Strathmore University 
SU+ @ Strathmore 
University Library  
  
 
Electronic Theses and Dissertations 
 
 
2019 
 
Public interest as understood by the Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants of Kenya - an analysis 
in light of the common good 
 
 
Speranza A. W. Migue  
School of Humanities and Social Studies (SHSS) 
Strathmore University 
 
 
 
Follow this and additional works at https://su-plus.strathmore.edu/handle/11071/6658 
 
Recommended Citation 
Migue, S. A. W. (2019). Public interest as understood by the Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants of Kenya - an analysis in light of the common good (Thesis, Strathmore 
University). Retrieved from http://su-plus.strathmore.edu/handle/11071/6658 
 
 
This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by DSpace @Strathmore  University. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DSpace @Strathmore University. For more 
information, please contact librarian@strathmore.edu 
 
 
Public Interest as Understood by the Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants of Kenya 
An Analysis in Light of the Common Good 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Migue, Speranza Agnes Wangari 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of  
Master of Applied Philosophy and Ethics at Strathmore University 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
School of Humanities and Social Sciences 
Strathmore University 
Nairobi, Kenya 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
June, 2019 
This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is 
copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be 
published without proper acknowledgement. 
ii 
 
Declaration 
 
 
I declare that this work has not been previously submitted and approved for the 
award of a degree by this or any other University. To the best of my knowledge and 
belief, the dissertation contains no material previously published or written by 
another person except where due reference is made in the dissertation itself. 
 
© No part of this dissertation may be reproduced without the permission of the 
author and Strathmore University 
 
Migue, Speranza Agnes Wangari 
28 May 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Approval 
 
The dissertation of Migue, Speranza Agnes Wangari was reviewed and approved by 
the following: 
 
 
 
Catherine Dean, PhD 
Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences 
Strathmore University 
 
 
 
Prof. Christine Gichure 
Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences 
Strathmore University 
 
 
 
Prof. Ruth Kiraka 
Dean, School of Graduate Studies 
Strathmore University 
 
  
iii 
 
 
Abstract 
The Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) states, in the 2006 
ICPAK Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, the main role of accountants is 
to uphold the public interest. This research sought to determine the meaning of public 
interest from the point of view of ICPAK and as understood by a small number of 
ICPAK members. 
At the completion of this research, no official document presented by ICPAK on 
public interest existed. Therefore, on the premise that ICPAK adopted in full a Code 
of Ethics (CoE) issued by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), and, in 
the absence of any official clarification of terms in the adopted code by ICPAK, this 
research went back to IFAC to determine IFAC’s meaning of public interest, as 
presented in official documents published in 2012. The views of the ICPAK members 
were harnessed using open-ended questions through interviews. This study, using 
the concept of common good based on the Aristotelian tradition, analysed the 
meaning of public interest as proposed by ICPAK and as understood by ICPAK 
members.  
This study is exploratory in nature from two aspects: one, in order to examine ideas 
as proposed by IFAC and understood by ICPAK members; and, two, by analysing the 
findings using the concept of the common good based on the Aristotelian tradition. 
The aforementioned findings indicated that both the terms ‘public’ and ‘interest’, 
focus on specific groups, and specific economic needs, respectively. Thus, 
accountants do not serve all society. From this point of view, the interviewed ICPAK 
members admitted the impossibility of accountants’ ability to serve all society. 
Nonetheless, from the analysis, using the common good, the conclusion reached 
indicated that if accounting professionals espouse certain virtues, accountants really 
do serve all society. 
Key words: public interest, common good, ICPAK, IFAC 
iv 
 
Table of Contents 
Declaration  ....................................................................................................................... ii 
Abstract  ......................................................................................................................iii 
Abbreviations  .................................................................................................................... vii 
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... viii 
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. x 
 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................ 1 
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 
1.2 Context of the Study.......................................................................................... 1 
1.3 Background to the Study .................................................................................. 1 
1.4 Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 3 
1.5 Aims and Objectives ......................................................................................... 4 
1.5.1 Aims of the Research .................................................................................. 4 
1.5.2 Objectives of the Research ......................................................................... 4 
1.5.2.1 Research Objectives ............................................................................ 4 
1.5.2.2 Research Questions ............................................................................. 5 
1.6 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................. 5 
1.7 Significance and contribution of this research .............................................. 6 
1.8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 6 
 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 7 
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 
2.2 Public Interest .................................................................................................... 7 
2.2.1 General Comments on Public Interest ..................................................... 7 
2.2.2 Public Interest in the Professions in General .......................................... 9 
2.2.3 Linkage between Accountancy and Public Interest ............................. 10 
2.2.4 Commentary from Professional Accountancy Bodies on IFAC’s 
Meaning of Public Interest ....................................................................... 11 
2.2.5 Professional Accountants and Public Interest ...................................... 14 
2.2.6 Public Interest and the Common Good ................................................. 14 
2.2.7 ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ in Public Interest ................................................. 16 
2.2.7.1 The Meaning of ‘Public’ ................................................................... 16 
2.2.7.2 The Meaning of ‘Interest’ ................................................................. 17 
2.2.8 Conclusion on Public Interest ................................................................. 19 
2.3 Common Good as the Theoretical Framework ........................................... 19 
2.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 19 
2.3.2 Background on Common Good .............................................................. 19 
2.3.3 The Meaning of ‘Good’ ............................................................................ 20 
2.3.3.1 Extrinsic good .................................................................................... 21 
2.3.3.2 Intrinsic good..................................................................................... 22 
2.3.3.3 Transcendent good ........................................................................... 23 
2.3.3.4 Conclusion of the Meaning of ‘Good’ ............................................ 23 
2.3.4 The Common Good as a Goal ................................................................. 24 
2.3.5 Commonness of the Common Good to all Persons ............................. 26 
2.3.6 Virtues: the Highest Good of Society ..................................................... 27 
2.3.7 Other Observations Related to the Common Good ............................. 29 
2.3.8 Resume on the Concept of the Common Good .................................... 30 
2.3.9 Conclusion on the Common Good Discussion ..................................... 30 
2.4 Literature Review Conclusion ....................................................................... 31 
 
v 
 
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 32 
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 32 
3.2 Research Approach ......................................................................................... 32 
3.3 Research Design ............................................................................................... 33 
3.3.1 Documentation on Public Interest .......................................................... 33 
3.3.2 Interviewing ICPAK Members ............................................................... 35 
3.3.3 Population and Sampling ........................................................................ 36 
3.4 Data Capturing ................................................................................................ 38 
3.4.1 IFAC Documents on Public Interest ....................................................... 38 
3.4.2 Views of ICPAK Members on Public Interest ....................................... 40 
3.4.2.1 Interviewing ICPAK members ....................................................... 40 
3.4.2.2 Views from ICPAK members .......................................................... 42 
3.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 43 
3.5.1 Themes Related to Public Interest in IFAC documents ....................... 43 
3.5.2 Interviewee Responses ............................................................................. 44 
3.6 Research Quality, Validity and Reliability ................................................... 45 
3.6.1 Research Quality ....................................................................................... 45 
3.6.2 Research Reliability .................................................................................. 45 
3.6.3 Research Ethics .......................................................................................... 46 
3.7 Research Methodology Conclusion .............................................................. 48 
 PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS....................................... 49 
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 49 
4.2 Public Interest for ICPAK ............................................................................... 49 
4.2.1 The Meaning of Public Interest as per IFAC ......................................... 49 
4.2.2 The Meaning of ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ in Public Interest .................... 50 
4.2.2.1 The Meaning of ‘Public’ for IFAC .................................................. 50 
4.2.2.2 The Meaning of ‘Interest’ for IFAC ................................................ 50 
4.3 The Understanding of ICPAK members on Public Interest ...................... 50 
4.3.1 Overview of the Interviews ..................................................................... 51 
4.3.2 ICPAK members’ Views on Public Interest and the Role of 
Accountants ............................................................................................... 51 
4.3.3 ICPAK Members’ Understanding of IFAC’s Meaning of Public 
Interest ........................................................................................................ 52 
4.3.3.1 Costs / benefits ................................................................................. 53 
4.3.3.2 Rigour of process .............................................................................. 53 
4.3.4 The Meaning of ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ for ICPAK members .............. 54 
4.3.4.1 The Meaning of ‘Public’ for ICPAK members .............................. 54 
4.3.4.2 The Meaning of ‘Interest’ for ICPAK members ............................ 55 
4.4 Conclusion on Findings Presented ............................................................... 55 
  
vi 
 
 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 56 
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 56 
5.2 IFAC’s meaning of the notion of public interest ......................................... 56 
5.3 ICPAK members’ understanding of public interest ................................... 57 
5.4 Public Interest for the Accountancy Profession in View of the Common 
Good .................................................................................................................. 57 
5.4.1 The Meaning of Public Interest as given by IFAC ................................ 58 
5.4.2 ‘Public’ in Public Interest ......................................................................... 60 
5.4.3 ‘Interest’ in Public Interest ....................................................................... 61 
5.4.4 ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ in Light of the Common Good ......................... 62 
5.4.5 Public Interest and Liberalism ................................................................ 64 
5.4.6 The Concept of Good and the Notion of Interest ................................. 64 
5.5 Conclusion to the Discussion ......................................................................... 67 
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 68 
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 68 
6.2 Summary of Key Findings.............................................................................. 68 
6.2.1 The notion of public interest as held by ICPAK ................................... 69 
6.2.2 ICPAK members’ understanding of the said notion of public 
interest ........................................................................................................ 70 
6.2.3 Analysing the meaning of public interest from the perspective of the 
common good ............................................................................................ 71 
6.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 72 
6.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 72 
6.5 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................... 72 
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 74 
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 81 
Appendix I: Letter to Strathmore University Research Office for Authorisation to 
Collect Data in Strathmore University ......................................................... 81 
Appendix II: Covering Letter for Ethical Clearance to SU-IERC ........................... 82 
Appendix III: Covering Letter to ICPAK Member Interviewee ............................ 84 
Appendix IV: Participant Information and Consent Form ..................................... 86 
Appendix V: Interview questions .............................................................................. 89 
Appendix VI: Main Characteristics of Public Interest for Accountants ............... 92 
Appendix VII: Summary of Common Good Features ............................................ 93 
Appendix VIII: Summarised Responses from Interviews of ICPAK Members... 94 
Appendix IX: Strathmore University Research Office Approval to Collect Data 
within the University .................................................................................... 104 
Appendix X: Approval by Strathmore University Institutional Ethics Review 
Committee ...................................................................................................... 105 
Appendix XI: Turnitin Report on this Dissertation ............................................... 106 
 
vii 
 
Abbreviations 
AICPA American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
CG Common Good 
CMC Cooper Motors Corporation  
CoE Code of Ethics 
CST Catholic Social Teachings 
ICAEW Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales 
ICPAK Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya 
ICPAK CoE ICPAK Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (2006) 
IESBA The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants 
IESBA CoE IESBA Handbook of the Code of Ethics for Professional 
Accountants (2013) 
IFAC International Federation of Accountants 
PI Public Interest 
  
viii 
 
Definition of Terms 
Anthropology of the universal destination of goods: This theory refers to the notion 
held by Catholic Social Teachings (CST) that material goods are destined to the benefit 
of all as regards equity of outcomes over and above processes. The idea that the 
dignity of all individuals is ensured and no group or individuals can be excluded 
from the benefit of goods initially made available for all is drawn from the fact that 
all material things are a gift from the Creator that benefits all mankind (Pontifical 
Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). 
Common good: The concept is considered to originate in the 14th century (Harper, 
2010) and (Dupré, 1993), and is a translation from the Latin word bonum publicum or 
bonum commune (Finnis, 2017).  Though rarely used, ‘commonweal’ serves as a 
synonym traced to Cicero’s use of the term (Hollenbach, 2002). The notion of the 
common good, based on the coming together of the wills among men, leads to their 
mutual moral excellence (de Torre, 1980).  
Virtue: Herein refers to good habits of the will, distinct from intellectual habits, which 
lead to moral perfection (Mimbi, 2007). The foundation of the notion of ‘morality’ 
included in this research relates to the judgement whether man’s acts concur with the 
law that guides him according to his nature in order that he attains his specific end 
and thus reaches fulfilment (de Torre, 1980).  
ICPAK: The Institute of Certified Public Accountants is the only one of its kind in 
Kenya, and came into being in 1978 on the enactment of the Accountants Act Cap 531 
of 1977 that at that time regulated all activities of Certified Public Accountants in 
Kenya (ICPAK website). For note in this study, ICPAK adopts the ethical guidelines 
of IFAC (ICPAK, 2006). 
  
ix 
 
IFAC: The International Federation of Accountants is an organization that was 
established in 1977 and gathers members from accounting bodies worldwide in 
attempt to strengthen the global accounting profession. In a May 2019 viewing of the 
IFAC website, IFAC reported to comprise of 175 accountancy members and associates 
in 130 countries and jurisdictions, representing almost 3 million accountants in public 
practice, education, government service, industry and commerce globally (IFAC 
website). ICPAK is a member of the IFAC (ICPAK, 2006).  
IESBA®: The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants® is one of the 
four independent standard-setting boards of the IFAC that develops and oversees 
guidelines on ethics for professional accountants and thus among other publications, 
develops the IESBA CoE. The IFAC provides resources to facilitate the work of the 
IESBA, but has no ability to influence the work of the IESBA. The IESBA sets its own 
agendas and approves its publications in accordance with its due process. IFAC 
publishes the handbooks, standards, and other publications and owns the copyrights 
(IESBA, 2018). 
ICAEW: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is a 
professional body with a sizeable membership worldwide with over 150,000 
members, and is one of the oldest accounting bodies in the world having received its 
royal charter in 1880 (ICAEW website).  
  
x 
 
Acknowledgements 
 
 
To Dr. Catherine Dean, my supervisor. For the continuous support and 
encouragement she accorded me, particularly in giving me ‘space’ to explore what I 
really wanted to research on, yet at the same time, helping me make sense of my 
thoughts and focus on the important aspects. This assistance is most appreciated.  
To Angelina Onyango. For helping me immensely by creating a serene environment 
to concentrate and complete this dissertation. 
To Dr. Lucy Gikonyo. For encouraging me to spend time and think deeper 
particularly at the completion stage of this dissertation. 
 
