Staff Auditor

Corporate responsibility, accountability, and ethics have become some of the most critical and hot issues in the business world (Nuseir & Ghandour, 2019). Business organizations are faced with numerous ethical issues relating to workplace safety, privacy threats, and legal liability. For business managers and management personnel, ensuring trust, honesty and integrity is an essential step toward promoting ethical decision-making and practices in an organization. Given the complexities relating to ethics, business organizations face numerous issues and dilemmas requiring urgent attention. ABC Company is an example of an organization facing an ethical dilemma with the upcoming audits by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). This report examines the ethical dilemma facing this business organization in relation to the upcoming audit.

Overview of the Case

ABC Company is facing an ethical dilemma relating to the insertion and submission of missing revised work papers to PCAOB inspectors for auditing. While company policy requires the inclusion of a signed engagement letter for all audits, a copy was added prior to the inspection but without the actual date of insertion and reason for its addition (Cheng & Flasher, 2017). Prior to the addition of the letter, two key documents were missing from work papers that were reviewed by the manager. The letter was included in the audit work papers to ensure they are complete and ready for PCAOB inspection. Even though the missing documents were included to ensure the work papers for audit are complete, the manner in which they were added presents an ethical dilemma. In addition, the authenticity of the added documents presents an ethical dilemma since they lacked the actual date of insertion or reasons for their inclusion. This implies that ABC Company is facing an ethical dilemma relating to the inclusion of missing documents in the work papers for audit.

Review of the Case

As evident in this scenario, Johnnys actions clearly violated the firm policy as he initially failed to include a signed engagement letter for the audit. According to the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants (2016), certified public accountants like Johnny are required to act with objectivity, competence, integrity, due care, and full disclosure of any conflicts of interest. In this regard, the Integrity and Objectivity Rule is one of the professional ethical standards for certified professional accountants. Under this rule, CPAs need to ensure that safeguards are applied to lessen or eliminate significant threats to an acceptable level. A member of AICPA would be deemed to have violated this rule if he/she fails to show how safeguards were applied to reduce or eliminate significant threats to an acceptable level.

Johnnys efforts in ensuring that all documents were included in the work papers for audit were geared towards enhancing the credibility of the audit by PCAOB inspectors. However, he seemed to have violated the Integrity and Objectivity Rule by adopting measures that did not include safeguards to minimize significant threats to an acceptable level. This is evident in his failure to ensure that all documents included in the work papers were documented correctly. The failure to include an actual date of insertion and reasons for the addition of the missing documents implies that Johnny failed to ensure proper safeguards were put in place. In this case, Johnny was simply interested in providing documents but did not consider the extent to which they would eliminate or lessen the significant threat. In essence, the addition of documents without actual dates and reasons for inclusion enhanced significant threats to the entire audit process. Proper documentation of the letter and reasons for its inclusion would have demonstrated that Johnny demonstrated the application of safeguards to...

…institutions reputation. Additionally, this act demonstrates the inability of the relevant office in the university to ensure compliance with academic integrity policies and code among students. The office failed to fulfill its mandate in an effective manner and thus made it easier for students to engage in academic dishonesty.

Mary Jo would likely rationalize her behavior on grounds that she used the test bank as a study aid rather than for cheating. She could argue that the test bank is essentially a study guide resource rather than an unethical glimpse at a probable exam. Therefore, by using the test bank as a study guide, she was not attempting to engage in academic misconduct but study for the upcoming exam.

Despite Mary Jos potential justifications for her behavior, she engaged in academic misconduct that violated the institutions academic integrity code. Mary Jo would have simply opted against using the test bank to study and prepare for the exam. The most suitable alternative action in her case would have been to study like she had done for her previous exams. She would have looked engage in behaviors that contribute to authentic learning (Policy 150.25, 2021). Mary Jo opted to use the study guide in order to gain advantage and on grounds that she was tired to study. If she wanted to act ethically, she would have given voice to her concerns by consulting the instructor on how to study for the exam amidst the fatigue.

In conclusion, Mary Jo engaged in an act of academic dishonesty by using the test bank to study and prepare for the upcoming exams. Additionally, she signed the certifications relating to academic integrity code despite being aware of her violations of the policies as well as Samanthas behavior. The use of the test bank for study represented a violation of the…