Author
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which demographic factors and corporate ethical value impact on ethical decisions of Malaysian accounting practitioners. Design/methodology/approach - A questionnaire survey was carried out to elicit opinions from accounting practitioners on corporate ethical values and ethical judgements. Regression analysis was performed on 201 completed and useable questionnaires. Findings - The regression analysis shows that corporate ethical value is a significant factor determining ethical judgements. Age is also a significant factor, with older accounting practitioners being stricter in their ethical stance. To a lesser extent, gender is also significant, with females exhibiting higher ethical judgements than males. Research limitations/implications - The regression model reports an adjustedR-squared of 19.2%, which suggests further work in this area is necessary to identify other determinants for (un)ethical judgements. A qualitative approach such as interviewing corporate players may shed light on other possible factors. Practical implications - The findings suggest that regulatory efforts have contributed towards a more ethically imbued corporate environment. The Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (2012), which recommends corporations to have formalized ethical standards and women on corporate boards, appears to have positive influence on creating a more ethical working climate. In addition, the enactment of the Minimum Retirement Age Act (2012) also proves relevant in further promoting ethical judgements. Originality/value - The study highlights the applicability of the theory of moral development to an Asian developing country, and that gender, age and corporate ethical values are complementary in influencing ethical judgements of accounting practitioners in Malaysia.
Suggested Citation
Nazli Anum Mohd Ghazali, 2021.
"Factors influencing ethical judgements of accounting practitioners: some Malaysian evidence,"
International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 48(3), pages 384-398, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:ijsepp:ijse-07-2020-0473
DOI: 10.1108/IJSE-07-2020-0473
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:ijse-07-2020-0473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.