Code Of Ethics: 2-3 Pages, Single Spaced For The First Four

Code Of Ethics 2 3 Pages Single Spacedfor The First Four Scenarios L

For the first four scenarios listed below, write a couple of paragraphs discussing whether there is a violation of the Code of Ethics. In your paper, you must include the following: 1) Identify the possible alternative points of view. There is no one right answer. You may be able to support either a yes or no answer for any of these scenarios. You need to show me you considered both possibilities in formulating your conclusion.

2) Provide your specific conclusion. You must explain how you arrived at each conclusion. In addition you must reference the applicable section(s) in the Code of Ethics (e.g. 2.1). You can reference relevant Attribute Standards as well.

3) You are free to make assumptions and in fact are encouraged to do so as long as you clearly document them. You can do some research as well. For the last two scenarios, you need to respond to the question at the end of the ethical dilemma. You should reference the applicable section(s) in the Code of Ethics and any relevant Attribute Standards to support your response. Scenarios 1) Does including the CAE (Chief Audit Executive) in a company's stock option program violate the Code of Ethics?

2) After every audit, a survey about the audit work is sent to key management involved. 10% of each auditor’s annual bonus is determined based on the results of these surveys. Does this practice violate the Code of Ethics?

3) At lunch during an IIA conference, an internal auditor engages in a discussion with the seven people at his table about their experiences with ERP implementations at their companies. At his company the ERP implementation is still in progress. Would discussing this information be considered a violation of the Code of Ethics?

4) The in-charge auditor on the audit engagement is given four weeks to perform an audit. Three weeks into the audit she realizes the planned audit scope cannot be completed in the budgeted time. Is reducing the scope of the audit due to budget restrictions a violation of the Code of Ethics?

5) Ethical dilemma #9

6) Ethical dilemma #11

Paper For Above instruction

The following analysis explores whether the scenarios presented violate the Institute of Internal Auditors’ (IIA) Code of Ethics. Each scenario is examined from multiple perspectives, considering both potential violations and justifications, while referencing applicable sections of the IIA’s Ethical Principles and Attribute Standards. The reasoning aims to provide a balanced analysis demonstrating understanding of professional ethics in internal auditing.

Scenario 1: Does including the CAE in a company's stock option program violate the Code of Ethics?

From one perspective, including the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) in a stock option program could be seen as a conflict of interest, possibly impairing independence and objectivity, which are core ethical principles outlined in the IIA’s Attribute Standard 1100 (Independence and Objectivity). Participating in executive compensation incentives might influence the CAE’s judgments, leading to questions about whether the CAE can maintain impartiality during audits. According to Standard 1120 (Individual Objectivity), auditors must avoid situations that may impair their objectivity, and accepting stock options could be perceived as an implicit financial benefit that compromises this standard.

Alternatively, one might argue that if the stock options are granted in a manner that aligns the CAE’s interests with those of the organization and do not influence audit judgments, it may not necessarily violate the Code. If the CAE’s participation is transparent and consistent with company policies, and there are safeguards in place, this could uphold ethical standards related to integrity and transparency (Principle 1, IIA Code of Ethics). The key consideration is whether the arrangement affects the CAE’s independence and objectivity, which is a central concern in ethical evaluations.

Conclusion: Given the importance of independence and the potential for perceived conflicts, including the CAE in a stock option program is likely a violation of the Code of Ethics unless strict safeguards are established. This aligns with Standard 1100 and Principle 3, emphasizing independence and objectivity.

Scenario 2: Does awarding 10% of an auditor’s bonus based on survey results violate the Code of Ethics?

From a perspective supporting a violation, tying bonuses directly to survey results may incentivize auditors to manipulate or unduly influence their evaluations, compromising their objectivity and integrity as outlined in Standard 1210 (Proficiency) and Standard 1220 (Due Professional Care). If auditors feel pressured to produce favorable survey outcomes, their independence could be compromised, leading to biased judgments or inflated performance ratings, thus violating the principle of integrity (Principle 1).