 1 
 
 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
1.1 Introduction 
This chapter gives the context to the study, the background and statement to the 
research problem. These three aspects build up towards the research focus. This 
chapter concludes with the scope of the study, its significance and contribution to 
knowledge. 
1.2 Context of the Study 
The practice of accounting dates back to ancient civilizations (Brown, 2013). 
Accounting professional bodies, as currently known, have existed since 1855 (Lee, 
1995). Presently, at least one professional accounting body exists in most jurisdictions 
over the world. The professional accounting body in Kenya is commonly referred to 
as ICPAK, which stands for the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya, 
and dates back to its inception over forty years ago in 1978 (ICPAK, 2019). Many 
professional accounting bodies, including ICPAK, are members of the International 
Federation of Accountants (IFAC), whose existence is aimed at strengthening the 
worldwide accountancy profession (IFAC, 2018). 
1.3 Background to the Study 
Accountants work in different kinds of organizations, which have different aims. 
Different theories attempt to explain the varied aims behind these organizations. One 
model, termed as a management model, which is explained by the Agency Theory, is 
also known as the Shareholder Theory (Phillips, 2003; Gichure, 2008). This theory 
considers wealth maximization as the highest moral good of commerce and the best 
possible contribution to society (Baumol, 1975; Friedman, 1970; Goizueta, 1996; 
Woiceshyn, 2012). Many accounting professionals work for organizations that uphold 
the above-mentioned theory. This means that together with their employers, the 
accountants focus on increased revenue and growth of their respective firms 
(Davenport & Dellaportas, 2009).  
 2 
 
Another theory is termed as the Stakeholder Theory. This theory considers that a 
wider scope of parties is affected by an entity’s activities, and includes among others, 
government, managers, employees, and customers (Goodpaster, 1991; Donaldson & 
Preston, 1995; Freeman, 2010).   
In reality, people working in such entities handle each stakeholder differently 
depending on the ability of the stakeholder to enforce their legal rights. Consequently, 
as the shareholders of the entity have a greater ability to enforce their rights, entities 
will give more priority to shareholders’ requests.  
More often than not, shareholders are interested in the maximization of profits. With 
such a kind of focus, the atmosphere tends to make employees, accountants included, 
focus on reporting higher profits. Most times the pressure to work towards this goal 
comes at the behest of senior management, who besides striving that their entities 
achieve higher profits, they themselves intend to earn better bonuses (Carcello, 2009). 
The above work contexts lead accountants to assist in presenting favourable financial 
results. In such situations, it can become almost compelling to cast aside principles of 
high integrity, in order to achieve the desired goals set by those leading or controlling 
entities. Thus, the maximisation of personal benefits, even for accountants 
themselves, takes the centre-stage. Eventually and unfortunately, in extreme cases, 
accountants become associated with financial irregularities (Ketz & Catanach, 2011; 
Omondi, 2012).  
In fact, a number of corporate scandals related to financial mischief involved 
accounting professionals (McLean & Elkind, 2003; Buys, Visser, & Oberholzer, 2012; 
Accounting-Degree.Org, 2013). Examples in the twenty-first century include Enron 
(Clayton, Scoggins, & Westley, 2002; McLean & Elkind, 2003), and Lehman Brothers 
(Reed, 2010; Vega, 2010), where accountants faced legal questioning alongside their 
employers’ top executives. Other instances of financial malfeasance occurred in the 
early 1980s (St Pierre & Anderson, 1984). Records examined indicate large-scale 
fraudulent schemes due to accountants’ neglect as far back as in the 1930s (Njiriani, 
2014). Some of the corporate scandals involved auditors (Singleton & Singleton, 2010; 
Ketz & Catanach, 2011; Omondi, 2012). In Kenya, Cooper Motors Corporation’s 
(CMC), shares were suspended from trading on the Nairobi Securities Exchange for 
 3 
 
a period of time due to wrongful actions on the part of, but not limited to, accountants 
and auditors (Juma, 2012; Mugwe, 2012; Herbling, 2013).  
Notably, the increased incidences connecting accountants with wrongdoings in 
entities has interested scholars, who seek to study accountants and ethics (Melé, 2005). 
However, even before the interest to research on ethics and accountants, a number of 
accounting professional bodies had in issue guidelines to assist their members to 
work in an ethical manner (ICPAK, 2006; AICPA, 2013; IESBA, 2018).  
With high ethical guidance from professional accounting bodies available, questions 
are raised when accountants appear alongside their chief executive officers accused 
of committing fraud. Moreover, at the heart of many of these ethical guidelines for 
accountants is the statement that the main role of an accountant is to uphold the 
public interest (ICPAK, 2006; AICPA, 2013; IESBA, 2018). In some jurisdictions, 
professional accounting bodies communicate to their members officially on public 
interest matters through their respective Codes of Ethics (Dellaportas & Davenport, 
2008). Protecting the public interest obliges as an overriding principle for accountants 
to undertake their duties, or, at least should give them a driving force to carry on their 
activities with integrity.  
Some ethical guidelines specify that accountants must act beyond their own interests. 
A case to point is a quote from guidelines taken from two different accounting bodies, 
namely, the ethical guidelines issued by IESBA, and, those issued by ICPAK. Both 
documents read as follows:  
‘A distinguishing mark of the accountancy profession is its 
acceptance of the responsibility to act in the public interest. 
Therefore, a professional accountant’s responsibility is not 
exclusively to satisfy the needs of an individual accountant 
or employer’ (ICPAK, 2006; IESBA, 2018).  
1.4 Problem Statement 
It is not clear what professional accounting bodies exactly mean by public interest. 
There seems to be a dissonance between what the accountants understand of their 
role and what their professional bodies stipulate, as seen by different cases of 
malfeasance, some of which are given in subsection 1.3 above. Additionally, it is not 
 4 
 
certain if the pronouncements made by the accounting bodies, as well as what the 
accountants understand of public interest helps the said professional accountants 
work with integrity, or, on the other hand, if the notion and the understanding of 
public interest thereof, serves as a deterrent to upright actions. 
1.5 Aims and Objectives 
1.5.1 Aims of the Research 
Therefore, one, it is interesting to determine what the meaning of public interest as 
held by accounting bodies entails; two, to determine what members of accounting 
bodies understand in that notion of public interest; and thirdly, to determine what 
the two parties understand using the objective meaning of true good, in the concept 
of the common good, (Douglass, 1980; Argandoña, 2011). 
1.5.2 Objectives of the Research 
Thus, in the Kenyan context, and given that ICPAK is the only Kenyan accounting 
professional body, this study focussed mainly on the following research objectives, 
and, asks these questions: 
1.5.2.1 Research Objectives 
i. To clarify the meaning of the notion of public interest as held by ICPAK. 
ii. To determine what selected ICPAK members understand by the notion of 
public interest as proposed by ICPAK. 
iii. To analyse the meaning of public interest as held by ICPAK and ICPAK 
members, within the perspective of the Aristotelian concept of the common 
good. 
  
 5 
 
1.5.2.2 Research Questions 
1. What does the notion of public interest mean for ICPAK? 
2. What do a selected number of ICPAK members understand by the notion of 
public interest as proposed by ICPAK? 
3. What does public interest as held by ICPAK and ICPAK members mean, 
within the perspective of the Aristotelian concept of the common good? 
1.6 Scope of the Study 
The principal focus of this research entailed establishing the position of public interest 
within the accounting profession in Kenya and focussed on ICPAK. Additionally, the 
notion of public interest held by ICPAK is analysed from the perspective of the 
common good based on the Aristotelian tradition. In the process of the research, it 
became apparent that ICPAK had no official document in the public domain on public 
interest, for reasons explained under subsection 3.3.1 below, therefore this research 
used IFAC’s documents.  
A total of six ICPAK members were interviewed. At the time the interviews were 
conducted all interviewees worked in Strathmore University. The interviews took 
place in April 2018. The aim of keeping the interviews to a small number was to enter 
into greater depth on views regarding public interest. 
Both sets of information, that is, from the IFAC documents and the ICPAK members’ 
interviews, were analysed using the concept of the common good, which is the 
theoretical framework in this research.  
The reason for the use of the common good as a tool for analysis of the notion of 
public interest stems from the fact that 1) the concept of the common good was a 
predecessor to the notion of public interest, and, 2) the common good from the 
Aristotelian point of view deals with good as an objective reality. 
 6 
 
1.7 Significance and contribution of this research 
The main part of the research is exploratory in nature contributing new knowledge 
by way of delving into IFAC’s position on public interest and by inference, ICPAK’s 
view on public interest. This study is timely, from various aspects: firstly, no research 
has been undertaken to determine the meaning of the notion of public interest as held 
by ICPAK. Secondly, no study to date provides insights into the perception of the 
notion of public interest of ICPAK members. Thirdly, other research work carried out 
on public interest for accountancy bodies uses varying criteria to analyse the notion 
of public interest, though, none to date uses the common good as the theoretical 
framework for analysis. Therefore, this research adds to the discussion on the notion 
of the public interest as a whole, but particularly as viewed in the accountancy 
profession, with a specific nuance, which is analysing the notion from the standpoint 
of the common good based in the Aristotelian tradition.  
This study can assist in improving an understanding of what assists or deters 
professional accountants from carrying out their duty in the service of society. Based 
on the theoretical framework of the common good, the arguments developed in this 
study related to what bears the greatest impact on society in considering the common 
good, which can increase the awareness of accountants regarding the magnitude of 
their professional role and work in the service of all society. Therefore, the study on 
public interest vis-à-vis the common good would be useful to enrich the training of 
accountants on ethical practice. Dissemination of the findings of this study can be 
used to inform policy when clarifications are required on the role of Kenyan 
accountants. The final report will be available online through the Strathmore 
University digital repository. 
1.8 Conclusion 
This chapter gave the context to the study, the background and statement to the 
research problem. These three aspects led to the research focus. This chapter 
concluded the scope of the study, its significance and contribution to knowledge. 
  
 7 
 
 LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1 Introduction 
This chapter comprises of two parts. The first part begins with examining the 
literature on public interest, with a special focus on the professional accounting 
world. At each stage of the subsections in the first part, the research gaps on the notion 
of public interest identified refer to the common good. The second part of the chapter 
covers the theoretical framework, which is the common good and, settles on selected 
characteristics of the common good, which are later used in this study to analyse the 
findings on public interest. 
2.2 Public Interest 
The literature review in this section covers the three research objectives, namely, the 
meaning of public interest for professional accounting bodies, public interest as 
understood by professional accountants, and finally discussions linking public 
interest and the common good.  
2.2.1 General Comments on Public Interest 
For some authors, the notion of public interest means ‘public good’, or even ‘general 
welfare’, ‘general will’ or ‘common good’ (Sturm, 1996) or ‘the collective well-being 
of society’ (Dellaportas & Davenport, 2008; Ardelean, 2013). However, Douglass 
(1980) considers both notions: public interest and the public good, relates to 
conditions that enable equal chances of success based on individual ownership or 
equal access to resources. Douglass mentions that public interest appears mostly 
concerned with material well-being. Furthermore, Douglass (1980) opines public 
interest serves as an ‘instrument for articulating an essentially individualist 
conception of the public good’ (p. 107), thus being tantamount to private interest and 
property rights.  
Argandoña (2011) thinks the term public good used by economists serves to contrast 
private good, and thus distinguishing resources held for common usage, vis-á-vis, 
 8 
 
those goods considered for private usage, respectively. This meaning of public good 
differs from Sturm’s view mentioned above. Maritain (1966) provides a slightly 
different nuance to the term when he refers to the public good, as that which 
contributes to the common good.  
In summary, the notion of public interest emerged with the introduction of an 
individualistic view of the human person (Douglass, 1980; Argandoña, 2011; Sison & 
Fontrodona, 2012), thus altering the meaning of common good. After the Middle 
Ages, in England, during the 17th century, when the rulers justified their actions and 
decisions by claiming their aims achieved the common good, which at times boiled 
down to focus on the rulers’ interests, citizens protested (Douglass, 1980; Dellaportas 
& Davenport, 2008). The despotic actions of the rulers tended to infringe upon the 
rights of the common person. Consequently, the citizens developed a negative 
perception of this so-called common good, consequently, pushing for their own 
rights, and justifying their actions on ideas borrowed heavily from the Enlightenment 
movement (Douglass, 1980; ICAEW, 2012).  
Douglass (1980) summarises that the result of the above-enumerated events led to the 
substitution of the concept of the common good with the notion of ‘public interest’. 
Douglass terms the latter as a ‘brief for selfishness’ good’ (p. 107). The universal 
objective good took a secondary place, and thus the concept of the common good and 
all it stands for disappeared (Cochran, 1974; Douglass, 1980). 
In a nutshell, the notion of ‘interest’ eventually has come to refer to the desires of 
individuals: that which serves the individual’s convenience (Douglass, 1980; ICAEW, 
2012).  Thus, an individual’s desires, or what can be called ‘interests’, tend towards 
what appeals to the appetites. These ‘objects of desire’ (Douglass, 1980, p. 107) can 
never be the same for different individuals. Hence, interests do not refer to objects of 
universal scope, and also do not necessarily bear any alignment to a stable object, or, 
that which is unchanging as the nature of a human being is unchanging.  
The aforementioned implies that the emergence of an individualist view of the human 
person ignored the innate relational dimension of the human person. From a certain 
perspective, the public interest is said to render a liberalist nuance to the concept of 
the common good (Sison & Fontrodona, 2012). Sturm (1996) mentions that there can 
 9 
 
be no interest held by the public as a whole since no individuals in society can share 
in the same desires or hold the same view on what appeals to them.   
And, Barry (1964) goes on to say that although a person may have an interest, that 
person may not necessarily pursue it. To this end, Douglass (1980) makes a proposal 
on what he thinks could be the meaning of public interest: ‘what is really good for the 
whole people’ (p. 114). Though, it is not clear if what appeals to each individual, what 
interests them, is good for all the public. 
Cochran (1974) thinks that the public interest subjects society to ‘pride, self-interest 
and worldly contingencies’, leaving the society bereft of actualizing its ‘moral and 
social potential’. Cochran in examining the different meanings attributed to public 
interest refers to four different theories: normative, abolitionist, process and 
consensualist. The normative theory uses ethics (norms) as a way to guide policies to 
improve the well-being of society. The other three theories exclude any reference to 
norms (Cochran, 1974; Dellaportas & Davenport, 2008). Further details on these 
theories are given in section 2.2.7.1 below, where their relevance to the notion of 
public is noted. No further examination of the four theories takes place in this study, 
as the aim of this research is not to define public interest. 
Douglass (1980), Argandoña (2011) and Sison and Fontrodona (2012) explain the 
genesis of the notion of the public interest from the concept of the common good. 
Douglass (1980) carried out an analysis which further distinguishes the two ideas. 
Even though there have been discussions on the common good and on public interest, 
to date no authors have yet evaluated the specific meaning IFAC attributes to the 
notion of public interest in light of the concept of the common good held in the 
Aristotelian tradition. 
2.2.2 Public Interest in the Professions in General 
Different professionals have tried to define their main reason for the existence of their 
profession, such as the veterinary profession, as well as pharmacists and nurses who 
in their respective codes of ethics refer to ‘a duty to serve the interests of the public’ 
(Saks, 1995, p. 3) or in the case of the legal profession referring to ‘the protection and 
advantage of the wider public’ (p. 3). Furthermore, even professional bodies for 
 10 
 
chemical engineers, mechanical engineers as well as architects claim the ‘principle of 
serving human welfare’ (p. 4) as a central objective. Therefore, the study on the raison 
d’etre of a profession is not unique to accountancy. As expounded below, the 
accounting profession considers serving the public interest as the role of accountants 
in society. 
Much literature on public interest vis-á-vis different professionals’ roles in society 
deal with aspects of public interest, yet none to date analyses the meanings given to 
the notion of public interest with the concept of the common good. 
2.2.3 Linkage between Accountancy and Public Interest 
To explain the history of public interest for accountants, some background of the 
profession is necessary. The advent of accounting is closely associated with organized 
government, tax collection and stewardship management; say the Chaldean-
Babylonian civilization (Brown, 2013) dating as far back as circa 4,000 B.C. (Njiriani, 
2014).  
The modern form of accounting appeared only in the 13th Century (Njiriani, 2014), 
and was documented in 1494 by Luca Pacioli, who presented what is currently known 
as the double-entry system (Godfrey, Hodgson, Scott, & Tarca, 2006), and which 
continues to be used by accountants as a system of recording accounting information.  
The first modern accounting professional body started in Glasgow, Scotland (Lee, 
1995; Cheffers & Pakaluk, 2007; Brown, 2013). Currently, at least one professional 
accounting body exists in most jurisdictions across the globe: Kenya included. When 
in 1855 the first accounting body received official approval by obtaining a Charter 
from the Crown, through the initiative of a group of accountants (Lee, 1995), 
safeguarding the public interest was the reason given to set up this professional body. 
This reason continues as the raison d’être justifying the need for the existence of 
specialized bodies of professionals with accounting expertise. The importance of 
membership to professional accounting bodies continues to expand (Payne, 2009; 
Lyon & Raef, 2012).  
 11 
 
