If Corporations Are People, Why Aren’t They Taxed Like People?

Editorial Note

We are delighted to publish this “opinion piece” by Dr. Michael Kraten, a member of the AAA Public Interest Section and a frequent contributor to our social media blog. As always, when you read this contribution, we ask that you keep in mind that the opinions expressed therein are those of the author. They do not represent the position of the AAA or of any other party.

Author Biography

Michael Kraten, PhD, CPA (Mike) is an Associate Professor of Accounting at Providence College, where he teaches the graduate accounting capstone course and an interdisciplinary undergraduate course in sustainability. He serves as the publisher and editor of the AAA Public Interest Section’s social media blog.

Mike specializes in valuation, risk management, and management accounting issues, with functional interests in sustainability and corporate social responsibility. He has written papers for Accounting and the Public Interest, the Journal of Banking and Finance, the International Journal of Accounting, the CPA Journal, and other publications.

Opinion

Have you been keeping track of the U.S. Republican Party’s proposal to transform the American system of income taxation as it wends its way through the legislative process? If you’re doing so, you may be wondering about the answer to a very simple question:

If the Republican Party truly believes that “corporations are people,” why is it willing to tax corporations at rates that fall so far below comparable personal (or individual) rates?

After all, if corporations are people, one may conclude that they should be taxed like people. Conversely, if they are not, then one may conclude that several recent Republican legislative positions are dissonant in nature.

To elaborate on this question, it may be helpful to review some historical background. And to do so, we may wish to begin with the birth of the American nation in 1776.

In June 1776, for instance, Virginia ratified its Declaration of Rights, a document that later evolved into its State Constitution. The declaration included an assertion that “… all men … have certain inherent rights … namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

The Declaration clearly drew upon John Locke’s earlier assertion, in his Two Treatises of Government, of an individual’s natural rights to life, liberty, and estate (or property). And at roughly the same time that the colony of Virginia was ratifying its Declaration of Rights, Virginian Thomas Jefferson was defining life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights in the American Declaration of Independence.

But did Locke, Jefferson, and their peers intend to imply that business organizations also possess these unalienable rights? Or were they strictly referring to rights that are held by individuals?

Their writings appear to be focused on individual rights. Nevertheless, the U.S. Republican Party now supports the libertarian position that corporations are associations of individuals. Thus, consistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, certain human rights that are held by individuals can be aggregated into rights that are held by associations of individuals, and thus by corporations.

That’s why, during the 2012 Presidential campaign, candidate Mitt Romney declared that “corporations are people” in regards to the legal rights of corporations. Despite subsequent public criticism of Romney’s declaration, he was accurately describing the Supreme Court’s position in various decisions (such as the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases) that confirmed the existence of corporate rights.

In a fiscal sense, President Ronald Reagan’s earlier Tax Reform Act of 1986 also established a rough equivalence between corporations and individuals by bringing the maximum corporate tax rate and the maximum personal rate into rough equality. Specifically, it reduced the nominal corporate rate to 34% and the nominal personal rate to 28%. However, due to the phase-out of personal exemptions, it “topped out” the effective personal rate at 33%.

So how can we summarize these established (or “establishment”) Republican positions? Although the Founding Fathers and their predecessors defined individual rights without explicit reference to corporate rights, U.S. Republican Party leaders from Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney implicitly or explicitly declared that “corporations are people,” and concluded that business entities should enjoy many of these same rights.

But then what are we to make of the fact that President Donald Trump favors a reduction in the top corporate tax rate to 15.0%? While only supporting a slight reduction in the top individual rate to 35.0% from 39.6%?

That’s a bit inconsistent with the established Republican position, isn’t it? After all, if business corporations possess many of the natural rights of individuals, it is reasonable to believe that they should be taxed as individuals. Instead, the President favors an ostensibly dissonant policy of treating corporations like people on legal matters when it favors business entities to do so, while treating them differently than people on tax matters when it likewise favors the entities to do so.

On the one hand, there may be nothing illegal about such a position. But on the other hand, its natural dissonance may breed a sense of cynicism about a lack of equity in our system of government.

