasion
shareholders who are harmed: government goes undetected
assured that their provision of public (potentially very
firm is a full goods and services is short-term benefit
participant in the endangered with potentially long-
creation of value for term and serious legal
themselves and consequences)
society
Competence Failure of Correct maintenance Questionable Illegal and unethical
accountant to of legal and ethical manipulation of manipulation of
protect his client accounting standards legality accounting standards
to the legal and
ethical limit
Integrity Failure of Good faith Possibly bad faith Bad faith assessment
Table IV. accountant to assessment of what is assessment of what is of what is owed
discharge his owed owed
Application of the fiduciary duties
JUCI Model Code of to his clients
Professional Ethics:
Tax Avoidance Source: Payne and Raiborn (2015), Raiborn et al. (2015)
the focus of this effort, the JUCI model is well grounded in ethical principles well-established Applied code
as providing ethical guidance (Kant, 1964; Aristotle, 1984). of ethics model

Conclusion
Significant criticism has been directed at internal and external accountants for their
professional colleagues’ roles (or perceived roles) in some of the recent business failures. In
some cases, the criticism is valid; in others, it is possible that the criticism stems from a lack
of understanding about what accountants do and how they do it. Accountants are part of the
human resource contingent referred to as knowledge workers whose professional abilities
reflect mental acuity and problem solving.
Accountants produce information (be it is the form of monetary analyses, financial
statements, tax returns, or audit opinions) that is used for dissimilar purposes by a
multitude of stakeholders. Because of the critical impact that accountants’ work can have on
economic decisions, accountants (in a manner similar to physicians) must embrace the
concept of non-malfeasance or the ethical principle of doing no harm. It is essential that
members of this profession be ethical and stand fast against the internal and external
pressures that might encourage these professionals to engage in fraudulent activities. Codes
of ethics focus on “how” professionals, including accountants, perform their functions. Such
codes provide guidance on right and wrong. Such codes can also serve as deterrents to the
rationalization dimension of the fraud triangle.
Onyebuchi (2011; p. 276) asserts that “(a)ccounting codes of professional conduct
significantly influence the behavior and judgment of practicing accountants.” Coupled with
the fact that ethical issues are pervasively present and the need for the accounting
profession to retrieve its brand by more effectively embracing justice, utility, competence
and integrity, it is increasingly important that accountants should become familiar/more
familiar and comfortable with ethical guidelines, and that those guidelines should be rules
truly to live by in everyday application.
To provide more far-reaching guidance on how to act, this paper presents a model
code of ethics for all professional accountants. The JUCI model code looks beyond an
accountant’s job function; it looks beyond the workplace; it looks beyond certification,
licensure or locale. The model code is understandable not only to the accountants for
whom it has been developed but also for the stakeholders to whom the accountants
provide their services and produce their information. The JUCI model provides clear,
prescriptive guidance for a profession that serves the public and is charged with
protecting the public interest. Like all professional codes of ethics, the model identifies
the positive traits that, if consistently acted upon, form the foundation of professional
character. In sum, “the moral obligations of accounting professionals are enhanced by
ethical leadership and values-based decision making. Ethical leadership entails acting
on one’s beliefs in a manner consistent with public interest obligations (Mintz, 2016,
p. 8).”
Future research includes the testing of the model empirically; the focus of this effort has
been to lay the theoretical foundation for such testing. Upon completion of initial testing, the
model can be further refined based on those results. We would also like to consider using the
Delphi method of analysis to further ascertain the validity the model, using groups of
experts as evaluators. Additionally, we would like to present this for review by current
accounting students in the hopes that we can gain even more insight into the efficacy of this
model.
MRR References
Accounting Professional and Ethics Standards Board (APESB) (2010), “APES 110 code of ethics for
professional accountants”, available at: www.apesb.org.au/uploads/standards/apesb_standards/
standard1.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).
Adler, N. (1999), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South-Western Publishing,
Cincinatti.