The first accountants working in Kenya originated in the United Kingdom:  mainly 
the members of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and the 
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). Both accounting 
bodies are members of IFAC. Inevitably, the presence of these British-trained 
accountants in the country, in turn, influenced the training of Kenyan accountants 
(Njiriani, 2014).  
In 1978, fourteen years after Kenya’s independence, the Accountants Act of Kenya of 
1977, facilitated the establishment of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of 
Kenya (ICPAK). In the same year, the first person was admitted as an ICPAK member. 
ICPAK remains the only local Kenyan professional accountancy body. The more 
recent Accountants Act (Act no. 15 of 2008) stipulated further modifications to 
ICPAK’s role, and further amendments, such as through the 2018 Finance Act, 
enhances the role of Kenyan accountants which contribute to their service in society. 
Following is the explanation of the origins of IFAC. In 1977, at the 11th World 
Congress of Accountants, about 63 professional accounting bodies from 51 
jurisdictions across the world jointly established the International Federation of 
Accountants (IFAC). Now, IFAC currently brings together 175 member and associate 
accounting bodies from across the globe from over 130 countries and jurisdictions 
worldwide. At present, IFAC with its boards, set standards for the accounting 
profession (IFAC, 2018). ICPAK is also a member of the IFAC. 
Nonetheless, no literature exists that analyses the notion of public interest as the raison 
d’étre of the accounting profession in light of the common good in the Aristotelian 
tradition. 
2.2.4 Commentary from Professional Accountancy Bodies on IFAC’s 
Meaning of Public Interest 
This subsection addresses literature regarding the first research objective by way of 
reviewing academic research related to or reports from various professional 
accounting with respect to their understanding of public interest given by IFAC. 
 12 
 
As mentioned in subsection 2.2.3 above, historically ACCA and ICAEW members 
held significant accounting and business roles in the Kenyan public sector and 
practitioner firms. Due to the influence of ACCA and ICAEW in the Kenyan 
accounting arena, this research looked for ACCA’s and ICAEW’s official 
commentaries on the 2012 IFAC position on public interest.  
ICAEW prepared a report giving its official position on public interest, which came 
as a commentary on the IFAC 2012 policy position paper no. 5 on public interest. The 
ICAEW report gives different views on public interest, which are used in this study. 
ICAEW does not consider it possible to define public interest, which they consider 
‘would be fraught with problems’ (ICAEW, 2012, p. 11). The latter comment is 
consistent with a previous ICAEW’s response to a 2010 IFAC Framework. 
ICAEW prefers to provide a framework for use by professionals: directed in 
particular to, but, not exclusively for accountants. ICAEW considers public interest 
depends on various circumstances and thus indicates that different cultures tend to 
‘have different perspectives on what the ‘right’ thing to do is’ (ICAEW, 2012, p. 62). 
ICAEW (2012) gives some indicators on what it considers as characteristic of public 
interest, namely, public interest action involves foregoing personal benefit; public 
interest matters may simply be wants, arising from inordinate reasons. Also 
mentioned is that public interest and self-interest in the long term are the same 
interest and if transparency is upheld individuals go about their business with 
minimal interference (ICAEW, 2012). 
ICAEW (2012, p. 4) proposes the use of public interest ‘interchangeably’ with 
common good. Going by the meaning ICAEW attributes to public interest from the 
paragraph above, the meaning of common good for ICAEW differs from the meaning 
of common good arrived at in the theoretical framework discussion, under subsection 
2.3 below. ICAEW continues to say that not all actions of an individual or 
organizations need to contribute to the public interest. In light of the angle given by 
Douglass (1980) on the altered meaning of public interest, ICAEW’s latter statement 
could be valid.  
 13 
 
Nevertheless, as elaborated under subsection 2.3.6 below, it can be said that every 
action of a member of society contributes to or detracts from the common good, 
depending on whether or not the deeds are morally upright, respectively (Maritain, 
1966; Douglass, 1980). Therefore, the notion of public interest differs from the 
meaning of common good, contrary to ICAEW’s position (Douglass, 1980). 
Interestingly, ICAEW (2012) talks about the occurrence of actions supposedly carried 
out to safeguard the public interest that may act as a veil for other self-benefitting 
motives ‘invoking the public interest is a smokescreen to disguise self-interested 
action’ (p. 6). The latter statement further reiterates what is explained in subsection 
5.4.6 below, namely the notion of public interest and the concept of common good are 
not synonymous or interchangeable. 
ACCA, in an official document on setting standards for the public sector, mentions, 
‘following public consultation, the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) 
issued a policy position in 2012, which ACCA broadly supports’ (ACCA, 2016, p. 36). 
ACCA provides a resume of the IFAC policy position paper, highlighting matters on 
‘interests’ and ‘public’ as given by the 2012 IFAC document. 
In turn, some research was undertaken to determine ICPAK’s view on 2012 IFAC’s 
position on public interest. From a 22 May 2019 viewing of the website, ICPAK refers 
to its mandate ‘to protect and uphold public interest’ (ICPAK, 2019). At the conclusion 
of this research, ICPAK had not yet provided an official comment on the 2012 IFAC 
Position Paper on public interest. Additionally, there is no official pronouncement by 
ICPAK on what it considers as the meaning of public interest.  
The above situation indicated the timeliness of this research and that of determining 
the meaning of the notion of public interest in light of the Aristotelian tradition on 
common good.  
  
 14 
 
2.2.5 Professional Accountants and Public Interest 
This subsection reviews literature related to professional accountants and their 
consideration of public interest: thus addressing the second research objective. 
Four studies have looked at accountants and public interest matters. The studies were 
conducted on information collected on accountants from Australia, France, United 
States of America, and the United Kingdom.  
When examining auditing professionals undergoing lawful scrutiny in France, 
Lesage et al (2016) noted a number of selected accountants seemed bent on 
safeguarding their own interests. Davenport and Dellaportas (2009) in a survey on 
Australian accountants on their understanding and application of the meaning of 
public interest in their professional roles, reached the conclusion that the accountants 
in the survey hold a different view on public interest from their respective 
professional accounting bodies.  
Lee (1995) noted how the protection of the professional accountants’ self-interest 
overarched compliance to serve the public interest. In addition, Lee (1995) is 
convinced that the claim of accountants to serve the public interest acts as a cloak to 
justify what instead leads to accountants protecting their self-interests. Lee reached 
his opinion after using documentation covering research on the history of accountants 
in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.  
This study is timely in terms of carrying out research on Kenyan accountants and 
their views on the notion of public interest and analysing the findings using the 
concept of the common good. 
2.2.6 Public Interest and the Common Good 
This subsection looks at academic literature dealing with both the common good and 
public interest and thus addressing the third research objective. 
Any true profession needs to set out a specific purpose in service to society. In 
addition, Buchholz & Rosenthal (2008), say the clarity of the purpose would likely 
motivate members of the profession to work for the benefit of society. With this 
 15 
 
purpose, the benefits accruing to others therefore, should override any considerations 
of self-interest or profit maximization when professionals offer their services.  
In the February 1987 Hastings Center Reporting, Jennings, Callahan, & Wolf (1987) 
postulated professionals needed to do more in terms of the common good than from 
the perspective of the public interest. The reason for these authors is that serving the 
public interest by a professional can never be divorced from serving individual 
interests. Jennings et al (1987) are convinced that public interest and common good 
are concepts that are in dissonance both theoretically and in meaning. On the other 
hand, the authors project that serving the common good points more to helping a 
society determine how it wants to live and what consists as the goals of the said 
society (Jennings, Callahan, & Wolf, 1987). Douglass (1980) thinks the common good 
is more akin to a goal. 
Douglass (1980) provides an explanation of why public interest and common good 
differ in meaning. Douglass’ concept of good amounts to that which really is 
beneficial, and not just perceived to be so. Douglass (1980) thinks the type of 
anthropology used in the liberalistic tradition justifies ‘interest’ and removes any 
reference to objective good. Haldane (2009) thinks this way of looking at reality as an 
‘incoherent metaphysical anthropology’. 
The above-mentioned authors consider that the common good has more to do with 
the telos or end toward which the members of the community cooperatively strive for, 
that is, the ‘good life’, human flourishing, and, moral development while on the other 
hand, there is a claim that public interest leans towards ‘the aggregation of the private 
interests of individuals who join together in an association dedicated to the pursuit 
of mutual advantage’ (Jennings, Callahan, & Wolf, 1987, p. 6). These same authors 
also reason that the core of the differences between public interest and the common 
good is what is understood in the aim of society and the nature of the individual 
(Jennings, Callahan, & Wolf, 1987), and add that the common good contributes 
eventually to the development of the person: intellectually, spiritual and morally. 
Indeed, the two ideas, that is, of public interest and the common good, include 
different connotations, given that their foundations differ in terms of their respective 
metaphysical and thus anthropological underpinnings. Inevitably, with different 
 16 
 
views on what constitutes the nature of the human person on one hand, within the 
notion of public interest, and on the other hand, the concept of the common good, 
priorities of what each idea deems as important for human society will inevitably 
differ. 
However, none of the above literature deals with public interest in the Kenyan 
accounting context, nor, what the meaning of the said notion implies for Kenya 
accountants when looked at within the perspective of the concept of the common 
good. 
2.2.7 ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ in Public Interest 
In some reflections on public interest by the Australian researchers, Dellaportas and 
Davenport (2008), the mode of analysing the concept of public interest for accountants 
considered the meaning of ‘public’ and ‘interest’ within the notion of public interest. 
This analysis appears relevant for this new aspect in the study, hence the following 
subsections, 2.2.7.1 and 2.2.7.2 below, delve into the meaning of the two ideas 
mentioned above. 
2.2.7.1 The Meaning of ‘Public’ 
Cochran (1974) refers to the ‘public’ as autonomous and isolated individuals. He 
speaks about the main idea core to public interest as the ‘contract or partnership’, 
where free individuals choose to join in better pursuit of their private interests. 
Douglass (1980) considers the ‘public’ as anyone directly or indirectly affected by 
decisions, actions and policies. Lee (1995) takes the public as the wider community, 
beyond investors. Ahinful et al (2017) say the ‘public’ is the entire public. Baker (2005) 
quotes the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of 
Professional Conduct of 2004, Section 53, which characterises the ‘public’ as those 
who rely on the honest work of member accountants. 
Ardelean (2013) thinks that the ‘public’ comprises of ‘all members of society who rely 
on the objectivity of the profession’. Ardelean goes on to refer to the November 2010 
IFAC Policy Position Paper 4 – A Public Interest Framework for the Accountancy Profession 
 17 
 
where the ‘public’ is referred to on the one hand as the ‘widest possible scope of 
society’ and on the other hand, all users of information subject to the expertise of 
accountants. Ardelean rightly points out that there are individuals who do not fall 
into either category given in the 2010 IFAC framework, yet are affected by financial 
information produced by accountants. Comments by different accounting bodies in 
response to the 2010 IFAC framework and noted by Ardelean said the following of 
the ‘public’, who: 1. with ‘reference to citizens may create conflicts’; 2. with ‘different 
interests in the results of the accounting work’; 3. are the ‘global community’, that is, 
‘society in general’ (p. 8). 
As per the normative theory referred to in subsection 2.2.1 above, the ‘public’ refers 
to the majority, whereas the consensualist theory takes a relatively large number of 
people as the ‘public’, which includes more individuals than the meaning of ‘public’ 
in the process and abolitionist theories, which do not see the public as a whole 
achieving an end in unison. The process theory claims this can only be achieved 
through a process of compromise between different groups, while for the abolitionist 
theory, different groups aim at achieving power and control over the other groups 
(Cochran, 1974; Dellaportas & Davenport, 2008). 
In all the above authors, one item is notable, the term ‘public’ does not relate to every 
single individual, but is reduced to smaller groups of individuals. None of the studies 
gives opinions on who they think comprise the public but none examines what that 
‘public’ would mean in terms of the common good. 
2.2.7.2 The Meaning of ‘Interest’ 
Douglass (1980) does not think that ‘interest’ is in any way synonymous with 
objective good. He reflects that though interests may appeal to the majority, and 
hence, can be termed as public interests, nonetheless, interests remain those things 
that apply to the tastes and satisfaction of the majority. 
Some authors consider that infrastructure available for public use relates to what 
anyone can access indiscriminately. Barry (1995) thinks that though on the one hand, 
it can be difficult to find a situation applied to all the members of the society in exactly 
 18 
 
the same way, given the distinction between private interest and public interests, the 
two aspects do coincide in some cases, such as laws. Barry (1995) does not agree with 
Miller’s position in his book The Nature of Politics and instead thinks something is of 
‘interest’ when a group of people show a ‘common concern’ on a specific issue.  
Barry  (1995) is convinced that public interest is not a choice and no one acts for the 
public interest, even though some individuals may be benevolent. Hence, individuals 
act for private reasons in pursuit of private interests. Sturm (1996) points to 
behaviourists who think the concept of ‘interest’ applied to all members of society at 
the same time consists of a muddle, misnomer and contradiction. This position 
implies anyone could make a choice for society as a whole, which may not be 
necessarily good for the whole of society. 
Dellaportas and Davenport (2008) refer to ‘interest’ as ‘the collective well-being’ and 
note that the meaning of public interest, which focuses on the financial information 
provided by accountants, implies that interests refer to economic needs of those who 
use the financial information. From this angle, Dellaportas and Davenport doubt if 
information serving ‘users’ economic needs’ is synonymous with ‘collective well-
being’. 
Two further observations include the point that what interests the public may not 
necessarily comprise matters of public interest, and the interests of the public simply 
may be wants, drawn from inordinate reasons (ICAEW, 2012). 
From the above authors, a stable foundation for the notion of ‘interest’ is lacking and 
meanings of interest differ. In the context of accountants, there is clearly some 
attention given to the work of accountants drawn from the fact of the information 
accountants provide. Nonetheless, the word ‘interest’ appears more confined and 
restricted to economic matters, to economic welfare and to economic decisions. Even 
so, the above deliberations do not consider or analyse whether the good of individuals 
and the community extends beyond economic considerations, at least, in terms of the 
common good. 
 19 
 