Conversely, it could be argued that if the survey process is conducted transparently and the criteria are objective, the bonus structure might motivate auditors to improve their performance and service quality without violating ethical standards. As long as the surveys do not influence the audit work itself and the incentive is communicated transparently, the practice may be ethically permissible, supporting the principle of competence and integrity.

Conclusion: Given the risk of conflicts of interest and undue influence, it is prudent to consider this practice a potential violation unless robust safeguards and clear boundaries are established. Based on the provisions in the IIA Code emphasizing independence and objectivity, the arrangement likely undermines ethical standards if it creates pressure on auditors.

Scenario 3: Would discussing ERP implementation experiences during a conference violate the Code of Ethics?

Discussing experiences during a conference may seem innocuous; however, if the discussions reveal confidential or proprietary information related to the company’s ongoing ERP project, it could breach confidentiality standards outlined in Standard 1110 (Organizational Independence) and Principle 4 (Confidentiality). Sharing sensitive project details might harm the organization’s competitive position or violate internal confidentiality policies.

On the other hand, discussing general challenges and lessons learned from ERP implementations can be educational and promote professional development. If the conversation is about publicly available information or experiences that do not disclose confidential data, it likely does not violate the Code.

Conclusion: The potential for violation depends on whether the discussion involves confidential information. If confidential details are shared, it breaches the principle of confidentiality; if not, it remains within ethical bounds.

Scenario 4: Is reducing the scope of an audit due to budget restrictions a violation?

Reducing audit scope because of budget constraints is a common practice, but it needs ethical consideration. From one standpoint, modifying scope to respect organizational limitations is a responsible decision aligned with professional standards, as long as the auditor documents the changes and communicates transparently with stakeholders, consistent with Standard 1300 (Quality Assurance and Improvement Program).

However, if scope reduction compromises the audit’s ability to fulfill its objectives or protect the interests of stakeholders, it may be viewed as a breach of the auditor’s duty to provide an adequate level of assurance, violating Principle 2 (Integrity) and Standard 2110 (Governance). The key is whether the reduction is justified, documented, and disclosed appropriately.

Conclusion: Scope reduction is not inherently a violation if justified and transparent, but it must not compromise the quality and effectiveness of the audit engagement. Ethical standards require honesty, transparency, and professionalism regardless of budget pressures.

Remaining Scenarios: Ethical dilemma #9 and #11

Without detailed descriptions, specific analysis is limited. However, generally, any ethical dilemmas involve balancing competing principles such as confidentiality, objectivity, and integrity. Applying the IIA’s Principles and Standards involves assessing the context, potential conflicts, transparency, and adherence to organizational policies. Ethical decision-making should prioritize stakeholder trust, professional competence, and the safeguarding of confidential information.

Conclusion

In reviewing these scenarios, it becomes evident that many ethical considerations hinge on the context and safeguards in place. The core principles outlined by the IIA’s Code of Ethics—integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, and competency—serve as vital guides. Situations such as conflicts of interest, incentives affecting independence, confidentiality breaches, and scope limitations must be carefully evaluated. Transparency, documentation, and adherence to established standards are crucial for resolving ethical dilemmas effectively and maintaining professional integrity in internal auditing practices.

References

• Institute of Internal Auditors. (2017). International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards). The IIA.
• Institute of Internal Auditors. (2015). Code of Ethics. The IIA.
• Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2017). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach. Pearson.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). The Strategy-Focused Organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Messier, W. F., Glover, S. M., & Prawitt, D. F. (2017). Auditing & Assurance Services. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Moeller, R. (2013). COSO Enterprise Risk Management: Establishing Effective ERM Processes. Wiley.
• Chambers, M. E. (2004). Ethics in Internal Auditing. Internal Auditor Journal.
• Svanberg, P. (2002). Auditor Independence and its Effects on Audit Quality. European Accounting Review, 11(2), 251-275.
• Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2010). Auditing Standard No. 2201.
• Hammersley, J. S., & Ebrahim, A. (2013). Auditing Standards and Ethics. Journal of Accounting and Ethics.