Albrecht, W.S. (1992), Ethical Issues in the Practice of Accounting, South-Western Publishing,
Cincinnati.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (2014), Code of Professional Conduct,
AICPA, New York, NY, available at: http://pub.aicpa.org/codeofconduct/Ethics.aspx?_ga=
1.95559772.1185467417.1490033794 (accessed 20 March 2017).
Amernic, J.H. and Craig, R.J. (2010), “Accounting as a facilitator of extreme Narcissism”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 79-93.
Arenas, D. and Rodrigo, P. (2016), “On firms and the next generations: difficulties and possibilities for
business ethics inquiry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 165-178.
Aristotle (1984), The Complete Works of Aristotle, the Revised Oxford Translation, in Barnes, J. (Ed.),
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Barman, T. (2016), “New – and important – role for professional accountants in assessing human rights
risk”, International Federation of Accountants Global Knowledge Gateway, 21 July, available at:
www.ifac.org/global-knowledge-gateway/ethics /discussion/new-and-important-role-professional-
accountants-assessing (accessed 23 February 2017).
Baskerville-Morley, R.F. (2004), “Dangerous, dominant, dependent, or definitive: Stakeholder
identification when the profession faces major transgressions”, Accounting and the Public
Interest, Vol. 4, pp. 24-42.
Behrman, J.N. (1988), Essays on Ethics in Business and the Professions, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bollom, W.J. (1988), “Ethics and Self-Regulation for CPAs in the USA”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7
Nos 1/2, pp. 55-61.
Brien, A. (1998), “Professional ethics and the culture of trust”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 391-409.
Cameron, R. and O’Leary, C. (2015), “Improving ethical attitudes or simply teaching ethical codes? The
reality of accounting ethics education”, Accounting Education, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 275-290,
doi: 10.1080/09639284.2015.1036893.
Cowton, C. and San-Jose, L. (2017), “On the ethics of trade credit: understanding good payment practice
in the supply chain”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140 No. 4, pp. 673-685.
Cressey, D.R. (1972), Other People’s Money: Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Montclair, NJ.
De George, R.T. (2010), Business Ethics, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Frankel, M.S. (1989), “Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact?”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 109-115.
Glen, J. (2017), “Why are accounting ethics important?”, InvestorGuide.com, available at: www.investorguide.
com/article/14079/why-are-accounting-ethics-important-d1013/ (accessed 23 February 2017).
Hagel, J. (2012), “Bridging the ethical divide: Survey finds firms lagging”, Journal of Accountancy,
Vol. 214 No. 1, pp. 22-23.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2006), “The general theory of marketing ethics: a revision and three
questions”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) (2016), “International professional practices framework-framework
for internal auditor effectiveness”, available at: https://na.theiia.org/standards-guidance/Pages/
Standards-and-Guidance-IPPF.aspx (accessed 12 November 2017).
Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) (2019), “Statement of ethical professional practice”, Applied code
availbale at: www.imanet.org/career-resources/ethics-center?ssopc=1 (accessed 12 November
2017).
of ethics model
James, K. (2017), “Ethical dilemmas in accounting”, Small Business Chronicle, available at: http://
smallbusiness.chron.com/ethical-dilemmas-accounting-3740.html (accessed 23 February 2017).
Joseph, G. (2007), “Implications of a stakeholder view on corporate reporting”, Accounting and the
Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 50-65.
Kant, I. (1964), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in Paton, H.J. (Ed.), Harper and Row, New
York, NY.
Karmanska, A., Lang, M. and Jarvis, R. (2017), “Under pressure”, International Federation of
Accountants Global Knowledge Gateway, available at: www.ifac.org/global-knowledge-
gateway/ethics/discussion/under-pressure (accessed 23 February 2017).
Lang, M., Karmanska, A. and Jarvis, R. (2016), “Accounting and ethics: pressure experienced by the
professional accountant”, available at: www.efaa.com/files/pdf/Publications/Articles/
20161221_EFAA_Pressure_Survey.pdf (accessed 7 March 2017).