Ethical Claims of Large Accountancy Firms Smack of Hypocrisy

Editorial Note: We are delighted to publish this “opinion piece” by Dr. Prem Sikka, a frequent contributor to our social media blog. As always, when you read his contribution, we ask that you keep in mind that the opinions expressed therein are those of the author. They do not represent the position of the AAA or of any other party.

Prem Sikka is Professor of Accounting and Finance at the University of Sheffield and Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex in UK. His research on accountancy, auditing, tax avoidance, tax havens, corruption, corporate governance, money laundering, insolvency and business affairs has been published in international scholarly journals, books, newspapers and magazines. He has appeared on domestic and international radio and television programs to comment on business matters. He has advised and given evidence to a number of UK and EU parliamentary committees. Most recently (2016-2017), he advised the UK House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee for its investigation into the collapse of BHS, one of the largest retailers, and related pension matters.
 
Prem holds the Working for Justice Award from Tax Justice Network, Accounting Exemplar Award from the American Accounting Association (AAA), Lifetime Achievement Awards from the British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA) and PQ Magazine, Personality of the Year Award from Accountancy Age and the inaugural Abraham Briloff Award from The Accountant and International Accounting Bulletin for promoting transparency and public accountability of businesses.

All over the world there is concern about tax avoidance by large corporations and wealthy elites. The latest revelations known as the Paradise Papers add further fuel to the debate. The Paradise Papers consist of some 13.5 million pages of internal information leaked from Appleby, a law firm specializing in international tax planning. The documents are publicly available on the website of the International Consortium of Journalists.

In common with previous leaks known as the Panama Papers, Luxembourg Leaks and HSBC Leaks (see References, below), once again attention is focused on the role of the Big Four accounting firms in crafting schemes that enable wealthy elites and large corporations to avoid taxes. All too often the firms sell tax avoidance schemes to their audit clients and then report on the resulting transactions. Audited Company accounts rarely provide information about corporate tax avoidance strategies. Whether the tax avoidance schemes are legal or otherwise can only be established by test cases, and these are comparatively scarce as tax authorities frequently lack the resources to investigate and challenge the schemes.

In any case, the revelations raise questions about ethics and morality of practices that deprive elected governments of resources for alleviation of poverty and investment in social infrastructure. Faced with the ability of capital and wealthy elites and corporations to avoid taxes, citizens are left with stark choices: either pay more for a crumbling infrastructure or forego hard-won social rights. Neither is palatable or conducive to social stability.

The Big Four accounting firms routinely seek to distinguish themselves from others by appealing to ethics and social responsibility. Their websites boast of ethics. The website of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) claims that the firm’s “high standards of ethical behavior, are fundamental to everything we do … We are willing to walk away from engagements and clients if our independence, integrity, objectivity, or professionalism could be called into question if we continued”. Deloitte claims that “Integrity and ethical behavior are central to maintaining our reputation”. Ernst & Young boldly states that “We reject unethical or illegal business practices in all circumstances … We are alert for personal and professional conflicts of interest”. KPMG boasts “high ethical principles”. In the light of a steady stream of revelations, the above seem to be just cynical PR statements designed to disarm critics and it is unlikely that journalists and general public attaches too much credibility to the claims.

Big accounting firms have a long history of profiting from tax avoidance. In 2003, a report by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations concluded that

“respected professional firms are spending substantial resources, forming alliances, and developing the internal and external infrastructure necessary to design, market, and implement hundreds of complex tax shelters, some of which are illegal … They are now big business, assigned to talented professionals at the top of their fields and able to draw upon the vast resources and reputations of the country’s largest accounting firms …”.

Here is an interesting extract from a 2013 UK House of Commons inquiry into the role of the Big four firms in tax avoidance. Just before the hearing, the chairperson of the Committee met a senior person connected with PwC and then said

“I have talked to somebody who works in PwC, and what they say is that you will approve a tax product if there is a 25% chance—a one-in-four chance—of it being upheld. That means that you are offering schemes to your clients—knowingly marketing these schemes—where you have judged there is a 75% risk of it then being deemed unlawful”.

