Debating Ethics or Risks? An Exploratory Study of Audit Partners’ Peer Consultations About Ethics

Abstract

This qualitative field study is based on interviews with 20 experienced audit partners in France and documents the dialogical dimension of ethical deliberation in auditing. We ask: do audit partners consult each other when faced with an ethical dilemma at work? Who among their peers do they prefer to consult and why? Our analysis provides evidence that audit partners do not deliberate alone, contrary to what psychological experimental research on audit ethics usually postulates. When faced with an uncertain situation in terms of professional ethics, they seek reassurance by consulting colleagues. Not just any colleagues, however. Whom they consult depends on whether they wish to avoid or take measured ethical risks. Overall, we find that audit partners approach ethics as a personal and collective risk that must be managed in specific ways. This study enriches what we know about auditor ethics by helping to shed light on what is usually inaccessible to researchers: the questions that audit partners ask their peers when faced with uncomfortable ethical issues in client engagements before making a decision they find acceptable.