Ethical Issues In Compensation Plans For Executive Officers

Ethical Issues Compensation Plan The Executive Officers Of Rouse Cor

The executive officers of Rouse Corporation have a performance-based compensation plan linked to growth in earnings per share (EPS). When annual EPS growth is 12%, the executives earn 100% of the shares; if growth is 16%, they earn 125%. If EPS growth is below 8%, they receive no additional compensation. In 2012, Gail Devers, the controller, reviews year-end estimates of bad debt and warranty expenses. She calculates the EPS growth at 15%. Kurt Adkins suggests that decreasing bad debt expense estimates could increase the EPS growth to 16.1%. Devers is uncertain whether to adjust the estimates, believing current estimates are sound but acknowledging the subjectivity involved.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding managerial decisions in financial reporting are often complex, especially when they relate directly to executive compensation incentives. In this case, Gail Devers faces a nuanced ethical dilemma involving the accuracy of financial estimates and the potential influence of compensation structures designed to reward growth in earnings per share (EPS). The core of her dilemma revolves around whether to adjust year-end estimates to achieve targeted EPS growth that would trigger higher executive compensation, potentially compromising professional integrity and the truthfulness of financial reports.

The ethical dilemma for Devers is multifaceted. On one hand, her role as a controller imposes a duty to present fair, accurate, and reliable financial information. As a fiduciary responsible for the integrity of financial statements, she must ensure that estimates like bad debt and warranty expenses genuinely reflect the company's financial position. Adjusting these estimates solely to meet strategic EPS thresholds could mislead stakeholders, investors, and regulators, violating ethical standards of honesty and transparency. Such manipulation can erode trust in financial reporting and could have legal implications if deemed misrepresentation or fraud.

On the other hand, the incentive structure embedded in the compensation plan creates a tangible motivation for Devers to consider minimizing expenses artificially to boost EPS, thus achieving a more favorable reward for the executives. This situation raises concerns about managerial bias, pressure, and the potential for financial statement distortion to meet performance targets. Such pressures are often referred to as “performance pressures” and pose an ethical challenge because they may lead managers to compromise their professional judgment for personal or organizational gain.

Regarding whether Devers's knowledge of the compensation plan should influence her estimates, the answer leans toward ethical caution. Her awareness of the plan’s incentives might create a subconscious or conscious bias in how she approaches her estimates. While this awareness doesn't justify unethical behavior, it highlights the importance of professional skepticism and objectivity in her judgment. Ethical accounting standards, such as those outlined by the AICPA Code of Ethics and IFRS, emphasize independence, objectivity, and integrity in financial reporting. Devers should base her estimates solely on the best available evidence and sound accounting principles, resisting any undue influence from the desire to meet specific EPS targets.

In response to Adkins's suggestion, Devers should prioritize maintaining the integrity of the financial statements over achieving a short-term EPS target. She must adhere to ethical standards that require honest reporting and avoid any manipulation that could mislead stakeholders. If she believes that the current estimates are fair and reasonable, she should defend this position firmly. If she has concerns about potential biases or pressure, she should communicate these concerns to higher management or the audit committee, or seek advice from professional ethics bodies. Ultimately, Devers's responsibility is to uphold ethical standards and deliver truthful financial information, even if that means the company does not meet or exceed certain performance thresholds due to the true economic situation.

This scenario underscores the importance of fostering an organizational culture that values ethical behavior and transparency over short-term performance targets. Companies must design evaluation and compensation systems that do not incentivize unethical accounting practices. Implementing robust internal controls, encouraging independent oversight, and promoting ethical responsibility are critical in aligning managerial incentives with the genuine interests of stakeholders.

References

• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2018). Code of Professional Conduct. AICPA.
• International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. (2020). IFRS Conceptual Framework.
• Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2003). Business Analysis & Valuation: Using Financial Statements. Cengage Learning.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
• Robertson, D. C., & Methven, T. (2015). Ethics and integrity in corporate financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 403-420.
• Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(4), 185-205.
• Antle, R., & Demirkan, S. (2003). Fundamental ethics in accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(2), 159-173.
• Tinker, T., Merino, B., & Neimark, M. (1982). The Normative Foundations of Contemporary Auditing. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1(1), 3-32.
• Griffiths, M., & Popkin, D. (2020). Ethical decision-making in financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 69(2-3), 101360.
• Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Ethical leadership and the role of Corporate Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1), 61-82.