Partners of other firms admitted to having a threshold of 50%.

The Paradise Papers once again show a huge gap between the public claims and actual practices of accounting firms. How can this be explained?

The gap persists because the internal dynamics of the firms are decoupled from external responses. Firms manage external pressures and public skepticism with claims of ethical behavior and social responsibility. Well, they can hardly do anything else. At the same time, internal processes cannot easily be aligned with such claims. Internally, staff are trained to design and sell tax avoidance schemes. Tax departments and staff are assigned revenues and profit generating targets. Those failing to meet the targets are disciplined whilst those meeting the targets are rewarded with promotions and salary increments. Over a period of time, certain habits and practices become normalized and tax avoidance becomes just another part of daily organizational life. As the internal and external dynamics remain decoupled, any claims of ethical conduct come across as hypocritical. The hypocrisy is not an accidental or unintentional outcome, but rather it is the intentional outcome of policies deliberately chosen and implemented by senior executives of the firms.

The tensions between internal and external responses are exposed by whistle blowers, court cases, media investigations and leaks such as the Paradise Papers. The negative publicity and public anger should encourage firm to align organizational culture, goals, practices and mindsets of staff with social expectations but they have shown little inclination to do so, especially as large amounts of profits are at stake. So the prospect is of further loss of legitimacy, public anger and possibilities of tougher regulatory responses.

References

HSBC Leaks

Luxembourg Leaks

Panama Papers

Speculations about the implications of the Pathways Vision for how we understand accounting

Eileen Z. Taylor, PhD, CPA, CFE, is an Associate Professor of Accounting at North Carolina State University’s Poole College of Management, researching whistleblowing, ethics, and accounting information systems. She has published in a wide range of journals, including Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Business Ethics, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Accounting Horizons, Accounting and Public Interest, and Journal of Accountancy. She serves on several editorial boards. She holds a BS, MAcc, and PhD from University of South Florida.

Paul F. Williams is a Professor of Accounting at the Poole College of Management at North Carolina State University. Paul earned a BSF from West Virginia University, and MBA and Ph.D. degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He joined the N.C. State faculty in 1985 after spending 1977 to 1985 at Florida State University. His research interests include accounting ethics, theory, and critical perspectives in accounting. His publications have appeared in Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, The Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Accounting and the Public Interest, Accounting Horizons (for which he won the best paper award for 2014), among many other journals. He has served as chairperson of the Public Interest Section of the American Accounting Association and as editor of Accounting and the Public Interest. He received the Public Interest Section’s Accounting Exemplar Award in 2013.

Abstract

The draft manuscript is available online at:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3052976.

Discussion

In the spirit that a picture is worth a thousand words, the Pathways Commission Vision’s “perception” of accounting is a simplistic caricature of a practice epitomized by bookkeeping and governed by a “black letter” tradition whereby hard-and-fast rules exist for distilling the vast number of data business generates into a meaningful narrative about the financial state and performance of a firm. The “Reality” Vision is a rather heroic self-perception the profession has for the role it will play in producing a prosperous society. The problematic ambiguity with the “Reality” obviously revolves around the concept of “prosperous society” and what implications different notions of “prosperous” have for accounting’s role in society, given accounting’s (and accountants’) limitations. We propose a vision for a prosperous society based on the 17 UN goals, specifically focusing on the two which relate to income distribution and sustainability. We consider how accounting can play a role in helping achieve this view of a prosperous society.

<1> For the benefit of our readers who didn’t attend our Symposium, how would you describe your interest in the topic?

We have long thought about how accounting could be used to better serve the public interest; by which we mean using accounting and its tools and concepts to promote (to the extent possible) the well being of a large and diverse set of individuals. We have unfortunately witnessed accounting practice become a profession, more aptly, an industry, that serves a narrow swath of stakeholders rather than a wide public interest.

