Within the ethics case of Arthur’s troubles, it is clear that the AA’s functional members have faced ethical issues, leading to the downfall of the AA company. For example, Joe Berardino faced the ethical issue of being aggressive. Also, AA as a firm itself faced an ethical dilemma of quality control, leading to audit failure.
David Duncan also faced an ethical dilemma of following the document retention policy, leading to the destruction of the document. In short, Arthur Anderson LLP (AA) along with its CEO Joe Berardino faced ethical dilemmas about the policies and audit deficiencies of Enron and the internal control, deserved for the shareholders.
As a result of Waste Management audit deficiencies, all the personalities, especially Anderson along with the inadequate audit have encouraged them to act ethically. In addition, the U.S. Justice department tempted them to act in an ethical manner, as a result of their consecutive misleading and ill events. While, on the other hand, the desire to maximize the audited profit, while suppressing the interests of the public and shareholders have led them to act in an unethical manner.
Within the case of Anderson, primary ethical paradigms were used significantly such as respect for autonomy and justice, whereas making accounting judgments. While, on the other hand, secondary ethical paradigms involve veracity over which each tends to tell the truth along with the fidelity over which each kept a promise to perform certain tasks.
However, the ethical paradigms used within the case of Arthur Anderson’s troubles were all ill-treated by individuals, lawyers, firms, and executives of the firms as well due to which the whole mess of degrading audit profit nature occurs, as mentioned within the case.
Within the case, after making ill-documents and judgments about increasing audit interest along with the profit of shareholders, each of the personalities and firms used the shredding over which they disregard their functional policies as unethical and not good for the interests of public, as a whole.
Also, as a result of constant failure about documents, the case was considered by Jury due to which the ability to tell the truth about documents for each one has helped themselves to act in a more ethical way.
When different persons, lawyers, executives, and audit firms act in an unethical way, the effects were significant, leading to the downfall of the accounting firms’ and they believe about the document linked with the idea to maximize the audited profit.
After reading the case of Anderson’s troubles, it becomes clearer that there are different personalities who act in an ethical and unethical way. For example, Joe Berardino always tended to act in an aggressive manner, the highest level of being unethical among others.
While, on the other hand, the character of Duncan also shows unethical conduct, whereas dealing with the SEC’s pending investigation over his testimony.
For me, Arthur Anderson is the most exemplary role model, as he contributed to Enron’s disaster. In reality, the steps taken by Anderson regarding the audit documents of Enron were impressing, as Anderson really tries to take his responsibility as an executive to overcome the issues involved within Enron’s document.
In relation to the case of Anderson’s troubles, the linked AICPA Code of Professional is code five that stated
“The independence of a member in public practice may be impaired with respect to the client as a result of the actions…”
This AICPA Code of Professional is linked with the current case, as it also talks about the interests of public and different practices that are supposed to be ethical while dealing within the public sphere.
Powered by BetterDocs
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.