2.2.8 Conclusion on Public Interest 
This section covered a literature review on the meaning of public interest for 
professional accounting bodies, public interest as understood by professional 
accountants, and finally discussions linking public interest and the common good.  
2.3 Common Good as the Theoretical Framework 
2.3.1 Introduction 
This section deals with determining the meaning of the common good in the context 
of the meaning of ‘good’, viewing the common good as a goal, the commonness of 
the common good, as well as the place of virtues in relation to the common good. 
2.3.2 Background on Common Good 
Many authors have written on the common good. Some considered the concept 
vacuous and bereft of meaning, while others, to the contrary, are convinced of the 
meaning of the common good, and in so doing have delved into the wisdom of this 
concept. The following discussion is limited to selected views dealing with the most 
salient aspects of the common good, following the Aristotelian and CST tradition. 
There appears to be a consensus that the concept of the common good began before 
Aristotle with Plato (Yuengert, 2001; Argandoña, 2011). 
The common good is a social and political concept developed and elaborated by 
various prominent thinkers. One such contributor to the discussion, Aristotle, 
although he does not use this particular term, considers the common good as that 
which gives a reason for the existence of a society, or, the goal to which a community 
strives (Aristotle, 1944). Another authority in philosophical discussions, Thomas 
Aquinas, when commenting on Aristotle’s writings, expanded the concept further. 
Among the various matters Aquinas raised include that the good of any community 
is common to all the individuals and, states that the common good serves as the 
highest good of that community (Aquinas, 1951; Aquinas, 1949).  
 20 
 
After Aquinas, with the advent of liberalism, the concept of the common good went 
into oblivion amongst Enlightenment and Modern Thinkers, due to the introduction 
of the augmented place of the individual within the community, leading to 
individualistic deliberations. Nevertheless, a resurgence on the need to revisit the 
concept of common good occurs in recent times (Dupré, 1993; Douglass, 1980; de 
Torre, 2005; Haldane, 2009; Argandoña, 2011; Sison & Fontrodona, 2012).  
2.3.3 The Meaning of ‘Good’ 
To understand what Aristotle means by the common good, some discussion is 
necessary on the idea of ‘good’. There are various theories of what good is, as given 
by authors given below. 
Aristotle says in Nicomachean Ethics that the human being seeks to satisfy certain 
potencies, that is, appetites, desires, inclinations or tendencies (Aristotle, NE, 1094a). 
Aristotle considers as good that to which something aims at for its own sake. If 
something ‘X’ tends towards, aims at, and strives for something else, say ‘Y’, and 
which is here termed as the object of ‘X’, then ‘Y’ serves as an end of ‘X’. ‘Y’ is 
considered a ‘good’ of ‘X’ if ‘Y’ contributes to the fulfilment of ‘X’.  
From the above, it is clear ‘Y’ needs to be in existence, or real, in order to satiate the 
potencies of ‘X’. By being in existence, ‘Y’ is in ‘act’ and not in ‘potency’. (Sison & 
Fontrodona, 2012).  
Aristotle takes the discussion further by distinguishing between the different kinds 
of the good: those that are good per se, and, others that serve as means to attaining the 
good per se (NE, 1094a).   
Using a different framework, Finnis (2011) presents a theory on seven fundamental 
‘goods’ for humankind which consist of, life, knowledge, sociability, play, aesthetic 
experience, practical reasonableness and religion. Clearly, some of these goods would 
not be objects to satiate man’s appetites, such as life, which man does not seek in itself, 
given that life is a necessary condition for any human being to strive for an object, 
and for fulfilment. For this reason, Finnis’ model is not used in this study. 
 21 
 
The problem of the mistaken view related to the concept of the common good rests in 
the non-use of the metaphysical comprehension of what ‘good’ means (Haldane, 
2009). Besides, without the metaphysical background of good, the anthropological 
comprehension of man produces theories that change the hierarchy of what is 
important for man, and in turn what is important for a group, and then what is 
important for a community, and finally what is important for all society (Douglass, 
1980). 
Argandoña (2009) taking the Aristotelian view classifies the object, ‘Y’, according to 
how the object perfects man. Argandoña gives three categories of good, namely 1) 
extrinsic good, 2) intrinsic good, and 3) transcendent good.  Both the intrinsic good 
and transcendent good can be categorized as final goods, while the extrinsic good 
constitutes an intermediary good. This position is interesting since Douglass (1980) 
thought the common good related not just by including the material well-being of 
persons, but also the development of persons intellectually, spiritually and morally. 
Without spelling out the levels of good, the aspects given by Douglass (1980) are also 
in consonance with the three levels of good raised by Argandoña (2009). Douglass 
(1980) also brings up the matter of the moral good that enhances the development of 
the human qualities of persons. Thus, human persons do not just exist, but they need 
to live well, they need to flourish, eudaimonia. 
Therefore, in following the Aristotelian view on good, the classification presented by 
Argandoña is used in this study, of which further elaboration is given below. 
2.3.3.1 Extrinsic good 
On the issue of public good, as opposed to private good, Haldane (2009) distinguishes 
public good from common good. In this case, the public good refers to material 
resources available for the use of the public. Other authors such as Argandoña (2009) 
and Maritain (1966) propose that the public good contributes to and constitutes a part 
of the common good. Sturm (1996) goes on further to propose the public good as the 
proper good of the totality of society. However, all these authors note the 
transcendence of the common good over the public good. 
 22 
 
Objects that come under the category of extrinsic good occur outside the person who 
seeks them. A person can more easily obtain this kind of good, thus this object is 
termed as a proximate good. This kind of good is material, and from an example of a 
person’s job, the extrinsic good obtained comprises a salary received. Extrinsic goods 
may be intangible, such as recognition by one's colleagues, for one’s job or work done.  
Extrinsic good facilitates the acquisition of other kinds of good. Hence, an extrinsic 
good can be termed as an instrumental good or a foundational good.  The extrinsic 
good satisfies the immediate needs and desires of a person. This kind of good does 
not perfect the individual in the strictest sense regarding the person’s proper end, but 
definitely facilitates the person’s life to achieve higher goods. Thus, the extrinsic good 
could not constitute a final good that perfects the person in totality. In addition, the 
common good does not comprise a sum total of particular extrinsic goods. 
2.3.3.2 Intrinsic good 
The intrinsic good refers to the kind of good when sought for in itself bears a lasting 
impact on the person who strives for this good. This kind of good inheres in the 
person. To inhere relates to the impact on the person, on acquiring the intrinsic good, 
the individual changes. The impact relates to the individual’s spiritual nature as a 
consequence of the activities the person engages in.  
The intrinsic good attained leads to the person changing from within, that is, 
intrinsically. This is possible as the person has a spiritual dimension and the person’s 
activities impact on his spiritual nature insofar as they improve his faculties of 
knowledge and skills. From the example given above on work undertaken, the 
intrinsic good constitutes the satisfaction of carrying out a task, and in addition, the 
knowledge attained or skills acquired.  
In a certain sense, more than one person can share in the knowledge attained. This 
ability to share does not apply in most cases to the satisfaction derived and definitely 
not to skills acquired. Nonetheless, the intrinsic good contributes more to the 
perfection of an individual than the extrinsic good. 
 23 
 
2.3.3.3 Transcendent good 
Finally, the transcendent good refers to that good sought not for the person, but for 
others. From the activities of the person, an impact occurs within the person, but at a 
more profound and lasting level and, which brings along a deeper impact on the 
person, namely the development of good habits, that is, virtues. The transcendent 
good is in the strictest sense the best depiction of final goods, over and above, that of 
the intrinsic good.  
The other two kinds of good, extrinsic and intrinsic, are instrumental or conditions to 
attain the transcendental good. Moreover, the transcendent good assists in the 
perfection of the intrinsic good acquired. A person achieves human flourishing only 
with the attainment of the transcendent good, and Argandoña (2009) reiterates by 
saying the transcendent good contributes most to the fulfilment of each person who 
strives to attain this good.  
Therefore, the transcendent good is of the highest perfection among all the three types 
of good, with a long lasting impact on the development and fulfilment of a human 
being.  The transcendent good makes the greatest contribution to what Aristotle and 
Aquinas consider as the common good. 
2.3.3.4 Conclusion of the Meaning of ‘Good’ 
De Torre (1980), a long-standing professor in social and political philosophy, opines 
that the more one seeks one’s own fulfilment, the greater the perfection of the person 
in order to be of better service to society. He also thinks that the disordered seeking 
of one’s good is what causes conflict. Additionally, Solomon (2004) considers the use 
of material goods, their ownership, ultimately for the spiritual good of the owners, 
which implies the development of virtues. In so doing, the use of these extrinsic goods 
contributes to the common good (Solomon, 2004).  
Therefore, from the above, since extrinsic goods comprise of divisible and limited 
goods, nonetheless, unequal distribution of the extrinsic good is not contrary to the 
common good (de Torre, 1980). In a way, all good in its rightful place benefits from 
and contributes to the common good, since individuals share the same equality of 
 24 
 
nature and of destiny: that is, of origin and the common good. Persons attempting to 
achieve their own proper good, refer themselves necessarily to the common good, 
thus attaining their own perfection (de Torre, 1980).  
Strictly speaking, all members of society cannot enjoy the extrinsic good and intrinsic 
good without any member’s disadvantage or privation, nonetheless, both kinds of 
good, can be instrumental or foundational to society, and therefore to the common 
good, though nonetheless, neither of the aforementioned goods constitute the 
common good. 
In contrast, the transcendent good, as mentioned, relates to virtues, which enhance 
the upright conduct of the individual leading to his happiness. The upright behaviour 
of an individual improves relationships in a true sense and enhances the happiness 
of others. Happiness is something that one can enjoy without question of any 
diminishment for other persons. 
2.3.4 The Common Good as a Goal 
Maritain (1966) defines the common good as ‘the sum total of social conditions which 
allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully 
and more easily’. Maritain (1966) clarifies that the common good is not the entirety of 
private goods, but rather the ‘good human life of the multitude’. The Pontifical 
Council for Justice and Peace (2004) considers that social conditions are important, 
nonetheless, the common good is not just a totality of particular goods. 
However, Argandoña (2009) does not agree fully with the definition given above by 
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Argandoña thinks the definition does not 
incorporate the fact of the common good as a real good for the community. Another 
way of saying what the Pontifical Council says, Maritain (1966) postulates the 
common good as a ‘potential’ as well as a ‘fulfilment’ to aid each person to attain his 
purpose. Argandoña (2009) argues Maritain’s opinion hints to the common good as a 
means or an instrument, be it for individuals or for groups. Argandoña prefers to 
view the common good as an end. Albeit this study using Argandoña’s views of on 
the common good most extensively, nonetheless, the insights of Maritain (1966) and 
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004) remain of value. This study held 
 25 
 
that anything that facilitates the attainment of the fulfilment of the members of society 
assists in the attainment of the common good.  
Other authors cannot envisage the common good as a sum total of goods. Notably, 
Finnis (2017) says the common good is not reducible to being merely summed, but 
rather a purpose or an end, while Dupre (1993) says the common good is not a sum 
total of particular goods but is a good transcendent to the members of the community. 
This study took the position that the common good is an end, an objective, since this 
interpretation appears more in line with the Aristotelian thinking of good as an end, 
and thus attributable to the reality of the common good.  
Vaccaro and Sison (2011) agree with the view of Argandoña (2009), Finnis (2017) and 
Dupre (1993) on the issue of ‘end’ and ‘fulfilment’, by saying that any good, to be 
called ‘good’ in the first place, is something actual and real, mirroring an ‘act’, 
‘perfection’, in a nutshell, an ‘end’ in contrast to a ‘potential’ or  to ‘conditions.’ The 
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004) proposes the common good as ‘the 
social and community dimension of the moral good’. Moral good is not something 
that is in potency, but is real, is actualised. 
Other authors give a more focussed definition of the common good as the perfection 
of, or, the good of the community and of the whole person (Alford & Naughton, 2001; 
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004; Vaccaro & Sison, 2011). It is notable that 
this second definition excludes the nuance of the common good limited to 
circumstances or conditions. 
The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004) states society is ‘at the service of 
the human being’ and, the common good, which is ‘the good of all people and of the 
whole person’, is the main goal.  Haldane (2009) and Njenga (2011) speak of the 
common good as a telos: a goal towards which a community strives, which comprises 
the position taken up in this study for use in the analysis of public interest.  
 