At the same time, we have observed social changes wrought by questionable policies, unchecked private interests, and technological advances. While some individuals and organizations are better off, others have been disproportionately and negatively affected. Issues such as income inequality, declining natural resources, hunger, declining upward mobility, and access to education are challenges to our success and sustainability as a human race. The United Nations has identified 17 goals which address many of these global challenges, and in our paper we focus on income distribution as the one most closely tied to accounting, and to our role in society as experts in accountability, measurement, and safeguarding of resources.

<2> Do you think the Pathways Vision Model accurately represents accounting as it is; as it should be?

While we applaud the AAA and AICPA for considering a better way to represent accounting to the public, we do not believe that the Pathways Vision Model accurately represents accounting. While this vision may represent what the industry (and by this we mean corporate clients and audit firms) would like the public to believe, we believe it is lacking. And that concerns us as academics and as educators.

If accounting is to hold true to its origins as a function that helps maintain justice and accountability in our society, then this vision needs revision. The first part of our paper is a critical analysis of the model, while the second part of the paper proposes a new model and equation for accounting that works toward fulfilling our obligation to the public interest.

<3> What is your vision?

We start by considering the goal at the top of the model. If accounting, as a social function, is to lead us to a prosperous society (note, this is not a society with some prosperous individuals in it), we must first consider what contributes to (or detracts from) society’s prosperity. In our paper, we focus on reducing income (and wealth) inequality, noted by Stiglitz as a critical aspect of well being, and identified by the United Nations as one of the top 17 global challenges facing us today. We then consider how accounting, in particular accounting concepts, tools, and expertise, can help us achieve that goal.

The Pathways Vision Model would have us measure only economic activity narrowly understood, make critically important judgments with our existing accounting expertise, which by our own definition of our expertise would result in useful information, leading only to good economic decisions, and thus a prosperous society.

While we may want this model to be accurate, we don’t think the world works that way. So, we have thought about how we might change our accounting perspective to achieve the prosperous society goal, at least as it pertains to income inequality reduction.

In the second part of our paper, we examine the individualistic (corporate) centered equation, and consider how it might be rearranged to serve society.

The current accounting equation is: 
Assets = Liabilities + Net Assets (aka equity), and 
Net Income = Revenues – Expenses
.

However, if we look closer at the income equation (below), we begin to see the value laden nature of accounting, which prioritizes and denotes as good, gross income of owners, and denotes everything that reduces that shareholder income as bad. This very equation leads us to focus on creating a society with a few prosperous individuals, since the goal of an owner in this equation is to increase his own income, and minimize all others’ incomes.

Gross income of owners = Revenues – gross income of labor – gross income of suppliers – gross income of creditors – gross income of government – capital allowances – net externalities.

However, we could rearrange the equation to put any one of the arguments on the right as the focal argument because a corporation is a legal being whose purpose may be specified by the society that permits corporations to exist. Viewed in this way, the management of a corporation is not focused solely on shareholder income, but on what distribution of revenues is appropriate considering that all of the parties have status that deserves respect in the management process. In the sustainability literature, this notion is referred to as “integrated thinking.” Thus, rather than generate net negative externalities to maximize shareholder income, efforts to internalize such costs is a corporate end-in-itself and an object of managerial decision making.

<4> Is the Pathways vision just one in long line of initiatives and fads that have come and gone with little to no lasting effect?

With all due respect to the well intentioned individuals who worked on the committee and on the model, we are concerned about the narrow focus on economic measures and decisions. We have learned enough at this point to recognize that human behavior is much more complex than can be explained by the rational man and principal/agent theories so often put forth as legitimate reasons for our behavior.

In addition, we see an explicit bias toward financial accounting in this model, and find it difficult to apply the model to the many other areas of accounting (e.g., tax, systems, governmental, etc.) that all share an accounting mindset.

According to its creators, the model is a starting point. We can only hope that academics, educators, and students will question this vision as we have, and work towards creating a more accurate model, one that serves the public interest.

 

Important Clarification

Hello, AAA Public Interest Section Blog subscribers! Here is an important clarification message for you.

