Professional Judgment – Ethical Thinking by Chartered Accountants

It is generally accepted that ethical thinking by Chartered Accountants (CAs) is based on their knowledge and the application of fair and comprehensive codes of professional conduct, such as the IFAC Handbook of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. Education, training and experience, as well as professional and organizational commitment, influence a CA’s ability to utilize principled ethical thinking when exercising professional judgment.

Accounting research suggests that accountants can think about ethical issues in one of three ways that correspond to the three types of ethical thinking: pre-conventional, conventional and principled thinking. CAs use pre-conventional ethical thinking when they decide what is right or wrong based upon consequences, and often, self-interest. An example of using pre-conventional thinking is management’s decision to pad a budget because a bonus will be received if the budget is met.

CAs use conventional ethical thinking when social consensus, such as accepted practices, rules and laws, define what is right or wrong. An example of using conventional ethical thinking is management’s structuring a contract, such as a lease, solely to achieve a particular accounting result. CAs use principled ethical thinking when they use universal ethical principles of justice and the common good to determine what is right or wrong. An example of using principled ethical thinking is management’s voluntarily disclosing to shareholders the firm’s environmental and social practices, even if they are less than flattering, because it is right or justifiable to do so. Once CAs use principled ethical thinking to determine the right thing to do, they should be encouraged to do it.

For more information, read the article “Ethics and the accountant” by Linda Thorne, PhD, CA and Dawn Massey, PhD, CPA in the premier issue of CMA Magazine online.

Principles not Rules: A Question of Judgement

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) published (in April 2006, updated July 2008) a research report called Principles not Rules: A Question of Judgement. The Introduction to this 27-page report was written by Hugh Shields, Chairman of the Working Group (Director and Head of Financial Reporting at Barclays Capital, a division of Barclays Bank). He states that: “The key to true and fair financial reporting is the balanced exercise of judgement. If standard setters, preparers, auditors and regulators could all exercise judgement on broadly equal terms, then this would provide the healthy tension which is needed for true and fair financial reporting and for communication with stakeholders.”

According to Shields, “Principles-based accounting standards are based on a conceptual framework, consist of a clear hierarchy of overriding principles and contain no ‘bright-line’ or anti-abuse provisions. Such an approach requires the use of judgement by preparers, auditors and regulators. ...With the safeguards afforded by such an approach, all parties should be more able to accept the consequences of exercising judgement in a principles-based accounting world.

“Against the above background, much greater simplicity in standard setting becomes possible. An interviewee in this project noted that: “Any accounting standard should be capable of being explained in one minute.” Yet some standards currently seem to defy any simple explanation at all. In the interests of all parties involved in financial reporting and, in particular, the broad range of users, such a situation should not be allowed to persist.”

Shields further notes that, “Einstein once said that ‘Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.’ This perfectly captures the Working Group's view that accounting standards should be firmly governed by high-level principles with only the absolute minimum additional guidance required to make the standard operational. Preparers and auditors would, therefore, need the courage to exercise and defend their judgements in this simplified accounting world. Users and regulators would need the wisdom to accept that there may be more than one answer and, over time, all parties would have to build the trust that this state of the world implies.”

A summary of 10 recommendations is presented in the report (page 3). A review of the professional, academic and regulatory literature on the principles versus rules debate in international accounting standard setting entitled Principles-Based or Rules-Based Accounting Standards? A Question of Judgement is available on the lCAS website. Also available is the output from the financial instrument workshop sessions Principles not Rules: Report on Proceedings of Financial Instrument Workshops.

Professional Judgment: Are Auditors Being Held to a Higher Standard Than Other Professionals?

This discussion paper on Professional Judgment was commissioned by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and written by Professor Ken Trotman, PhD, FCA, Centre for Accounting and Assurance Services Research, University of New South Wales. The September 2006 paper forms part of the Institute’s objective to deliver effective and visionary thought leadership initiatives that profoundly and positively impact business and the accounting profession.

According to the Executive Summary of this paper, “Auditors today are subject to increased expectations from regulators and the investing public. At the same time, corporations are expanding, transactions have become more complex and there are requirements on auditors to provide much greater levels of assurance related to financial fraud.”

The paper further notes that “judgment is the ‘cornerstone’ of auditing and describes some of the 40 years of research that has considered judgment and expertise. While the literature recognises that ‘of course experts make mistakes’, there appears to be a growing presumption that this should not be the case for auditors.”

“In many professions, the difficulty of making judgments is recognised. This paper discusses the role of judgment in medicine, the legal system, police investigations and marketing. It is recognised that errors of judgment do sometimes occur in these professions. The question that arises is whether auditors are being held to a higher level of accountability than other professions. This is particularly important where the scope of audits is constrained by the price society is willing to pay for such services. It is suggested that even a well-conducted audit, following all appropriate audit standards, can fail to detect a material fraud in the financial statements, particularly where management has gone to great lengths to cover up the fraud. These considerations are important in an environment where audit standards have the force of law.”