 26 
 
2.3.5 Commonness of the Common Good to all Persons 
Taking a closer look at what constitutes a true good for society, the conclusion points 
to one held in common without diminishing an individual’s enjoyment of the same. 
This kind of good is what a community needs to strive towards, which is 
characteristically indivisible, and which all persons in that society can benefit from, 
or participate. Nonetheless, although the common good is a good common to all in 
society, the good of individuals is not a portion of the common good. 
Millán Puelles (1971) expounds the participatory aspect of man in a bigger reality, 
that is, of the common good in society, while Sison and Fontrodona (2012) think every 
entity or firm should participate in the common good of the polis (city / society). 
Within this context, Argandoña (2011) points to the common good as ‘indivisible 
because the good that benefits each person is incapable of being separated from the 
good of others’ (p. 3) and Millán Puelles (1971) speaks of the social common good as 
the good participated in by all and each one of the members of a human community. 
Douglass (1980) says the common good is not the aggregate of goods pertaining to 
human persons in society, but rather, the common good as goods-shared, based on 
reciprocating relationships between members of society. 
Put in another way, Haldane (2009) refers to the common good, not as something to 
be distributed: the good-to-many, but rather, of the good-for-many: essentially the good 
shared. In other words, a feature of the common good in its communicability, and, 
Maritain (1966), albeit his definition, writes the common good is in a certain measure, 
‘communicable’. To shed light on the commonness of true good, de Torre (1980), points 
out that something is common, because it is good, and not vice versa. De Torre’s 
statement highlights two aspects that fit the common good: the common good needs 
to be a true good, and if attained, perfects individuals. On the need for the good to be 
communicable, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004) postulates that the 
person cannot find fulfilment in himself since he exists ‘with’ others and ‘for’ others. 
De Torre states that good common to all, must be infinite in nature, that is, it is an 
object with the capacity to satisfy the infinite capacity of the human person, which 
essentially are, only knowledge, and what could be loved without satiating, and 
which bear semblance to the infinitude (de Torre, 2005). The last statement above fits 
 27 
 
in with what Haldane (2009) mentions on the good-for-many, that which is common. 
Furthermore, by sharing this good in society, the common good has to be indivisible 
(Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). This study considers that good is 
indivisible, what cannot diminish, and therefore, what can be held in common. Such 
good bears most resemblance to the transcendent good. Within this context, and from 
the discussion above, the extrinsic good and intrinsic good cannot be equivalent or 
identical to the common good.  
Therefore, the highest good attainable by individuals is not material. Matter is 
divisible and limited. Instead, the highest good is indivisible and appertains to the 
spiritual dimension of humankind. Such good includes realities such as virtues, 
wisdom, knowledge, and many can share in these realities, without in any way 
lessening or destroying this kind of good.  
The transcendent good is the most indivisible of the three kinds of good mentioned 
above, and therefore transcendent good is most akin to the common good. Refining 
further on the matter, Argandoña (2009) points out that common good constitutes 
first in virtue. Virtue provides the means for a ‘positive and stable’ development of 
individuals ‘in accordance with their nature’. Maritain (1966) when referring to that 
which is transcendent in the common good excludes material things.  
In conclusion, drawing from the various aspects given in the paragraphs above, the 
common good is higher than the good pursued for other reasons. The highest of all 
good is the transcendent good, and the transcendent good ultimate comprises of 
virtues. Therefore, to reach the common good most effectively, the development of 
virtues is fundamental.  
2.3.6 Virtues: the Highest Good of Society 
Aristotle helps with the following observation: a perfect good is one pursued in itself, 
and not for another (NE, 1097a), which implies that a good pursued for itself is more 
complete. He continues with the reflection that of all goods pursued in and for their 
own sake, the highest good for the human person comprises happiness, which is the 
greatest consequence of human flourishing: eudaimonia. Moreover, since ultimately 
 28 
 
any human being ultimately seeks happiness, the person can only attain happiness 
by living an upright life, which leads to human flourishing. 
The above view of Aristotle is shared by a number authors who hold the Aristotelian 
and CST’s view, and say the common good is most related to ‘virtue’ and ‘morality’ 
(Alford & Naughton, 2001; Argandoña, 2011; Sison & Fontrodona, 2012). Aristotle 
himself promotes the development of virtues over and above the acquisition of any 
other benefits (Aristotle, Pol. 3.1281a). Therefore, an individual in striving for his own 
proper good attains his integral development, and, precisely through an individual’s 
growth in virtue, that is, by acquiring good habits, the individual reaches perfection 
and fulfilment (Aquinas, S Th I-II q.90 a.2, 1947; Argandoña, 2009; Sison & 
Fontrodona, 2012). From the above, one could say that the individual pursuing 
growth in virtue contributes in the best possible way to human flourishing in society, 
and thus, to the common good. 
Aristotle in encouraging the development of virtues points out that virtues assist man 
attain his ultimate end, his real purpose for existing. Additionally, Aristotle mentions 
that society exists for upright actions, and those who have a bigger share in the 
common good are those who are more virtuous (Pol. 3.1281a). 
In other words, members of a society developing virtues results in attaining the 
common good in a stable way (Argandoña, 2009). In fact, the virtues of an individual 
give rise to the good of the whole of society. In other words, when the individual 
strives to achieve the true betterment for many, he achieves his own fulfilment, and 
when he strives for his own integral development, he contributes to the common good 
(de Torre, 1980). Therefore, if the objective good serves as the purpose of assisting the 
individual and the community, respectively, to reach fulfilment, then the true 
ultimate good of the individual is never in dissonance with that of the community (de 
Torre, 1980). 
Thus, in terms of virtue, when a person seeks to perfect himself along the lines of 
seeking his true end, which is his true good, in his own way, thus striving for his own 
good, his proper and final good, the community benefits. The betterment of any one 
individual in virtues transpires to promote more good among all in the community. 
The betterment of an individual intrinsically meets the characteristics of true good. If 
 29 
 
it is indivisible, it will always benefit others. Put in another way, when an individual 
works towards a higher purpose of doing good, then individuals are happier 
(Solomon, 2004) and society is better: the community flourishes. 
The position of the common good as an end reiterates the conclusion from the 
discussion above covering the actions of persons. The means to the end indeed 
contributes to the common good without being identical to the common good itself. 
That is to say, virtue is a means to achieving the common good, as virtue relates to 
good, a true good, but in itself, is not the common good (Aquinas, 1949). From the 
above, the virtues most effectively ensure the attainment of the common good. 
2.3.7 Other Observations Related to the Common Good 
Given the Kenyan local nature of the study and the fact of focussing on accountants, 
the examination of some studies includes those related to the common good and 
ethics. These studies examine the common good and economists, the view of some 
Kenyan researchers on upright moral conduct, as well an analysis of motivations for 
those in the business field.  
A research paper prepared on the common good for economists indicates that when 
economists apply common good in their deliberations, these professionals, 
unfortunately, focus on the needs and wants of the individual without paying much 
attention to whether that individual seeks his holistic fulfilment within society 
(Yuengert, 2001). 
Kivoi (2011) suggests that education in schools needs to impart high moral standards 
to assist in combating corruption. Kivoi does not give any specific suggestion on what 
that program would consist of, or whether it should emphasize the development of 
virtue. Rutto (1999) takes an Aristotelian view that the purpose of life of man in 
pursuit of his happiness leads to honest actions, and, this purpose serves as a 
foundation of upright moral standards. Rutto’s insights may be useful to this study 
in terms of yet another view akin to those held by Aristotle. 
Kamaduuka, Ofafa and Mande (2013) note the positive connection between moral 
virtues in those who hold a position of authority and the manner with which they 
 30 
 
fulfil their mandate to use resources for the good of a community ethically. This 
observation relates to the importance Aristotle gives to virtues. 
In terms of what motivates human actions, Fabo (2004) distinguishes between the 
extrinsic, intrinsic and transcendent motives of human action, highlighting that profit 
generation satisfies the extrinsic motive, though good business models require 
transcendent motivation. Mimbi (2013) identifies the same three motives, for a well-
run business, using the case of a construction company.  
Cochran (1974) in his article on the Political Science and 'The Public Interest’ refers to 
maintaining and betterment of the community, which is identical to the common 
good The improvement of the community implies improved ‘well-being in the 
fellowship of common norms and common life’. Cochran goes on to say that the 
common good is ‘an end or a goal’. 
2.3.8 Resume on the Concept of the Common Good 
The above discussion looks at the position of thinkers on the common good who 
follow the Aristotelian tradition. In conclusion, this research settles on the following 
salient points on the common good to be used in this research for the analysis of the 
notion of public interest. In summary, the common good is seen as: 1. a good – a real 
/ true good; 2. a goal; 3. common to all individuals in society; and, finally, 4. the 
highest good of a community. 
2.3.9 Conclusion on the Common Good Discussion 
This section dealt with certain aspects of the meaning of the common good considered 
in the context of the meaning of good, viewing the common good as a goal, the 
commonness of the common good, as well as the place of virtues in relation to the 
common good, which is used in this research work. 
  
 31 
 
2.4 Literature Review Conclusion 
This chapter comprised of two parts. The first part began with examining the 
literature on public interest, with a special focus on the professional accounting 
world. At each stage of the subsections in the first part, the research gaps on the notion 
of public interest identified referred to the common good. The second part of the 
chapter covered the theoretical framework, which is the common good, and settled 
on selected characteristics of the common good, which were later used in this study 
to analyse the findings on public interest. 
  
 32 
 
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
3.1 Introduction 
This chapter explains the methodologies used in this research. The details given 
below cover the approach used in the research, the design of the research, the mode 
of data collection, the identification of interviewees, and, the process used to analyse 
the data collected.  
3.2 Research Approach 
This research does not aim at proposing a new theory, but instead developing an 
insight into the meaning of the notion of public interest, through the ‘lens’ of the 
concept of the common good as elaborated under the theoretical framework in section 
2.3 above. This kind of research, therefore, is of an exploratory nature (Saunders, 
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Exploratory research aims at responding to the questions 
‘what’ and ‘why’ (Wisker, 2007). Exploratory research occurs when seeking new 
knowledge, and thus, rather than starting with a theory, the research develops a 
pattern of meaning  (Creswell, 2014), and is qualitative in nature (Patton, 2015).  
As given above in subsection 1.5.2.1 above, the first research objective implied 
determining ICPAK’s view on public interest and examining related documentation. 
The second research objective, though of lesser significance in this study, implied 
interacting with ICPAK members and determining their views on what they think of 
the ICPAK’s position on the notion of public interest. The interaction with ICPAK 
members was through interviews conducted. Therefore, the first objective in the 
research implies the use of secondary data, while the second objective requires 
obtaining primary data.  
As per Wisker (2007), research in the humanities relies upon the analysis of 
documents, from both primary and secondary sources. In the case of the primary 
sources, these are produced by the researcher, while the secondary data is derived 
from other sources. In this research, the secondary data is derived from the ICPAK 
documents, while the primary data arises from the interviews with ICPAK members.  
 33 
 
Once collected, the humanities’ researcher, interprets information using 
underpinning theories (Wisker, 2007). This step addressed the third research 
objective, which entailed the analysis of the primary and secondary data using the 
theoretical framework, that is, the common good according to the Aristotelian 
tradition, which has philosophical underpinnings. Wisker (2007) admits humanities 
research uses social sciences research approaches when the work undertaken requires 
certain kinds of information, as is the case of an interdisciplinary nature of a study, 
such as in the second phase of the research where the gathering of primary data used 
interviews to garner information. 
In terms of the research paradigm used, as per Creswell (2014), the approach used in 
this research tended towards the constructivist approach, though this research does 
not espouse all the constructivist’s aspects. A constructivist’s nuance in this research 
included looking at the understanding of the meaning of public interest as given by 
ICPAK.  
The research work to obtain the views of individual ICPAK members on the notion 
of public interest would be subjective, varied and multiple, and which implies a 
complex set of ideas. The goal of the research relies on participant views of the notion 
of public interest; hence, the interview questions are open-ended. Based on the 
information from the ICPAK documents and from the interviews, all of which are 
explained in detail below, the data, both secondary and primary, respectively, was 
interpreted, as commonly occurs in constructivist paradigms, since knowledge 
obtained is subject to interpretation (Wisker, 2007).  
3.3 Research Design 
3.3.1 Documentation on Public Interest 
Under the research dealing with ‘what’ public interest means for ICPAK, Wisker 
(2007) claims with the humanistic angle in the first research objective a detailed and 
systematic description on the process would not be necessary. Hence, instead, the 
researcher explored ICPAK’s position on public interest, gathered the material, then 
with using the common good concept, engaged in a sort of ‘dialogue’ with the 
 34 
 
material at hand. In the humanities, such a way of dealing with the information in the 
documents implies quoting texts and using the theoretical framework to undertake a 
critical analysis.  
A search on the ICPAK website in March 2019 revealed that the document quoting 
public interest a number of times is the ICPAK’s CoE. The researcher paid particular 
attention to the ICPAK’s CoE for two reasons. One, previous versions of the CoE from 
IFAC mention the CoE version published in 2004 (IFAC, 2004), provided a definition 
of public interest, as given three paragraphs below. Two, some academics in the 
accountancy profession, Dellaportas and Davenport (2008), say ‘reference to the 
public interest in the academic literature relies on the code of ethics to define the 
public interest’ (p. 1089). This indicates different accounting professional bodies use 
their CoE to provide official communication on what constitutes public interest for 
their members. 
On review of the ICPAK CoE, this research noted what the preface mentions, namely, 
ICPAK adopted in full the 2006 IFAC CoE (ICPAK, 2006). In addition to the CoE 
content from the IFAC 2006 CoE, ICPAK includes additional guidelines, in italics for 
specific cases tailored to the Kenyan circumstances, inserted after a number of 2006 
IFAC CoE sections.  
One of the standards-setting board working under the IFAC, namely, the 
International Ethics Standards Board of Accountants (IESBA) prepares the CoE 
published by IFAC. Hence, the interchangeability of the terms IFAC CoE and IESBA 
CoE found in some documents. Nonetheless, this research keeps to one term when 
referring to this CoE, namely, the IFAC CoE. 
In the CoE of 2004, IFAC defined public interest as ‘the collective well-being of the 
community of people and institutions the professional accountant serves’ (IFAC, 
2004). This CoE (IFAC, 2004), published in 1996, underwent various revisions, with 
the last prepared and issued in 2004. The next version of CoE, the version adopted in 
full by ICPAK and issued by IFAC in June 2005, but effective only from July 2006, did 
not expound on the meaning of public interest (IFAC, 2005), and is referred to 
hereafter as the 2006 IFAC CoE or simply the IFAC CoE. The latter document is the 
version of the IFAC CoE that ICPAK had in use at the completion of this research. 
 35 
 