If you visit our blog’s home page at AAAPublicInterest.org and read the essay that was posted yesterday, you’ll notice author and contributor Steve Mintz’s photo, professional title, and contact information at the bottom of the page. My name, Michael Kraten, does not appear on the essay at all.

Is that a problem? Well, no … it isn’t. It’s perfectly correct.

So why is that noteworthy? Well, if you look closely at the corresponding email message that WordPress sent to your inbox yesterday, there’s a line near the top of the message that simply states “By Michael Kraten” instead of “Posted By Michael Kraten.” Steve’s authorship is correctly noted at the bottom of the email message, but for some reason, WordPress only includes the name of the Publisher at the top of such messages.

So, for the sake of transparency, let’s clarify the authorship of the essay. Steve is the author who wrote the piece, and I am the blog publisher who posted (i.e. uploaded) the piece. Although my name doesn’t appear anywhere on the blog’s home page, I’ll add a post-hoc clarification statement to Steve’s essay on that page as well.

My apologies for the need to send you this follow-up message. Having budgeted a grand total of $35.88 annually on blog expenditures, I regret that we need to live with WordPress’ limited default options. Nevertheless, we’ll continue to transmit clarifications whenever appropriate.

Mike Kraten

Can Ethics be Legislated in Accounting? The role of SOX, the SEC and the ERM Framework

Post-hoc Editorial Comment: We are delighted to welcome the following contribution by Steven Mintz, the Ethics Sage. His photo, professional affiliation, and contact information are provided at the conclusion of his essay (below).

Government regulations, whistleblower protections, GAAP reporting standards, and internal control requirements are meaningless and not worth the paper they are written on if what has been promised is not done. A healthy financial reporting system depends on the enforcement of laws and the existence of an ethical culture in organizations that support accurate and reliable financial reporting.

These issues are relevant to the case of Tony Menendez, former Director of Technical Accounting Research at Halliburton, who blew the whistle on improper accounting for revenue. Menendez was hired by Mark McCullum, the chief accounting officer at Halliburton, who reportedly told him to serve as his “Smokey the Bear,” helping the company prevent accounting fires from flaring. That is what Menendez tried to do.

Back in 2005, Menendez identified improper accounting for bill-and-hold transactions where the company booked revenue before product was sent to customers, all the while holding it in its warehouse for future delivery. Menendez worked hard to convince his superiors of the errors in accounting. He sought out the help of KPMG, Halliburton’s auditors, to no avail. He informed the SEC, which seemed disinterested and chose not to get involved. The company retaliated against him once it found out about his reporting to the SEC. Menendez finally lodged a complaint with the Department of Labor under the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He then endured a nine-year battle to clear his name.

Two questions from Menendez’s experiences are: (1) Did SOX work as intended and protect Menendez as a whistle-blower under Section 806? (2) Did the SEC fulfill its oversight role of financial reporting and audits of financial statements? The answers are no and no. However, it’s not due to the ineffectiveness of SOX. Instead, Halliburton’s management had established a culture that this is the way things are done around here and Menendez should be a team player.

Absent an ethical culture, no law is likely to be effective in enforcing financial reporting standards and ensuring internal controls operate as intended. A good example is Halliburton’s own ethical requirement that purported to protect confidential complaints, which was ignored when the company outed Menendez after he informed the SEC.

The SEC failed in its responsibilities in the Menendez case. Overworked, underfunded, and, quite frankly, lacking in a commitment to ensure ethical behavior and GAAP-conforming financial reports, the Commission gave in to pressures from Halliburton and hastened the day of retaliation against Menendez.

The SEC has failed time and again to do something constructive by acting on detected fraud. We all remember that the Commission failed to follow up on years of complaints from Harry Markopolos, a Boston investigator, about Bernie Madoff’s financial activities. The SEC chose instead to treat him as a crank.

Now comes COSO’s recently updated ERM Framework, Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating with Strategy and Performance. Will it help to promote an ethical organization culture, the weak link in the internal controls of many companies that committed fraud in the early 2000s (i.e. Enron and WorldCom), Halliburton, and many financial institutions during the great recession?

