| Accounting
Ethics Courses: Do They Work?
By
David F. Bean and Richard A. Bernardi
JANUARY
2007 - Those opposed to adding a required ethics course
in accounting have stated that there is no proof that such
a course would result in more-ethical behavior. In the absence
of such proof, the proposal to require ethics education
in the accounting curriculum is dismissed by supposedly
unbiased and learned opponents. The authors, however, and
many others, are deeply concerned that ethics courses are
challenged while the place of other courses in the curriculum
goes unexamined. Curriculum review should be an ongoing
process at institutions of higher education. If one is concerned
with outcomes assessment, then the burden of proof should
be applied equally to all accounting courses, not just ethics.
Is this double standard a positive contribution of academia
to the accounting profession?
Consider
an outcomes assessment of courses after Enron and WorldCom.
Besides being ethical failures, these scandals also represent
failures of the accounting curriculum, if one uses the proposed
measurement standard suggested for ethics. The failed audits
of Enron and WorldCom not only challenge the effectiveness
of auditing courses, they also reflect poorly on what is
being taught in intermediate accounting courses. The WorldCom
fraud goes to the heart of the introductory financial accounting
course; had its auditors heeded the definition of assets
as items having future value and expenses as items having
no future value, the WorldCom audit would not have failed.
Viewed in such a light, even an introductory course would
not receive a positive outcome assessment.
Kohlberg’s
Moral Development
One
of the theories covered in most introductory ethics courses
is the Kohlberg model of moral development (Lawrence Kohlberg,
“Stages and Sequences: the Cognitive Development Approach
to Socialization,” Handbook of Socialization Theory
and Research, edited by D. Goslin, 1969). Kohlberg
describes moral development as a series of six progressive
stages that describe the logic used in making decisions
in situations involving ethical components. At stage two,
an individual uses a cost/benefit relationship that focuses
on oneself. In stage three, an individual focuses on oneself
and one’s close circle of friends, maximizing benefits
after carefully considering the costs involved. In stage
four, the reasoning process is focused on following the
rules of the individual’s society (or profession).
In this stage, an individual is concerned with following
the rules as the price of membership in the society or profession
(i.e., a rules-based approach). Finally, at stages five
and six, the individual includes considerations of what
one should do in a situation free of the constraints of
the lower-stage levels (i.e., a concepts-based approach).
In
Kohlberg’s model, an individual’s level of moral
development is at a distinct level at any given point. While
reasoning is primarily at one dominant stage, others maintain
that some decisions can also be based on reasoning using
higher- or lower-stage level considerations (James R. Rest,
Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory,
1986). Rest maintains that individuals have different levels
of sensitivity to ethical situations. The most frequently
used measure of one’s moral development is Rest’s
Defining Issues Test, which measures an individual’s
level of moral development (James R. Rest, Defining
Issues Test, 1979). Scoring on this test is based on
the proportion of stage five and stage six considerations
used in one’s decision process. Higher scores on the
Defining Issues Test reflect reasoning about what should
be done rather than rigidly following a set of rules (stage
four) or looking out for oneself or one’s friends
(stages two and three).
Following
the Rules
The
Kohlberg-Rest model has been used in numerous accounting
ethics studies, which note that accounting students and
practitioners score lower on Rest’s Defining Issues
Test than does the general population of students and college
graduates. Many researchers speculate that this phenomenon
is the result of being part of a profession that inculcates
a “following the rules” mentality (i.e., stage
four). Following the rules is a lower level of ethical reasoning
that the profession has used as a comfortable excuse: “We
did everything we were required to do.”
Unfortunately,
recent audit failures indicate that everyone should be more
sensitive to the ethical implications embedded in the audit
environment. For example, the leadership of Deloitte &
Touche believes that the accounting profession has “always
strived to ‘follow the rules.’ But in the wake
of scandals and the loss of investor confidence, we obviously
must do more to restore public trust” (William G.
Parrett, “Globalization’s Next Frontier: Principled
Codes of Conduct That Bolster the Rule of Law,” speech
to International Center for Corporate Accountability, May
14, 2004). As Parrett suggests, the profession must consider
what we should be doing rather than just meeting basic requirements.
This is the challenge of an accounting ethics course: Students
must be exposed to the real challenges of auditing and the
need to maintain a critical mentality when examining a client’s
data.
Ethical
Sensitivity and Auditing
Researcher
and coauthor of this article Richard A. Bernardi examined
fraud detection using a sample of 342 audit seniors and
152 audit managers from five of the former Big Six firms
(Richard A. Bernardi, “Fraud Detection: The Effect
of Client Integrity and Competence and Auditor Cognitive
Style,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, 1994). One-third of Bernardi’s sample
was told they were auditing a high-integrity client, one-third
a low-integrity client, and the remaining third was not
provided with any explicit integrity information; all other
data contained in the work papers were identical. Not surprisingly,
the study found that managers detected the embedded fraud
at a higher rate than did seniors (5% and 42%, respectively),
an experience effect. Bernardi also found that managers
who scored higher on Rest’s measure of ethical sensitivity
detected fraud at a higher rate when provided with client
integrity data, either high or low, than did the managers
who scored lower on Rest’s measure (75% and 47%, respectively).
Audit managers in the control group who scored high on Rest’s
measure but were not provided with client integrity data
fared no better than did managers who scored lower on Rest’s
metric (54% and 56%, respectively).