Additionally, no other document was found to be issued by ICPAK providing an 
explanation on an ICPAK’s official position on the meaning of public interest, nor, 
was there any document made publicly available that comments on any IFAC 
publication covering public interest. 
As ICPAK adopted the 2006 IFAC CoE in full, and, in the absence of an official 
position on public interest expounded by ICPAK, this study assumes ICPAK adopted 
the meaning of the various concepts in the 2006 IFAC CoE. The latter conclusion also 
includes any clarifications from IFAC on different aspects of its CoE, after the 2006 
IFAC CoE was published. Presented in a different way, on review of the ICPAK 
website, no clarifications on public interest appear in any other publicly available 
forums to indicate ICPAK holds a different meaning of the notion on public interest 
from that given in the IFAC CoE, or its later documents.  
Further searches on the IFAC website revealed that in 2012 IFAC carried out work, 
leading up to the IFAC’s definition of public interest, laid out in three documents, as 
detailed in subsection 3.4.1 below. 
Therefore, the first part of this research involved examining documents from IFAC. 
Furthermore, this research uses the themes on public interest gleaned off the three 
IFAC documents and mentioned in subsection 3.5.1 below. These themes were of 
particular use in responding to research question number three. 
3.3.2 Interviewing ICPAK Members 
As regards the second objective, Saunders et al (2009) think qualitative research 
entails a collection of data seeking certain qualitative characteristics to arrive at 
qualitative conclusions gathered from literary sources. Studies in France, Australia 
and the United States of America, involving the comparison of information from 
professional accountants related to public interest to what their respective accounting 
bodies hold on public interest. This research, on the other hand, sought to gain 
insights on what a limited group of accountants, ICPAK members, understood by 
ICPAK’s notion of public interest. The data collected focussed on six ICPAK members 
and their understanding of the meaning of public interest based on the 2012 IFAC 
documents mentioned in subsection 3.3.1 above.  
 36 
 
The researcher obtained this primary data through interviews. Then the researcher 
carried out a similar critical analysis as was undertaken on the secondary data from 
the IFAC documents. The analysis entailed using the concept of the common good to 
highlight certain aspects in order to gain a deeper understanding of the notion of 
public interest. The researcher incorporated the analysis from the ICPAK members 
with the analysis undertaken on the notion of public interest obtained from the IFAC 
documents. 
Therefore, in analysing the two sets of data from the viewpoint of the common good, 
the researcher addressed the third research objective, using the themes developed 
from the secondary data, as provided in subsection 3.5.1 below. 
3.3.3 Population and Sampling 
This section deals with the discussion on the population chosen and the sampling 
method used only in the investigation on the second research objective as the first 
research objective involved the review of documents for which no sampling from a 
population applied. 
The researcher considered the possibility of carrying out a survey using 
questionnaires to determine qualitative information, or, on the other hand seeking in-
depth information on public interest. The researcher settled on in-depth interviews 
following the exploratory nature of the research so as to better evaluate what ICPAK 
members say. 
On the sampling method, Bryman (2016) says the research objective provides a sort 
of parameter on the kind of people the research would focus on. Byrman refers to a 
concept of purposive sampling, where a researcher chooses samples within given 
research objectives. In this particular investigation, the researcher is only interested 
in very specific kinds of individuals, namely, the ICPAK members.  
Byrman (2016) gives various factors that determine the sample size, namely, level of 
saturation, the heterogeneity of the population, the scope and specificity of research 
questions, the theoretical underpinnings of the research. Bryman (2016) also suggests 
a qualitative study requires larger sample sizes if there is a need to achieve a level of 
 37 
 
saturation, be it theoretical or data. In his opinion, this saturation level makes sense 
where the enquiry involves less analysis of data, when the population is 
heterogeneous, and whereby the interview questions cover issues at a general level.  
In this investigation, firstly, the aim of the interviews was not to reach a saturation 
level but instead provide an opportunity to ‘listen’ (Patton, 2015) to the varying views 
from some professional accountants regarding what IFAC holds as public interest. 
The analysis undertaken later did not aim at reaching generalized conclusions on 
what ICPAK members think. Such generalized conclusion would make sense with 
sample sizes that assisted in attaining a saturation point, but which bears no relevance 
in this investigation as explained further in the next two paragraphs below.  
Secondly, to enable such a task as ‘listening’ involved in-depth interviews. The aim 
of such kind of questions was to garner further insights, to be used to enrich the 
discussion on the ICPAK view of public interest. With no need for a saturation point 
in data collection, and in light of in-depth interviews conducted, a small sample can 
be justified. 
Furthermore, as a third point, the type of population plays a role in determining the 
sample size. A heterogeneous population calls for a larger sample size. The second 
research objective focusses on accountants of one selected accounting body, namely 
ICPAK. The researcher considered looking at accountants with exposure to common 
good concepts in their day-to-day work. Since, Statute 42 of the Statutes of Strathmore 
University (2013) in its teaching philosophy seeks to contribute to various aspects of 
the common good, such as virtues, in preparing its students. Therefore, individuals 
who have worked in the said institution, with exposure to the concept of the common 
good, appeared to be suitable interviewees. Hence, the above points indicate the 
homogeneity of the population, thus leaning towards supporting a small sample size. 
The lower end of sample sizes varies ranging from one or five as per findings given 
in references made by Byrman (2016). In this investigation, the initial sample size was 
a maximum of seven, though finally, the researcher only interviewed six individuals 
employed at the time of the study at Strathmore University. Not all ICPAK members 
who are staff members at Strathmore University were interviewed. Based on 
information gathered from the same ICPAK members in Strathmore University, only 
 38 
 
eleven ICPAK members worked in the institution at the time when the interviewing 
work was carried out. To ensure that the interviewees would not in any way be 
identifiable, the researcher interviewed only six male employees.  
A review of the Davenport and Dellaportas (2009) research on Australian professional 
accountants which studied the accountants’ comprehension of the meaning of public 
interest, indicates extensive work and research is required, which would expand this 
study, beyond the requirements for this dissertation. Nonetheless, the primary 
purpose of this research was to examine the views of public interest from ICPAK. The 
secondary purpose was to determine the understanding of ICPAK members on the 
said notion, which was of great assistance to enrich, one, the analysis of the findings 
from the IFAC documents and, two, the discussion thereof. 
3.4 Data Capturing 
The data captured, as mentioned above, namely, secondary and primary sources, 
respectively uses a particular data capturing method, which is termed as a multi-
method (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The chronological order of data 
collection bore significance for this study, since the information from the first part of 
the study, the secondary data, provided the framework to formulate the questions 
used in the second part of primary data collection (Patton, 2015).  
To ease later reference, the researcher saved documents off the internet on a 
computer. These documents related to the IFAC documents defining public interest, 
as well as data to help set out the theoretical framework to analyse the findings related 
to the first and second research question. The American Psychological Association 
(APA) Sixth Edition available in Microsoft Windows 2016 served as the tool to format 
the catalogue for the reference material.   
3.4.1 IFAC Documents on Public Interest 
As mentioned above in subsection 3.3.1, the documents examined are easily accessible 
on the internet, from the IFAC website. The three separate documents were published 
in June 2012, and titled as follows: one, IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5: At a Glance - 
 39 
 
A Definition of Public Interest; two, IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5 - A Definition of 
Public Interest; and, three, IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5: A Definition of the Public 
Interest – Appendices. Of these three documents, references made to the last document 
listed above bears the name of the document joined to the word Appendices, therefore 
IFAC (Appendices), to distinguish this document from the penultimate document 
listed in this paragraph, which served as the main document used in this study. 
The documents mentioned above contain the following aspects. The first document 
serves as a one-page summary of the discussion and conclusions (IFAC, 2012). The 
second document, is the main item, is an eight-page document (IFAC, 2012). The third 
mentioned document, relates to two appendices, Appendix I and Appendix II, with 
seven pages in total (IFAC (Appendices), 2012). 
The main document, IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5 - A Definition of Public Interest, 
contains the sections, namely: Introduction; ‘Public Interest’ Definition; ‘Who are the 
‘Public’ and What are its ‘Interests’?; and, General Assessments for Determining if 
Action, Decisions, or Policies are in the Public Interest (IFAC, 2012).  
Appendix I from IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5: A Definition of the Public Interest – 
Appendices, and titled ‘Resources and Conceptual Development’, delves into the 
historical works and philosophical literature from which the notion of public interest 
stems, makes reference to more contemporary literature and research, while also 
highlighting publications published by professional accountancy bodies and related 
entities, then finally referring to the IFAC’s own internal documents. Appendix II 
titled ‘Example of Assessment of the Public Interest for Standard Setting’, using two 
parameters presented in the main document under the topic on assessments, which 
in this Appendix are titled assessment on costs / benefits and assessment of process 
(IFAC (Appendices), 2012). 
The initial intention in this study included scrutinising the last three themes contained 
in the main IFAC document (IFAC, 2012), IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5 - A 
Definition of Public Interest, and provided by the section titles in the penultimate 
paragraph above. As the research got underway, it appeared more appropriate to deal 
with the last two themes, to enable the establishment of a firmer foundation on which 
to understand public interest in greater depth.  
 40 
 
With the going back and forth and using features derived from the concept of the 
common good, this research narrowed down the discussion to two themes in the 
IFAC documents, that is, the meaning of ‘public’ and of ‘interest’ within the notion of 
public interest as per the main document from IFAC.  
3.4.2 Views of ICPAK Members on Public Interest 
3.4.2.1 Interviewing ICPAK members 
Two researchers, Davenport and Dellaportas (2009) undertook research to determine 
how Australian accountants interpreted the notion of public interest. These 
researchers used a survey facilitating the measurement of attitudes and opinions, 
which assisted the two researchers, present their findings using quantitative rubrics. 
On the other hand, the manner of collecting the data for this investigation settled on 
interviewing with open-ended questions so that the ICPAK member ‘supplies his or 
her own words, thoughts and insights’ (Patton, 2015, p. 440).  
Different views exist related to the kind of research methods most suitable for 
structured interviews. Some academics consider structured interviews as a way of 
assembling quantifiable data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Patton (2015), on 
the other hand, thinks the kind of question changes the type of research so that open-
ended questions in structured interviews enhance garnering depth to the responses, 
thus rendering such questions more suited to qualitative research. He adds that in 
obtaining valuable information a reduced number of questions are required, and 
enhances comparability in analysing the responses.  
Given the exploratory nature of this investigation, the requirement for in-depth 
information proved more advantageous to meet the second research objective. The 
interview questions comprised of two types of questions: on the one hand, six basic 
questions, which were of a closed type, which assist in determining the background 
of the interviewee, at least within their accounting profession. On the other hand, the 
questions targeted at determining the interviewee’s views on IFAC’s position 
regarding public interest were also six, though one question consisted of six sub-
parts. Appendix V below provides full interview questionnaire used in the interview. 
 41 
 
First, the investigator approached and asked each potential interviewee if they were 
willing to participate in the study. Once the potential interviewee agreed to 
participate, they received via email the participation information and consent form 
together with a copy of the interview questions. This would give them an opportunity 
beforehand to think over the matters covered on the subject of public interest in the 
interview. Then a meeting time was set at a venue of the interviewee’s choice. At the 
interview, the interviewee received a hard copy of the same set of questions sent 
earlier on email, together with the consent form to sign.  
The interview would follow the line of questions set out on the scheme prepared 
before. Nevertheless, some variation of the questions posed occurred particularly 
when the interviewee discussed a matter covered in a later question. One point in 
occurrence arose when the interviewee entered into the matter of ‘the meaning of 
interests’ when commencing the interview and dealing with public interest in 
general. Nonetheless, in essence, the questions posed were the same for every single 
interviewee. Therefore, from this point of view, the questions were standard.  
The main part of the interview comprised of open-ended questions, giving the 
interviewees an opportunity to respond as they saw fit. The design of the open-ended 
questions rested on the characteristics of public interest as summarised in the findings 
on IFAC’s position of public interest.  
Gill et al (2008) hold that open-ended questions provide more possibilities to ask good 
questions, requiring more than a yes or no, and Patton (2015) says open, yet 
structured interviews enable meaningful comparisons between the responses from 
the different interviewees. This mode of questions, Patton (2015) opines, assists in 
linking, matching and contrasting the varied data from the interviewees. 
Furthermore, Patton (2015) considers openness in the questions facilitated ‘hearing 
the voice’ of the respondent. The latter aspect bore importance to the interviews 
conducted since the interviewees held different notions on public interest. The ability 
of the interviewees to respond in the manner they so wished provided the 
investigator with varied considerations and perceptions, thus enriching the 
investigation. 
 42 
 
3.4.2.2 Views from ICPAK members 
The questions posed to the interviewees aimed at determining their understanding of 
public interest given by IFAC. The set of questions, given in Appendix V below, 
follows the main themes on public interest in the document IFAC Policy Position Paper 
No. 5 - A Definition of Public Interest (IFAC, 2012).  
Notably, the conclusions reached, after an analysis using the concept of the common 
good, and given in Chapter 6, arose from the interview responses. The research did 
not extrapolate the findings to the views of ICPAK members as a whole. Nonetheless, 
the interview responses provide a useful insight into what perceptions a limited 
number of accounting professionals in Kenya on public interest.  
The recording of the interviews aimed to capture all comments made. Recording of 
the interviews entailed two methods. One included handwritten notes, as well as, 
digital recording to capture all that was said and nothing of the interview was lost 
(Patton, 2015).  
As the study entailed an analysis of what accountants think about public interest, the 
researcher sought some pattern, if any, from the responses. Moreover, the issue at 
hand did not depend on the interviewee’s role in the process, but rather on the 
perceptions of the interviewees, which were collected and analysed. Hence, a 
systematic collection of data was needed to more easily compare the responses 
(Patton, 2015).  
Such a manner of an interview has its weakness since the method does not permit 
deviation from the pre-prepared questions, though, on the other hand, 
standardization reduced the magnitude of interviewee differences (Saunders, Lewis, 
& Thornhill, 2009). 
On completion of the transcription of the interviews, it became clear to the researcher 
that undertaking an analysis of the qualities proposed by IFAC, which should inform 
the actions of accountants would have extended this study beyond the requirements 
of this dissertation, as explained further in the second paragraph of subsection 3.5.1 
below. Nonetheless, the interview responses regarding the qualities proposed by 
 43 
 
