Term 5 Unit 1 Discussions: Unit 1 DB Problem 1

Term 5 Unit 1 Discussionsunit 1 Db Problem 1 39acc440 Auditingcomme

Problem 1-39 presents a debate between two auditing students, Peters and Ferrel, regarding the appropriate level of social interaction between CPAs and their clients and its impact on independence and objectivity in auditing. Peters emphasizes a traditional view that maintaining professional distance from client personnel is essential to preserve a CPA’s independence. He argues that fraternization, especially social contacts outside of work hours, can compromise a CPA’s objectivity, especially when faced with delicate issues such as fraud or questionable accounting practices. Peters suggests that courteous but reserved behavior is necessary to uphold the integrity and impartiality required of the profession.

Conversely, Ferrel advocates for a more modern and human-centered approach, asserting that integrity does not necessarily require social detachment. He emphasizes that auditors are human beings who need cooperation from clients to do their jobs effectively. Ferrel believes that establishing friendly, relaxed relationships, which may include social outings or informal interactions, can foster trust and cooperation. These relationships, in his view, do not inherently threaten independence, and in fact, can improve overall audit quality by promoting transparency and open communication. He also notes future considerations, such as increasing diversity in the workplace, which may introduce additional complexities in social interactions, but overall suggests that friendliness does not equate to a lack of professionalism.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate between Peters and Ferrel encapsulates a longstanding discussion within the auditing profession regarding the boundaries of auditor-client relationships and the influence of social interactions on auditor independence and objectivity. Both perspectives have valid considerations, and an examination of these viewpoints highlights the complex balance auditors must strike between professionalism and interpersonal rapport.

Historically, the primary concern within the profession has been that social and personal relationships might impair an auditor’s ability to remain objective and impartial. Peters’ stance reflects this traditional viewpoint, which emphasizes that independence is best preserved through formal, professional interactions devoid of personal fraternization. This perspective is rooted in the principle that personal relationships could lead to favoritism, unwarranted reliance, or undue influence, which might compromise the auditor’s judgment. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct supports this view, advocating for independence in mind and appearance, which social interactions could threaten if not appropriately managed.

However, critics of this strict stance argue that overly rigid separation may hinder effective communication, reduce trust, and impair the cooperative nature of auditor-client relationships. Ferrel’s perspective recognizes that auditors and clients are human beings engaged in a partnership necessary for the success of the audit. Social interactions, including casual conversations or social outings, can humanize the relationship, reduce barriers, and foster a climate of openness. This, in turn, may lead to more honest disclosures and a more thorough examination, ultimately enhancing the quality of the audit. Several studies have supported this approach, indicating that professional relationships built on trust and mutual respect can coexist with independence if appropriate boundaries are maintained.

Furthermore, the modern business environment, characterized by increased diversity, globalization, and evolving ethical standards, influences how these relationships are managed. Ferrel’s observation regarding women entering the profession and holding leadership roles highlights that social norms are changing, and so too should the approach to professional relationships. While increased friendliness may introduce certain challenges, such as potential conflicts of interest or perceptions of bias, these can be managed through clear policies, ethical standards, and ongoing education on maintaining independence while fostering positive relationships.

In practice, many audit firms adopt a hybrid approach, encouraging professional yet cordial relationships. This balance aims to ensure that social interactions do not undermine independence but rather support open communication, cooperation, and understanding. For example, auditors are often advised to avoid socializing during critical phases of an audit or when there is a potential conflict of interest, but they are also encouraged to develop professional rapport to facilitate a smoother audit process.

In conclusion, the contrasting views of Peters and Ferrel reflect the evolving nature of auditing relationships. While the core principle of independence remains central, the way it is practically maintained can vary. Recognizing the importance of professionalism, ethical standards, and the human element provides a comprehensive approach that enhances audit quality. Auditors must navigate these relationships carefully, balancing professionalism with interpersonal skills, to uphold the integrity of the audit process.

References

• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2021). Code of Professional Conduct. AICPA.
• Knechel, W. R., Vanstraelen, A., & Walther, B. (2015). Does the International Quality Control Standard ICQ1 Influence Auditor Independence? The Accounting Review, 90(5), 1657-1697.
• Humphrey, C., Moizer, P., & Turley, S. (1992). The Audit Expectations Gap: A European Study. Routledge.
• Gramling, A. A., Maletta, M. J., Schneider, A., & Church, B. (2004). The Role of Ethical Climate in the Ethical Decision-Making Process of Internal Auditors. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 349-364.
• International Federation of Accountants. (2018). Handbook of International Quality Control, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements.
• Chiu, S. W., & Tan, D. (2015). Social Interaction and Auditor Independence. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 153-168.
• Harvey, C. R., & Ruhl, K. J. (2018). Financial Reporting and Auditor Independence—A Literature Review. The Journal of Accounting and Economics, 65(2-3), 278-305.
• Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2012). Auditor Independence and the Role of Social Relationships. PCAOB Release No. 103-2012-001.
• Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2017). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach. Pearson Education.
• Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press.