Alice Blueberry commented that profession normally protect their own members as well as penalties for breach of ethics. Bampton and Cowton (2013) suggests that the breaches of the ethical standards need to be seriously treated as violations lead to inadequacy of objectivity. In addition to this, the breaches also lead to the overconfidence among people as regards their potential. This leads to persistent rejection of the advice giving way to different suboptimal decisions. In addition to this, the violation of ethics also lead to superiority bias. Several studies indicate the fact that powerful and strong people betray themselves into decisions that are persistently worse than the ones made by the individuals who sense less influential. Kaplan and Atkinson (2015) mentions the fact that the breach of ethics also leads to pressure. The judgment to a more powerful individual such as people operating in the hierarchy need to acquire or else maintain the overall status quo for a particular position in the business entity. As per the code of ethics stipulated by the CPA, ET Section 91 regarding Applicability mentions that bylaws conditioned under AICPA need members to conform to the Code of Professional Conduct. This requires the interpretations or else rulings regarding the burden of justification of such kind of departures in any type of disciplinary hearing.
The code of ethics can be related to Professionalism, integrity, confidentiality, objectivity competence as well as maintenance of due care. However, there are certain recent events that reflect the misconduct and breach of the ethical standards. In the case Hall v State of South Australia, the members of the staff charged that decisions of the employers to establish a particular misconduct procedure against the employee and at the same time suspend the members of the staff from duty were essentially inacceptable. Again, the Quinn v Overland 2010 is about the public sector employee situated in the Victoria police under the Public Administration Act 2004. In this case, the employee was necessarily suspended from different duties with pay incomplete the result of an examination into alleged misconduct. In this case, the judgement points out towards the claim of violation of statutory duty and a resultant challenge to the overall validity of the suspension from specific duties. As is evident from the above mentioned cases, there occurs breaches and violations of different HR ethics, accounting ethics, thefts and frauds. As rightly indicated by Bampton and Cowton (2013), the misconducts by the members of the staff leads to violations of the HR ethics. This is the case where interactions between different managers, owners of business as well as employees generate numerous chances for ethics violation. This leads to violations of the standards conditioned under the Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board Limited, APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, ASA 102 “Compliance with Ethical Requirements”, Reviews as well as Other Assurance Engagements (Thibodeau and Freier 2014).
Bampton, R. and Cowton, C.J., 2013. Taking stock of accounting ethics scholarship: A review of the journal literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), pp.549-563.
Kaplan, R.S. and Atkinson, A.A., 2015. Advanced management accounting. PHI Learning.
Thibodeau, J.C. and Freier, D., 2014. Auditing and accounting cases: Investigating issues of fraud and professional ethics. McGraw-Hill, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated.
Weiss, J.W., 2014. Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.