IFAC are presented in Appendix VIII, G. In summary, the data on qualities captured 
from the interviewees are not included in Chapter 4, nor, analysed in detail in Chapter 
5 below.  
The researcher chose to work on the meaning of ‘public’ and ‘interest’ as these are 
topics that have been considered in detail by other researchers (Dellaportas & 
Davenport, 2008) and elaborated in the IFAC position papers (IFAC, 2012). The data 
collected from the interviewees and given in Appendix VIII, G, is available for later 
researches beyond this study, as mentioned in subsection 6.5 below. 
3.5 Data Analysis 
3.5.1 Themes Related to Public Interest in IFAC documents 
The analysis of data from the IFAC documents used the selected features of the 
common good as given in Appendix VII below. The same method was applied in 
analysing the responses from the interviewees (Patton, 2015).  
To address the first research question, an analysis on the IFAC’s position regarding 
public interest, in terms of the meaning of public interest per se, and on also on the 
meaning of ‘public’ and ‘interest’ involved an in-depth analysis. The latter work took 
up a bulk of the work for this dissertation. Thus, on completing the scrutiny of the 
two themes: ‘Who is the ‘Public’, and, ‘What are the ‘Interests’ of the public?’ (IFAC, 
2012), it became clear that there was a need to exclude any further research. Thus, this 
study left out the last theme of the aforementioned IFAC documents, which covered 
Assessments. In addition, after transcription of all the interviews held, it became 
apparent the amount of information to be analysed would extend this study beyond 
the requirements of a dissertation as elaborated in the last paragraph of subsection 
3.4.2.2, above.  
The concept of common good served as the tool to analyse critically the findings from 
the IFAC documents as well as from the interviews (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003), 
thus addressing the third research question. A certain level of interpretation was 
required (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003; Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011). The need for 
 44 
 
interpretation further reiterates why this research falls within the humanities, more 
than in the social sciences (Wisker, 2007). 
3.5.2 Interviewee Responses 
To address the second research question, the data presented from the interviews 
followed the main themes raised in the interview questions. Once transcription of the 
interviews took place, reading of the responses assisted in getting a sense of the whole 
interview, in terms of what the interviewee was attempting to communicate. A 
second reading session enabled the researcher to look for similar issues raised along 
the lines of the two themes from the IFAC documents as given in subsection 3.5.1 
above. Any unique topics that do not fall within these two themes (Creswell, 2003) 
were also examined and noted in Chapter 4 below.  
The responses from the interviewees as summarised in Appendix VIII below, follow 
the characteristics of public interest given in Appendix VI below, and analysed as per 
the features drawn from the theoretical framework of subsection 2.3 above, which 
included, benefits common to all, virtue, indivisibility, objective good, and telos, and 
which are listed in Appendix VII below. The qualities accountants should espouse to 
serve the common good and raised by IFAC on public interest covering areas such as 
transparency, accountability, objectivity / independence, participation, information, 
financial matters, rights of individuals, and economic well-being, are summarised in 
Appendix VIII, G below. The findings are not included in Chapter 4, or analysed in 
Chapter 5, both below, for the reasons given above in the last paragraphs of both 
subsections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.1 above. 
The initial intention was to carry out an analysis of all the data from the interviews 
using the features drawn from the discussion on the concept of the common good 
(Appendix VII). In the end, as has been mention in the paragraph immediately above, 
even though all the responses are summarised in Appendix VIII, only those aspects 
that related to ‘public interest’, ‘public’ and ‘interest’ were analysed using the features 
from the common good as provided in this study. 
This mode of initially analysing the data assisted in collating the responses along with 
certain themes and categories (Patton, 2015). There were some responses which 
 45 
 
neither, bore the characteristics of public interest, nor included the features of the 
common good. Chapter 4 presents only a summary of the responses from the 
interviewees related to the notion of public interest, public and interest as well as the 
rigour of process. 
3.6 Research Quality, Validity and Reliability 
3.6.1 Research Quality 
This research does not seek to prove a theory and much less to originate one but rather 
to compare one set of information with another to determine the value of one, that is, 
the public interest based on another, that is, the common good. Nonetheless, to 
enhance the validity of this study, the aim was to determine the accuracy of the 
secondary data collected, the researcher counter checked the data captured with the 
transcripts (Creswell & Miller, 2010). The recordings were listened to a second time 
to ensure the meaning captured was what the interviewee intended to communicate, 
within the context of the discussion (Patton, 2015). This latter action would be 
synonymous to using the ‘lenses’ of the interviewees in the study. 
3.6.2 Research Reliability 
The reliability of this research rests on using the theoretical framework of the common 
good. A good number of thinkers have considered the question of the common good 
from various angles. Two known such researchers have considered the common good 
and its relation to public interest. One of the thinkers, Douglass (1980), carried out a 
well-known study explaining the differences between the two terms. Yuengert (2001), 
while not dwelling on public interest as such and not naming it so, nevertheless 
evaluates the characteristics of what appears to be public interest in light of the 
common good. These aforementioned thinkers, nevertheless, used a different 
research method from that used in this dissertation.  
The first part of the research used a set of documents, readily available on the internet, 
which served as a basis for commentaries by different parties, such as by ACCA (2016) 
and ICAEW (2012). The IFAC documents also provide the themes used in terms of 
 46 
 
public interest in this research. The manner of reading the content of the documents 
is particular to this research, as would be expected (Wisker, 2007).  
A pilot test carried out on the questionnaire involved one individual from the sample 
of ICPAK members approached. No adjustments were required on the questionnaire. 
The pilot study also ensured the interviewees understood the questionnaires clearly, 
and if the questions in themselves were neutral and sensitive.  
In addition, the transcription of the interviews recorded, aided as a written record of 
the primary data on what the interviewee said, and may be useful for future reference 
as well as future research. This type of going back and forth from the research 
summaries and analysis to the transcripts from the interviewees (Patton, 2015) 
enables verification of the data collected. 
3.6.3 Research Ethics 
The part of the research in which ethics is of primary concern relates to the stage in 
the collection of primary data, that is, the structured interviews. The interviewees 
were members of ICPAK, and thus would be in their majority.  
The first consideration in ethics related to avoidance of hurt, pain or embarrassment 
to the interviewees. The research initially approached the potential interviewees 
informally, either in person or on the telephone. Each interviewee was asked 
individually, if they were ready to participate in the research, after explaining the 
nature of the study.  
If the interviewee was ready for the interview, the researcher met the interviewee at 
a specified time and place of the interviewee’s convenience. The research gave the 
potential interviewee an opportunity to go through the interview questions by 
sending the questions to them ahead of time, together with a covering letter and the 
participation information and consent form, as given in Appendices III, IV and V 
below. The covering letter, as well as the participation information,  furnished details 
on the study, the voluntary aspect in participating in the study, the nature of 
confidentiality and anonymity to be maintained, and, the recourse the interviewees 
 47 
 
had available if they needed to express their discomfort in the manner the work was 
conducted. 
One of the aspects considered for this research was whether to meet the interviewees 
one-on-one or include the interviewees in a focus group discussion. The interview 
method meeting the ICPAK members individually was opted for, so as to encourage 
each interviewee feel free to air their views, and to reduce influence or embarrassment 
from on-lookers, as would have been the case if the discussion was conducted in a 
group. Additionally, the structure of the questions helped the interviewees speak 
their minds without having to consider whether they were right or wrong. Besides, 
and more importantly, to enhance the level of confidentiality limiting the data to the 
interviewer (Patton, 2015).  
Secondly, since this data is generated from interviewing individuals in the 
organization the researcher worked in at the time of data collection, it would be 
expedient to obtain permission from the relevant research office to undertake the 
research, and secondly, not to reveal any information from any interviewee  (Patton, 
2015). 
The Strathmore University Research Office granted permission to interview ICPAK 
members in Strathmore University (Appendix IX), after being approached by the 
researcher (Appendix I). Prior to the granting of permission by the Strathmore 
University Research Office, the Strathmore University Institutional Ethics Review 
Committee (SU-IERC) provided the pre-requisite ethical clearance (Appendix X) after 
submission of an application with a covering letter (Appendix II). A NACOSTI permit 
was not required since the interviews were all conducted within Strathmore 
University.  
Each individual interviewed would sign the consent form (Appendix IV) prior to 
beginning an interview. Before posing the interview questions, the researcher would 
explain to the interviewee the way in which the data collected from the interview 
would be used, as well as, the confidentiality with which the information would be 
handled (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The explanation of confidentiality 
would take the format provided at the beginning of the interview questions 
(Appendix V). 
 48 
 
3.7 Research Methodology Conclusion 
This chapter explained the methodologies used in this research. The details given 
covered the approach used in the research, the design of the research, the mode of 
data collection, the identification of interviewees, and, the process used to analyse the 
data collected.  
  
 49 
 
 PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 
4.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents the findings obtained for the first and second research 
questions. For the first research question, the findings are drawn out of data obtained 
from IFAC documents regarding what is assumed as ICPAK’s notion of public 
interest. Whereas, for the second research question, the findings relate to data 
obtained from the responses given by ICPAK members as to their understanding of 
the notion of public interest proposed by IFAC. 
4.2 Public Interest for ICPAK 
This section deals with the first research question which seeks to determine what 
ICPAK means by the notion of public interest, using the documents that expound on 
the definition of public interest by IFAC (2012), for reasons given in subsection 3.3.1.  
4.2.1 The Meaning of Public Interest as per IFAC 
In studying the notion of public interest, IFAC (2012) looked at various views of 
public interest, from selected accounting bodies, related international bodies, 
philosophical and historical works, as well as its own internal documents, to arrive at 
a definition. IFAC presented its definition in the aforementioned IFAC Policy Position 
No. 5, as follows: ‘public interest as the net benefits derived for, and procedural rigor 
employed on behalf of, all society in relation to any action, decision or policy’ (IFAC, 
2012, p. 1). IFAC considers this definition useful since, IFAC can assess its actions and 
decisions (IFAC, 2012), and provide a means by which accounting professionals can 
evaluate how their accounting work serves society. 
IFAC (2012) considers, one, benefits should outweigh the ensuing costs, and, two, 
processes should meet the ‘qualities of transparency, public accountability, 
independence, adherence to due process, and participation that includes a wide range 
of groups within society’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 1).  
 50 
 
4.2.2 The Meaning of ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ in Public Interest  
When analysing the meaning of public interest, IFAC separates the two words 
in the notion: namely, ‘interest’ and ‘public’ (IFAC (Appendices), 2012), which 
are summarized below. 
4.2.2.1 The Meaning of ‘Public’ for IFAC 
IFAC (2012) considers ‘public’ to mean all society in its fullest sense and provides a 
list of examples of groups impacted by their work. The list is intended to encompass 
all society, namely: investors, shareholders, and business owners of public and 
private institutions; consumers and suppliers; taxpayers, electorates, and citizens. Of 
note is the document’s acknowledgement of the need to act in the public interest 
irrespective of the seeming impact on the different kinds of members of society (IFAC, 
2012). 
4.2.2.2 The Meaning of ‘Interest’ for IFAC 
‘Interest’ for the public refers to the values of people and society upholds (IFAC, 
2012). Some of the items listed by IFAC include what facilitates the life of an 
individual in a society that upholds the freedom of its citizens. Nonetheless, the IFAC 
position paper focusses mainly on economic interests or structures that protect 
economic interests, such as corporate governance best practice. Interests include 
aspects such as economic certainty in the marketplace, high-quality reports, 
particularly financial reports; and, factors that enhance the informed decisions of 
economic users of information, as well as items that benefit society by way of reduced 
costs (IFAC, 2012). 
4.3 The Understanding of ICPAK members on Public Interest 
This section of this study responds to the second research question, which is to 
determine what ICPAK members understand of the term public interest as held by 
ICPAK. 
 51 
 
4.3.1 Overview of the Interviews 
The interviews were conducted from the 27 March 2018 to the 7 April 2018. The period 
of time the interviewees have worked in the accounting profession ranges from 4 
years to 40 years (Appendix VIII, A, b), in which time the interviewees have been 
members of ICPAK for periods ranging from 2 years to over 35 years (Appendix VIII, 
A, c). The work experience of these selected members of ICPAK’s work experience 
included a variety of organizations such as auditing, business advisory services, 
profit-generating organizations, government agency, as well, the academic world 
(Appendix VIII, A, d and e). 
The interviews latest an average of twenty-six minutes, with the longest interview 
running for forty minutes, and the shortest session run for twenty minutes. All 
participants responded to all the questions. Only one interviewee preferred to 
comment on two out of the six listed qualities proposed for accountants by IFAC and 
part of the questionnaire. Quotes picked up from the responses of the interviewees 
are included below and are summarised in Appendix VIII below.  
4.3.2 ICPAK members’ Views on Public Interest and the Role of 
Accountants 
Although one interviewee thought that ‘the magnitude [of the role of the accountant 
professional] varies from entity to entity’ depending on the size of the entity 
(Appendix VIII, C, 3), most of the interviewees considered that the public depends on 
accountants in safeguarding the public’s interest. Hence, one interviewee surmised 
that accountants should not act in a way that negatively affects the public. A few 
interviewees brought out the need for accountants to improve their understanding of 
the impact their work bears on the decisions made by users of the accounting reports 
(Appendix VIII, C).  
In the words of one interviewee: the average ICPAK member ‘is probably not aware 
of the fact that we have a duty to uphold the public interest’ (Appendix VIII, C, 1). 
Thus, the concern raised related to the little attention paid to the role of accountants 
in safeguarding the public interest. One member was categorical that ‘accountants are 
meant to be watchdogs’ (Appendix VIII, C, 2), even at the risk of losing their job 
 52 
 
consequent on disclosure of information, for which the public has a right to know 
when the said accountant’s supervisors prefer to keep the matter hidden. 
One interviewee held that public interest bears a similitude to the common good since 
the accountant needs to be ‘taking into account those you serve’ (Appendix VIII, B, 
1). This fits in with the view of another interviewee who considered the relation public 
interest bears on the well-being of society and the public good (Appendix VIII, B, 5), 
which a professional achieves by working with professionalism and honesty 
(Appendix VIII, B, 4). 
Another interviewee spoke about public interest as that which citizens of a country 
give importance to and not limited to financial matters alone (Appendix VIII, B, 2). 
One interviewee spoke about the interest outsiders have on the effects of the economic 
engagements of an entity (Appendix VIII, B, 3).  
All mentioned that accountants have a primary duty in reporting correctly, in terms 
of ‘true and fairness’ required in financial reporting. Some mentioned that the reports 
produced by accountants have a great impact on many financial aspects, which boiled 
down to the livelihood of people (Appendix VIII, B). 
In summary, some of the ICPAK members thought that public interest is a very 
important topic, and all agreed that accountants have a role to safeguard the public 
interest.   
4.3.3 ICPAK Members’ Understanding of IFAC’s Meaning of Public 
Interest 
Most interviewees agreed in general with what IFAC gives on the meaning of public 
interest. Nonetheless, additional comments were made, namely: a few of the 
interviewees thought the definition IFAC proposes far too wide, and they suggested 
things like the need for IFAC to specify what the term ‘society’ refers to, or what are 
the ‘benefits’ ensuing on the accountants work, as well as which ‘interests’ are to be 
safeguarded (Appendix VIII, C, 3, 4, and 5). 
One interviewee raised some concerns on the narrowness of the benefits listed, which 
seem only to be of an economic nature, and thus, a suggestion was given on the need 
 53 
 
to expand the definition (Appendix VIII, D, 3). There were other interviewees who 
thought the definition rather general, especially when looking at the net benefits 
listed by IFAC (Appendix VIII, D, 4, and 5). 
From the point of view of interests, one interviewee felt that the costs would be 
unjustifiable if an accountant was to address all interests (Appendix VIII, E, 5).  
Another interviewee thought that the average accountant is not aware of the meaning 
of public interest, and wondering if accountants are cognizant of the definition, since 
accountants may not give much importance to the implications of the definition 
(Appendix VIII, D, 1). 
4.3.3.1 Costs / benefits 
One interviewee thought more often than not self-interest motivates accountants. In 
the same interview, the interviewee said ‘very often accountants want a salary which 
is in fact out of proportion to the benefits [accountants give] to society’ (Appendix 
VIII, E, 1). 
Three other interviewees pointed out how when accountants do what they ought, the 
benefits ensuing on society will be far greater than the costs incurred (Appendix VIII, 
E, 2, 4 and 6). One interviewee considered that accountants can and should do their 
best towards ensuring honest reporting, and benefits from work well done may not 
even be quantifiable (Appendix VIII, E, 3). 
If accountants upheld high ethical practices over and above measurable attributes, 
one interviewee felt that only then would society benefit from the work of 
accountants (Appendix VIII, E, 6). 
4.3.3.2 Rigour of process 
One interviewee considered over-regulation a disadvantage since the latter is the 
reason for the escalating cost of undertaking business in Kenya. Another interviewee 
suggested that only with a proper skill set, training and knowledge, accountants can 
follow due process.  
 54 
 