The September 2017 revisions to the ERM Framework highlight the importance of enterprise risk management in strategic planning. According to COSO’s Chair, Robert B. Hirth Jr., COSO’s “overall goal is to encourage a risk-conscious culture.” PwC developed the framework and, according to Miles Everson, PwC’s Global Advisory Leader and Engagement Leader: “The Framework addresses the evolution of ERM, the benefits that can be achieved, and the need for organizations to improve their approach to managing risk.”

Drilling down on the Framework with respect to corporate culture, ERM suggests that each entity should link its culture – shared behaviors, emotions and mindsets in the organization – to its strategy and risk appetite. The problem here is the ERM framework does not place sufficient emphasis on the ethical dimension of making strategic decisions, opting, instead, for a focus on the entity’s “hunger” for risk in terms of its strategic objectives. This tail wagging the dog approach to developing an ethical culture allows management to create a culture in each situation after first determining its willingness to accept risk in developing strategic activities. This is ethical relativism at its worst.

The moral of the story is ethical behavior can’t be legislated. COSO can issue as many white papers as it wants, it still won’t guarantee an ethical outcome. Internal controls have limited value if management routinely overrides them. GAAP requirements are ignored when management’s goal is to tell its side of the story, rather than report the financial results in an accurate and reliable manner.

So, what’s the answer to the ongoing dilemma of getting management and the board of directors to establish a strong corporate governance system? There are no easy answers because ethical governance depends on an ethical culture and a tone set from the top that deviations from ethical standards will not be tolerated. This is the most effective way to embed ethics into the culture.

What about the accounting profession, in particular the auditors? Well, 2017 hasn’t been a good year for the profession. From Wells Fargo’s fake accounts to the ten-year investigation into accounting fraud at AIG, accountants and auditors were asleep at the wheel once again.

When will the profession live up to its responsibilities to put the public interest above all else, including the interests of one’s employer, the audit firm, and self-interest? This is an ongoing problem that hasn’t gotten better since the passage of SOX.

I fear we may be waiting for the other shoe to drop on the disclosure of another round of financial wrongdoing and failed audits. Why? Because at the end of the day, greed wins out over ethical decision-making by management, and soliciting, retaining, and building on client relationships has become the Holy Grail for the accounting profession.

Steve Mintz is a Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Steve blogs on ethics issues at ethicssage.com. Visit his website at stevenmintzethics.com.

 

Anthony Menendez, Accounting Exemplar

Anthony Menendez, CPA, CFE is the recipient of the 2017 Accounting Exemplar Award of the Public Interest Section of the American Accounting Association (AAA). As a follow-up to his appearance at the 2017 AAA Ethics Symposium in San Diego, we asked Anthony to respond to four questions.

<1> For the benefit of our readers who didn’t attend our Symposium, how would you describe your career experience at Halliburton?

In 2005, during my interview with Halliburton’s Chief Accounting Officer (CAO), he appeared to appreciate the importance of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the challenges facing the profession. He told me he wanted to hire “Smokey the Bear” to prevent accounting fires. However, by the time I got there, Halliburton was already engulfed in flames.

Halliburton accountants were ignorantly violating one of the most basic accounting principles, that you should not recognize any revenue before you actually deliver a product to your customer. This was a stunning revelation because bill-and-hold transactions are widely recognized as wrong and venal and have been perennial triggers for SEC enforcement actions.

I elevated the problem throughout the organization. My boss, the CAO, told me that the company was going to correct the problem and “get the company back within the lines of what is appropriate”. However, the magnitude of the error soon became apparent and a correction would have required a costly and embarrassing restatement of the company’s historical financial statements.

So what happened? Instead of correcting the problem, Halliburton and its external auditors went to extraordinary lengths to cover up their failures. At the height of the cover up, the external audit senior manager told me to “save it for the subpoena.” I told him that I could not do that and I “blew the whistle” to the SEC.

