Economic analysis of accountants' ethical standards: The case of audit opinion shopping

Abstract

The public accounting profession presently employs a strict system of ethical standards that relies upon explicit rules plus monitoring and enforcement procedures that penalize violations of the rules. An alternative approach to ethical standards that the public accounting profession may wish to consider is a laissez faire approach. Instead of rules and penalties to enforce desired behaviors, the laissez faire approach utilizes moral training and leadership to motivate professional accountants to act in the public interest, for the sake of the profession as a whole. The theoretical basis for the laissez faire approach is a growing body of evidence in economics and related disciplines that people often take actions to further the collective welfare of a group despite a detrimental effect on their own selfish interests. This paper offers a framework for examining the relative economic merits of the strict and laissez faire approaches to ethical standards within the accounting profession. The framework is based on game theory, and the setting employed in the paper involves opinion shopping by audit clients. The paper finds that the effectiveness of a laissez faire approach to ethical standards, at least in the opinion-shopping scenario, is related to (a) the ethical climate, which refers to the likelihood a given independent auditor will choose the ethical action, (b) the frequency of independent auditor rotation, which reduces the economic advantage of being the incumbent auditor, (c) the explicitness of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which reduces uncertainty over whether or not a particular act is ethical, (d) the availability of opportunities to discuss ethical choices with rival auditors, and (e) disclosure requirements associated with auditor–client disputes over material accounting issues.