Laczniak, G.R. (1983), “Framework for analyzing marketing ethics”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Magill, H.T. and Previts, G. (1991), CPA Professional Responsibilities: An Introduction, South-Western
Publishing, Cincinnati.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 370-396.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm (accessed 7 March 2017).
Menendez, T. and Mintz, S. (2016), “The ethical state of the CPA profession: an interview with tony
menendez and steven mintz”, The CPA Journal, Vol. 86 No. 12, pp. 75-79.
Mintz, S. (2016), “From analysis to action: the evolution of accounting ethics education”, The CPA
Journal, Vol. 86 No. 8, pp. 28-31.
Mintz, S. and Morris, R. (2011), Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting: Text and Cases,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Mohd Ghazali, N.A. and Ismail, S. (2013), “The influence of personal attributes and organizational
ethics position on accountants’ judgments: Malaysian scenario”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 281-297.
Onyebuchi, V. (2011), “Ethics in accounting”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2
No. 10, pp. 275-276.
Payne, D.M. and Raiborn, C.A. (2015), “Aggressive tax avoidance: a conundrum for stakeholders,
governments and morality”, Journal of Business Ethics, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-015-2978-5
Raiborn, C.A., Massoud, M.F. and Payne, D. (2015), “Tax avoidance: the good, the bad and the future”,
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 77-94.
Raiborn, C. and Payne, D. (1990), “Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and continuum”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 11, pp. 879-889.
Rockness, H.O. and Rockness, J.W. (2010), “Navigating the complex maze of ethics CPE”, Accounting
and the Public Interest, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 88-104.
Sager, W. (1992), “Characteristics of a professional accountant”, The National Public Accountant,
Vol. 37 No. 1, p. 8.
Shafer, W.E. (2015), “Ethical climate, social responsibility, and earnings management”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 43-60.
Sorensen, D.P., Miller, S.E. and Cabe, K.L. (2017), “Developing and measuring the impact of an
accounting course that is based on the moral philosophy of adam smith”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 175-191.
MRR Stuebs, M. and Wilkinson, B. (2010), “Ethics and the tax profession: restoring the public interest focus”,
Accounting and the Public Interest, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-35.
Tomasic, R. and Bottomley, S. (1993), Directing the Top 500: Corporate Governance and Accountability
in Australian Companies, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, as cited in Brien, A. (1998). “Professional
Ethics and the Culture of Trust,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 391-409.
Tormo-Carbo, G., Seguí-Mas, E. and Oltra, V. (2016), “Accounting ethics in unfriendly environments:
the educational challenge”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 161-175.
Vanasco, R.R. (1994), “The IIA code of ethics: an international perspective”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 12-22.
Velasquez, M.G. (1998), Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Velayutham, S. (2003), “The accounting professions’ code of ethics: is it a code of ethics or a code of
quality assurance?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 483-503.
Wakefield, R. (2008), “Accounting and machiavellianism”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 115-129.
Wolfe, D.T. and Hermanson, D.R. (2004), “The fraud diamond: considering the four elements of fraud”,
The CPA Journal, Vol. 74 No. 12, pp. 38-42.
West, A. (2018), “Multinational tax avoidance: virtue ethics and the role of accountants”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 153 No. 4, pp. 1143-1156.
Youseff, A. and Rachid, O.M. (2015), “Ethical basis of the international financial reporting standards
(IFRS)”, Malaysian Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4-24.

Further reading
De George, R.T. (1999), Business Ethics, Simon and Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Flood, J.M. (2016), AU-C Section 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Audit and the Conduct of an
Audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, AICPA, New York, NY.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (1980), “Statement of financial accounting concepts no. 1:
qualitative characteristics of accounting information”.

Corresponding author
Matthew Zingoni can be contacted at: mzingoni@uno.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com