I spent the next ten years fighting for my dignity and my rights under the whistleblower protection provisions of SOX. In 2015, I finally prevailed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and my case has had a significant positive impact on that body of law, lowering the legal burdens facing corporate whistleblowers.

<2> Are you optimistic about the future of our profession?

I worry about the value of the audit today and the future of our profession. Congress mandated independent audits of public companies back in 1933 because members of the investing public were scammed out of their life savings, resulting in a catastrophe that helped usher in the Great Depression. At the turn of the millennium, the highly publicized financial scandals and the loss of public confidence in our profession forced Congress to reexamine the public company audit process. As a result, SOX was signed into law in 2002.

I believe that the public gave the profession a lifeline in the form of SOX. However, the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession gave the public little reason to believe that the current model is working well. As a profession, we need to evolve in an effort to serve the public interest. If we fail to do so, the public might decide that they don’t need private firms to provide public company audits.

<3> What role should our profession play in protecting the public interest?

Our profession exists to serve the public interest. It does not exist to serve public accounting firms’ own interests or the firms’ client interests. We are not Certified Professional Accountants. We are Certified Public Accountants, and that designation should only exist if we are serving the public interest.

<4> How well are we fulfilling that role?

Don’t get me wrong. There are many good CPAs out there, doing the right thing. But as a profession, we are not fulfilling the role of the public watchdog.

I see two obvious problems for our profession that need to be addressed. First, in the age of big data, predictive analytics, and social media, the audit report provides little to no value from an information standpoint. Second, the public expects external audits to identify and report financial statement fraud. I believe the so called “expectation gap” between what the public expects and what the profession provides should not exist.

Investors want to have assurance regarding the integrity of management and the reliability of the information that is provided by management. However, studies continue to highlight that the external audit is one of the least likely processes to help investors learn about financial statement fraud.

For example, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimates that external audits report only 3% of all known fraud cases. And the PCAOB estimates that external audits are notoriously bad, producing an audit deficiency rate of 35% to 40%.

These findings must be considered in light of another recent survey result. CFOs have estimated that nearly 20% of companies manipulate their earnings by an average of 10%. These are truly shocking and disturbing statistics.

What do I believe is happening? Often, auditors don’t know of the existence of problems, or they don’t report them. Personally, I’m not confident that the profession can (or should) survive another wave of financial scandals. That is why, as a profession, we need to reexamine and challenge what we do and how we do it.

The Future of Carbon Emissions

How did you react when U.S. President Donald Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord? Did it grab your attention?

And when Chinese President Xi Jinping declared his plan to develop the world’s largest market for carbon emissions? Did you take note of it too?

Many members of our Public Interest Section of the American Accounting Association perceived these developments as landmark events in the evolution of the fields of Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Integrated Reporting. But how can our colleagues become more informed about the issue of carbon emissions?

They can attend the AAA’s Annual meeting, of course. Our Section will offer a series of concurrent session presentations regarding this issue.

For instance, Stephanie Liu of the Henley Business School of the University of Reading in England will present a study of the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100. Stephanie and her co-authors identified a number of intriguing relationships among carbon emissions, carbon disclosures, and financial performance.

Meanwhile, Chengzhang Wu of Rutgers Business School will present a study of A-Share Chinese listed companies. He and his co-author Junqin Sun from Xi’an Jiatong University in China found that governmental industrial policy and evaluation pressure yielded a positive impact on reduction performance.

In other words, Stephanie and Chengzhang are studying the effectiveness of different carbon initiatives from distant global regions with diverging approaches to achieving emission reductions. Whereas Stephanie is focusing on European market-based disclosure strategies, Chengzhang is addressing Chinese government-based policy strategies.

Will either approach succeed? And if both do so, will one eventually triumph over the other? You can bet that our colleagues in the audience will continue to debate these questions long after the conclusion of the Meeting.

In order to ensure that their opinions are well-informed, though, they’ll need to attend these presentations at the AAA Annual Meeting in San Diego CA. It might indeed be the ideal place on Earth this summer for accounting scholars from every region of the planet to come together and share their findings about carbon emissions.