Ethics

1.
As a controller of Australia, Alan Fazil’s duty is to audit the firm’s finance operation and disclose any finding to the audit committee. He suggested to disclosing the issue of misleading, dishonest and fictionalizing information to the Audit committee based on morally ethical codes of doing the right thing.

Not bringing this matter to the audit committee would breach a social contract between him role as a trusted member of society and also breach fundamental universal principle such as honesty and integrity. However, as a result of concerning the loyalty, reputation and risks of losing contract within Australia Steel and the threat from Gray’s caution, he did not bypass Martin Gray, CEO of Australia Steel to directly disclose and report the matter to Audit Committee for the best interest of both himself and Gray.

So the ethical dilemma faced by Alan Fazil is Teleological and Deontological whether for the interest of himself and Australia Steel or acting ethically follow the right and the justice.

2.
Allan Fazil should report the matters of dishonesty policy and negative effects to the Audit Committee. He should be straight forward, honest and sincere in profession and business relationships based on APES 110 fundamental principles of Sec. 110 – Integrity. And he is obligated to bring the matter to Audit committee as a CPA member based on the professional act codes. In relating to ethical, it is also a right thing to report the issue of Australia Steel to the Audit committee regardless of whether anyone is trying to impeding.

Doing so could bring benefits to Fazil, such as fulfilling the obligation as a CPA member and an Auditor, maintaining his professional reputation of being honest and justice and succeed in doing the right thing ethically. However, this has negative effects on his career because of bias conflict of interest and undue influence of others within the organization. He could not maintain this contract with Australia Steel as a...