“The concept of cumulative evidence is discussed by reference to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) reviews of the Big 4 in the US. It is concluded that any inspection process should be concerned with whether sufficient cumulative evidence has been obtained rather than specific aspects of particular audit tests. The paper suggests that Australian inspection agencies have an opportunity to more fully inform investors than has been the case with the PCAOB, by providing a more even-handed assessment that describes both the good and the bad. The market needs to be aware of not only problems but also enhancements in independence procedures and quality controls and whether the enhanced policies are continuing to work effectively.”

(Read the discussion paper Professional judgment: are auditors being held to a higher standard than other professionals?)

Should Professional Judgment be a Pillar of Accounting Education?

Chartered Accountants (CAs) practice in a wide variety of fields. For example, they may be auditors of publicly-traded corporations, advisers to privately-held organisations, CFOs (overseeing treasury, financing and strategic investment decisions), IT consultants, corporate finance advisers, tax specialists, forensic accountants, accounting professors, controllers (managing performance measurement and control systems), internal audit directors, government financial officers and insolvency practitioners. Each of these careers requires different competencies and implies the application of professional judgment in a multitude of different contexts.

The diversity that one encounters within the accounting profession raises several questions for which answers are not necessarily forthcoming. For example, do these different career streams require different sets or portfolios of cognitive skills? Do these career streams demand similar or distinct levels of cognitive skills? Moreover, does the optimal configuration between specific expertise and cognitive skills differ across these career streams? In that regard, the advent of articling within business organizations as an alternative to accounting firms is likely to bring further broadening in the range of careers and experiences of professional accountants.

Judgment and expertise in professional accounting have been topics of interest for many decades. Both concepts share many commonalities as judgment is the most evident outcome from expertise, while expertise is required to exercise judgment. However, both concepts can also be considered to be multi-dimensional. Two key aspects that underlie professional judgment in accounting are 1) relevant knowledge and experience so that 2) a choice must be made between alternatives.

In summary, we have learned a lot over the past two decades about professional judgment and expertise, but there remains some uncertainty as to what they are, as well as how and when to develop them. It appears that the development of professional expertise and judgment through generic learning processes may not be optimal. The literature also raises questions as to whether university education is necessarily the best time to provide such professional judgment and expertise abilities.

The preceding views are adapted from the discussant’s comments “Further Developing Professional Attributes in CAs: An Impossible Challenge?” by Michel Magnan, PhD, FCA, Concordia University, in response to the presentation “Teaching the Fine Arts of Being a Professional Accountant” by Susan Wolcott, PhD, CPA. Both the presentation and the discussant’s comments were part of the November 22, 2010 symposium Leveraging Change - The New Pillars of Accounting Education which was held in Toronto, Canada. The pillars of accounting education include: professional judgment; professional and personal attributes; accounting principles and concepts; ethical decision making; and integration.

(For more information on this symposium, contact Irene Wiecek, FCA, at the University of Toronto and/or Tim Forristal, CA, or Gord Beal, CA, at the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). Refer to the CICA website for more information on What Do CAs Do?)

Professional Judgment – The Mark of a Profession

The Rules of Professional Conduct are part of the Member’s Handbook of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. The Foreword states that the Rules are comprehensive in their scope, practical in application and addressed to high moral standards. They serve not only as a guide to the profession itself, but as a source of assurance of the profession's concern for the public it serves.

According to those Rules, “It is a mark of a profession that there is a voluntary assumption, by those who comprise it -- the professional community -- of ethical principles which are aimed, first and foremost, at protection of the public and, second, at achieving orderly and courteous conduct within the profession.”

The rules of professional conduct presume the existence of a profession. Since the word "profession" has lost some of its earlier precision, through widespread application, it is worthwhile reviewing the characteristics which mark a calling as professional in the traditional sense.

Much has been written on the subject and court cases have revolved around it. The weight of the authorities, however, identifies the following distinguishing elements:

·       there is mastery by the practitioners of a particular intellectual skill, acquired by lengthy training and education;

·       the traditional foundation of the calling rests in public practice -- the application of the acquired skill to the affairs of others for a fee;

·       the calling centres on the provision of personal services rather than entrepreneurial dealing in goods;

·       there is an outlook, in the practice of the calling, which is essentially objective;

·       there is acceptance by the practitioners of a responsibility to subordinate personal interests to those of the public good;

·       there exists a developed and independent society or institute, comprising the members of the calling, which sets and maintains standards of qualification, attests to the competence of the individual practitioner and safeguards and develops the skills and standards of the calling;

·       there is a specialized code of ethical conduct, laid down and enforced by that society or institute, designed principally for the protection of the public;

·       there is a belief, on the part of those engaged in the calling, in the virtue of interchange of views, and in a duty to contribute to the development of their calling, adding to its knowledge and sharing advances in knowledge and technique with their fellow members.

By these criteria, chartered accountancy is a profession. It is essential to recognize that a profession does not cease to be a profession because a proportion of its members enter salaried private employment. These members continue to belong to the profession and to be subject to the rules of professional conduct. It should be recognized that some members of the profession might acquire the required skills outside of public practice.