Chapter 15: Beyond Agency Theory: Common Values for Accounting Ethics Education

Whenever discussions arise about the purposes of accounting ethics education, two very different questions come to the forefront: What should we do, and what can we do? Both discussions are important, and the normative discussion probably ought to precede the practical one. Practicality tends to lead to watered down recommendations that have little impact on accountants’ ethics, reinforcing the idea that accounting ethics education is a fruitless pursuit. On the other hand, we risk alienating many who would willingly improve accounting ethics when we divorce the normative from the practical.

Ethical decision-making can be represented as having three potential influential components: deontological (duty) considerations, ontological (virtue) considerations, and teleological (potential decision outcome) calculations (Jordan & Sternberg, 2006). In enlisting the contributions of those accounting professors who do not focus on ethics, we often ask them to include ethics as a component of their courses. Many who are willing are most comfortable dealing with teleological ethics, and prefer to shy away from discussions of duty or virtue. They are inclined to think that it is quite difficult to determine what accountants ought to do unless situations are straightforward or illegal, whether the behavior is based on duties or character. But avoiding these issues is not an option. The American Institute of CPAs’ Code of Professional Conduct (2006) explicitly requires that CPAs consider their duties, and not just the potential consequences of unethical behavior. Moreover, the Code of Conduct sets forth a plethora of virtues (e.g., honesty, integrity, confidentiality) designed to influence and constrain the behavior of practicing accountants.