Further
research found that managers used a more conservative estimate
of materiality as their scores on Rest’s measure of
ethical sensitivity increased (Richard A. Bernardi and Donald
F. Arnold, “The Influence of Client Integrity and
Competence and Auditor Characteristics on Materiality Estimates,”
The Irish Accounting Review, 1994). Auditors who
scored higher on Rest’s measure also were more likely
to disclose sensitive findings even when management threatened
retaliation (Donald F. Arnold and Lawrence A. Ponemon, “Internal
Auditors’ Perceptions of Whistle-Blowing and the Influence
of Moral Reasoning,” A Journal of Practice &
Theory, 1991) and were less likely to underreport billable
hours (Lawrence A. Ponemon, “Auditor Underreporting
of Time and Moral Reasoning: An Experimental-Lab Study,”
Contemporary Accounting Research, 1992). In sum,
the existing research demonstrates the benefits of being
more sensitive to ethical issues in an auditing context.
Accountants’
Level of Ethical Sensitivity
Having
demonstrated the importance of increased ethical sensitivity,
it is disturbing that, in an analysis of prior studies,
the authors found that accounting majors’ scores on
Rest’s measure are consistently below that of the
general population throughout and after college (Richard
A. Bernardi and David F. Bean, “Establishing a Standardization
Sample for Accounting Students’ DIT Scores,”
presented at the Northeast Region of the American Accounting
Association’s Annual Conference, Portsmouth, N.H.,
2006). Another study provided data demonstrating that an
accounting ethics course can increase a participant’s
ethical sensitivity as measured by Rest’s Defining
Issues Test (Mary Beth Armstrong, “Ethics and Professionalism
in Accounting Education: A Sample Course,” Journal
of Accounting Education, 1993). Armstrong tested all
students at the beginning and the end of the semester (i.e.,
pretest and post-test methodology). Her data indicated that
those students who had already taken a general ethics course
and who also took the ethics and professionalism course
scored significantly higher on Rest’s Defining Issues
Test. An increase in one’s ethical sensitivity is
thus the result of a synergy of academic experiences in
ethics.
Armstrong’s
recommendation closely approximates the National Association
of State Boards of Accountancy’s (NASBA) original
proposal that ethics in the accounting curriculum should
include a triad of ethics instruction comprised of an ethics
philosophy course, ethical coursework in the accounting
curriculum, and a capstone ethics and professionalism course.
The authors believe that the research needed to show an
association between an ethics course (Armstrong) and outcomes
assessment in an audit environment (Bernardi) has already
been done. Why have the profession and academia chosen to
ignore these and many other ethics research studies when
debating whether an ethics course should be included in
the accounting curriculum?
NASBA’s
Proposal
NASBA’s
original proposal for a three-course ethics sequence parallels
the current accounting course sequence: two introductory
courses prior to two intermediate accounting courses, followed
by advanced accounting. The initial course should be taught
in the liberal arts context and cover the spectrum of theories
in ethics. What is questionable is whether all business
majors should be required to take a business ethics course
as covering ethics “across the curriculum” [Association
for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB),
Ethics Education in Business Schools, 2004]. Finally,
a discipline-specific accounting ethics course taken during
the same semester that a student takes auditing would provide
a synergy not in the current curriculum.
This
three-course sequence should provide the profession with
auditors who are more ethically sensitive. Given the number
of courses that must be taken to qualify for the CPA exam,
it is inconceivable that every one would be considered more
important to those entering the profession than an accounting
ethics course.
The
Need for the Ethics Course
Accounting
scandals in large companies and organizations generate notoriety
and often result in adverse publicity for the accounting
profession. Many practitioners can relate their own stories
involving small and family businesses, and although the
economic impact may not have been as great, the personal
devastations suffered were just as severe.
Certainly
no single ethics course or group of ethics courses can guarantee
that students will always behave and act ethically. Similarly,
there is no guarantee that those taking accounting courses
will always properly account for a given transaction. An
honest assessment of the errors and omissions that experienced
professionals encounter when reviewing the work of less-experienced
colleagues clearly demonstrates that having an accounting
degree does not guarantee accurate or proper accounting.
Individuals would probably concur, however, that the probability
of correct and ethical choices increases with increased
education in these particular subject areas. An accounting
ethics course should lessen the frequency and severity of
ethical lapses in the profession.
Organizations
and reporting requirements evolve to address the increasing
complexity of events and transactions. There is a need for
ethics education of professional accountants that enables
them to grow beyond the simplistic rules of right and wrong
that were learned in childhood. Accountants need more-advanced
tools to fulfill their societal obligations in this increasingly
complex environment with its many shades of gray.
Ethics
is of primary importance to the accounting profession, and
the profession clearly has the right, if not the obligation,
to require an accounting ethics course as a condition of
admittance. The academic community is entitled to determine
the quantity and nature of accounting courses that are offered.
Each institution of higher education, however, has the prerogative
to determine its curriculum, and there a collective agreement
is not required. Accounting students can study accounting
ethics either at the institution they are attending or,
if not offered at their institution, at a different institution.
The authors believe that if academia continues to collectively
oppose a course in accounting ethics, it would be in the
accounting profession’s best interest to create and
offer its own accounting ethics course as a precondition
of entry to the profession.
David
F. Bean, PhD, CPA, is a consultant with B. D. &
C., Academic Consulting, New Rochelle, N.Y., and
Richard A. Bernardi, PhD, CPA, is a professor
at the Gabelli School of Business at Roger Williams University,
Bristol, R.I.
|