This report explores a case study on Ethics, especially with respect to the circumstances that AICPA members in business, the Internal Auditor and Rebecca Knownott, CPA, found themselves in. This report on the case study covers four parts, to wit: the identification of stakeholders whose interests are affected by the ethical lapses of individuals and/or entities mentioned in the case, enumeration of ethical conflicts not only as defined by the AICPA Code of Ethics (which exclusively pertains to its members only) but also conflicts of interest in general, a broad discussion of the principles guiding professional conduct of all AICPA members and forms of threats that relate to AICPA members in business, and a conclusion where major recommendations are provided to revamp the existing safeguards of the organization, namely the Public University.
Stakeholders
Who are stakeholders? This question is essential to ask with respect to risk assessment for audit purposes. Essentially, failure to manage effectively and efficiently risks inherent in a business will adversely impact its stakeholders. Any person, organization, social group, or society that has an interest in the conduct and outcome of a firmâ€™s business affairs is a stakeholder (Marhsall, McManus, Viele, McCartney, & Van Rhyn, 2008). In project management, the project leader, senior management of the company that owns the project, project team members, and resource managers, among other stakeholders, are interested in the management and eventual outcome of a project (Landau, 2017). Going to the case at hand, which we shall refer in succeeding discussions as the Rich Martin case, a lot of parties have a stake in the running of a bookstore, especially in a public university. The list of stakeholders will be longer, the more levels will be employed of the analysis that is necessary to evaluate impacts of the negative circumstances in the case.
The Public University
Ultimately, the Public University, as a separate economic entity, will suffer from any unfavorable bookstore incidents. In particular, the assets (the most obvious of which is cash) of the Public University include the resources of the bookstore; hence, any asset wasted by the bookstore is asset of the former wasted.
The Public University Administrators
The administrators (referring to those at the very top, similar to an executive management of a corporation) are also stakeholders of the operations of the bookstore. Being the group that is ultimately responsible for all of the departments or divisions or operating units of the Public University, they will be held accountable for misappropriation of assets. In a different perspective, the administrators are also stakeholders being key decision-makers over the Rich Martin case.
The Dean of Students
Hierarchy-wise (or with respect to chain of command within the University), the Dean of Students is a major stakeholder of the bookstore operations, since the former is the immediate superior of Rich Martin. Aside from accountability, the Dean will be evaluated for various reasons, one of which is the appropriateness of decisions made in hiring Rich Martin and appraising his performance as a bookstore manager ever since he assumed the role.
The Human Resources Department
As the functional unit of the Public University that is assigned with the overall responsibility of recruiting and training employees, and evaluating their performance (but appraisal may be in an indirect way, depending on the setup within the University), the Human Resources Department has a stake in the business of the bookstore in terms of assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the overall human resources management strategy; when the investigators (a fact-finding committee) will perform the necessary procedures, they will definitely look into the quality of the hiring process involved in getting Rick Martin onboard.
The Internal Audit Department (or the Audit Committee)
This internal party has a stake in the affairs of the bookstore because it has the ultimate responsibility of assisting the Public University in achieving one of its objectives - managing risks to acceptable levels (Griffiths). Additionally, the department has to communicate its findings to the responsible authorities within the Public University as well as provide an assessment of the levels of risk and necessary recommendations to mitigate risks at above acceptable levels. Thus, the department has a special stake of knowing as accurately as possible the details of the Rich Martin case.
The Expansion Project Lenders (and other Creditors in general)
The providers of capital through debt (creditors) have more at stake than some of the previously mentioned stakeholders because they extend credit to the University. The specific group of lenders who will bid to grant loan to the University will be exceptionally interested in acquiring accurate information regarding liquidity and solvency. Additionally, other creditors (currently and in the future) have a stake in the University in terms the latterâ€™s ability to pay what it owes them (current creditors) and ability to service general debt in the future given that at least $1 million

Cost of Capital Practice Problems 1. A firm has borrowed $400 fo...