One interviewee posited that the accountant should not be afraid to demand 
compliance even if it renders the same accountant unpopular. Another interviewee 
agreed to the requirement of following regulations and due processes but suggested 
that the standards set are at a minimum, though accounting professionals should set 
even higher levels of quality and standards for themselves.  
One other interviewee did not agree with the current set of guidelines, which are 
principles-based. He reasoned that in general an ICPAK member will look for 
loopholes in order ‘to minimize costs, therefore they will not carry out their work as 
they should…’ (Appendix VIII, F) 
4.3.4 The Meaning of ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ for ICPAK members 
4.3.4.1 The Meaning of ‘Public’ for ICPAK members 
As captured in Appendix VIII, H, most interviewees considered the term ‘public’ in 
public interest to refer to all society, which is, all humankind, or ‘all citizens of that 
country’. One spoke about those affected directly or indirectly by the work of 
accountants. In this matter, the interviewees shared the same view as IFAC. 
Nonetheless, some interviewees considered that from a practical point of view, 
accountants are not in a position to serve all society. These interviewees suggested 
the need to specify who this public is. One interviewee suggested the ‘public’ should 
include those affected or are potentially affected by the work of the accountants. 
In the discussion on what ‘public’ meant, one suggestion considered that the ‘public’ 
refers only to affected parties. Another interviewee spoke of those members of society 
who have reached the age of reason. In one case, an interviewee mentioned the 
‘public’ ‘differs across entities’. Another interviewee held the ‘public’ to be ‘anyone 
who gets information about what I do’ or ‘anyone who may be affected by what I do’ 
(Appendix VIII, H, 4). 
As regards ‘society’, one interviewee stated the impossibility of an accountant to be 
accountable to all society (Appendix VIII, C, 5). On the other hand, another 
interviewee thought that society relates to everyone, those directly as well as those 
indirectly affected by the work of the accountant (Appendix VIII, H, 6). 
 55 
 
4.3.4.2 The Meaning of ‘Interest’ for ICPAK members 
For interest, as quoted in Appendix VIII, I, one interviewee opined that interest is ‘the 
good of particular people from a holistic point of view’ (Appendix VIII, I, 1). Another 
considered interest as to what ‘concerns the citizens because it directly affects them’ 
(Appendix VIII, I, 2).  
One interviewee felt the ambit of interest does ‘not just [relate to] economics, but also 
affects the normal way of life, of our environment’ (Appendix VIII, I, 3).  Another 
thought it would be what ‘anyone who will want to know [about] what I did’ or, ‘who 
will be affected by what I did’ (Appendix VIII, I, 4). One interviewee broke down the 
concept to include various aspects such as ‘the monetary interest, social [aspect], 
environmental [aspect]’ (Appendix VIII, I, 5). One more interviewee considered 
interest as ‘any rights or obligations in regard to a certain individual or party, [which] 
they would be interested [in]’ (Appendix VIII, I, 6). 
4.4 Conclusion on Findings Presented 
This chapter presented the findings obtained for the first and second research 
questions. For the first research question, the findings were drawn out of data 
obtained from IFAC documents regarding what is assumed as ICPAK’s notion of 
public interest. Whereas, for the second research question, the findings related to data 
obtained from the responses given by ICPAK members as to their understanding of 
the notion of public interest proposed by IFAC. 
  
 56 
 
 DISCUSSION 
5.1 Introduction 
This chapter addresses the third research question, which entails viewing what 
ICPAK holds as public interest, and, what a selected group of ICPAK members 
understand by public interest as held by ICPAK, in light of the concept of the common 
good.  
5.2 IFAC’s meaning of the notion of public interest 
This part of the study enters the crux of the whole research to examine the official 
position of public interest from IFAC’s 2012 document, in light of the common good. 
From IFAC’s 2012 definition and details in Chapter 4 above, the notion of the public 
interest focusses on guidelines for actions with practical consequences to facilitate 
immediate evaluation, which as per Patton’s (2015) frameworks and orientation of 
core questions, these principles appear both utilitarian and pragmatic (Njenga, 2011; 
Argandoña, 2011).  
The same appendices issued by IFAC (2012) pay heed to a suspicion held by some 
current authors (Douglass, 1980; Argandoña, 2011) that the term public interest is 
imbued with post-Enlightenment thinking. This is also observed by ICAEW, who say 
that IFAC ‘takes a broadly utilitarian approach to the public interest’ (ICAEW, 2012, 
p. 11). This study considers the utilitarian nuances is seen in two ways: one, linking 
individual rights, including rights for property, within the context of the law, to the 
notion of public interest; and, two, the notion of public interest linked to a utilitarian 
understanding that good for society implies economic efficiency (IFAC (Appendices), 
2012). IFAC’s points to the Stakeholders Theory, which promotes the ‘orderly 
functioning of commerce’ (IFAC (Appendices), 2012).  
The aspect of an orderly functioning of commerce coincides with Baker’s (2005) views 
that the notion of public interest is drawn from liberalism: which Argandoña (2011) 
points out as ‘the free-market – ruled by self-interest’ (Argandoña, 2011, p. 6) and thus 
public interest serves as a route to equality. In other words, public interest aims at the 
 57 
 
regulation of markets, as well as the enhancement of a free market space. In 
consequence, the IFAC’s meaning refers more to serving an investing public rather 
all society.  
5.3 ICPAK members’ understanding of public interest 
Most ICPAK members interviewed would refer, at different moments in their 
interview session, to smaller groups of beneficiaries than all society, in terms of those 
who benefit with more immediacy from the work accountants. In other words, they 
thought generally, accountants could only be answerable to affected parties.  
Nevertheless, one ICPAK member spoke of public interest as synonymous with the 
common good. However, from that interview, as seen in responses to later questions, 
the ICPAK member referred continuously to virtues. His view on the 
interchangeability between the two terms is in line with what ICAEW (2012) 
mentioned and already commented in the sixth paragraph of subsection 2.2.4 above. 
When this is considered in light of the list given by IFAC related to interest, the views 
expressed in the IFAC documents under study and the ICPAK members coincide, 
since the expertise of accountants obviously addresses certain limited needs, thus 
only those interested parties, those persons, juridical or individual, can demand more 
accountability from accountants. The interested parties may indeed be a wide 
collection of affected parties, but these interested parties are not in any way 
synonymous to all society. 
5.4 Public Interest for the Accountancy Profession in View of the 
Common Good 
The following section analyses the notion of public interest obtained from the IFAC 
documents, and, from the interviewed ICPAK members, using the theoretical 
framework of the common good. 
 58 
 
5.4.1 The Meaning of Public Interest as given by IFAC 
The IFAC’s explanation on its definition of public interest, which gives the benchmark 
of cost vis-à-vis benefit, implies financial gain or consideration (IFAC, 2012). This part 
of the 2012 definition, when looked at in terms of common good, seems an 
impoverishment from the previous definition, also given in subsection 3.3.1 above 
which is as follows: public interest is ‘the collective well-being of the community of 
people and institutions the professional accountant serves’ (IFAC, 2004, p. 20).  
The 2012 definition tends towards a neo-liberal view (Baker, 2005; Argandoña, 2011), 
and which seems narrower in scope, reducing the key focus for accountants who 
should ensure their interventions result in the benefits outweighing costs. This scope 
loses the wider perspective that considers the good for the whole community. It 
appears that IFAC considers accountants need only deal with monetary or, financial 
matters (IFAC, 2012), which is presented as their sole role in society. 
In the second part of the definition, two items IFAC refers to on ‘rigour of process’, 
are to enhance the good of the community, namely: accountability – an aspect of 
taking responsibility for and reporting on their professional work and role; and, 
transparency – towards parties who should have knowledge on the matters that 
concern them and thus relates to honesty. This two items from the list of qualities 
given in the IFAC (2012) document relate to aspects emphasized in corporate 
governance best practice (FRC UK, 2018). 
Moreover, the listed qualities, including the two items above, appear to encourage 
positive views and are more akin to virtues as explained in subsection 2.3.6. Virtues 
lead to the betterment not only of the individual, that is, the professional accountant 
who exercises them, but also all society without exception since the good drawn from 
virtues is indivisible and remains common to all (Haldane, 2009). Moreover, virtues 
relate to the transcendent good, the highest contributor to the common good 
(Argandoña, 2009). 
Furthermore, accountants deal with information. According to de Torre (2005), 
knowledge or information, in itself contains characteristics that satisfy the infinite 
capacity of an individual. Moreover, a greater number of individuals can access 
 59 
 
information, and within this context, information by its very nature does not diminish 
with the number of people who access and use it.  
Therefore, information by its nature has a number of characteristics similar to features 
of the common good, such as indivisibility: hence the commonness of information 
(Argandoña, 2009). Therefore, information is of benefit to an individual and to all 
society, at one and the same time. On the other hand, though one could say that 
accountants contribute to the common good through the provision of information, 
nonetheless, the benefit to society by providing trustworthy information is not at the 
same level as the contribution of virtues (Argandoña, 2009).  
Consequently, financial information does not qualify as an objective good per se, since 
information does not constitute an object towards which an appetite would tend 
towards, and an object that endows the human person with the highest perfection 
(Aristotle, NE, 1094a). In addition, financial information does not serve as a goal to 
strive for but only serves as a means to a higher end. In other words, financial 
information is not essential for any individual to achieve their fulfilment as a human 
person. As a result, in terms of the levels of good highlighted in subsection 2.3.3 
above, information remains at the level of an intrinsic good (Argandoña, 2009). 
The apter the accountant, and the more superior his competence, the better the 
financial reports presented, and the greater the clarity for the users of the said 
financial information. Consequently, by the fact of accountants making effort to 
provide a true representation of financial matters, and thus working competently, 
helps the said accountant to develop virtues. Virtues, therefore, contribute to the 
betterment of accounting professionals themselves, and all of society, in a manner 
that far exceeds the immediate benefits received by the recipient of the services 
rendered by the accountants, even if there may be a motivation in the accountant to 
seek a better pay or career progression (Mimbi, 2013). 
The kind of information provided by accountants should meet a certain standard, that 
of soundness and truthfulness. The reference made by IFAC (2012) to truthfulness, 
implies the positive impact of the work of accountants. Knowledge that does not 
appertain to what is true, that is, to reality, is best not termed as knowledge, but rather 
as error or falsehood (de Torre, 1980), and in addition does nothing to improve an 
 60 
 
individual. Thus, the closer information provided by accountants is a representation 
of reality, the greater the positive impact made to the service of all society (Mimbi, 
2013). 
5.4.2 ‘Public’ in Public Interest 
In addition, the groups identified as ‘public’ in the IFAC position paper share two 
things: in the first place, the shared market place for goods and services, and secondly, 
improved living standards (IFAC, 2012). These two aspects take precedence in the 
discussion in the IFAC document. 
The qualifier term ‘public’ in public interest makes more sense when that which is of 
concern relates to all individuals, not just some persons, or many individuals, or a 
majority of the members of society, but all society (IFAC, 2012).  IFAC considers 
‘public’ to denote all society in the broadest meaning of the term (IFAC, 2012), giving 
this meaning at the end of the list of parties that are directly affected by the work of 
accountants.  
On the other hand, in examining the term ‘public’, most ICPAK members interviewed 
referred to smaller groups, not necessarily all society (Appendix VIII, H). One ICPAK 
member interviewed doubted the practicality of accountants’ ability to serve all 
society in an all-inclusive sense (Appendix VIII, D, 5).  
Two ICPAK members interviewed, and as indicated in subsection 4.3.4.1 above, 
thought the work of accountants affects everyone. As one of the ICPAK members 
explained further, this is the case whether the impact is direct or indirect. The latter 
consideration is exactly what is missing from the IFAC documents. In the said 
documents the consideration is focussed on the immediate effect of the action of 
accountants, without taking into account other far-reaching existential dimensions to 
their work and responsibilities. Nonetheless, as discussed in subsection 5.4.1 above, 
professionals of any kind can serve all society by carrying out well-done tasks, since, 
in the midst of the effort made, the said professionals develop virtues. Virtues imply 
good in its truest and highest sense for all society (Argandoña, 2009). 
 61 
 
5.4.3  ‘Interest’ in Public Interest 
IFAC’s list of ‘interests’ characteristically bears a financial connotation, or, protects 
the financial environment. IFAC, as quoted above, assumes that all individuals in 
society value the examples given in the IFAC document: ‘rights and entitlement, 
access to government, economic freedom and political power’ (IFAC, 2012). Some 
ICPAK members expressed concerned with the narrowness of the list of benefits 
given by IFAC. The reason behind the ICPAK members’ opinion comes from their 
concern that the work of accountants has bearing not only on economic aspects but 
on other non-quantifiable factors. 
IFAC (2012) refers to those things persons ‘seek to acquire and control’ (p. 3). By some 
individuals seeking to acquire and control, necessarily implies the exclusion of other 
individuals, which further accentuates the non-commonness of ‘interests’. 
Controlling an object implies the limitation of the object, and the less the whole of 
society can benefit from that object once under the control of an individual or a group 
of individuals. Thus, these ‘interests’ are best categorised as extrinsic good, and of the 
three level of good, contributing the least to the common good. If an ‘interest’ is 
‘public’ in the full sense of the word, then what should interest one, would be of 
interest to all, and more than that, what should interest one, would be available for 
all, for the betterment of all (de Torre, 2005), as well as at all moments. 
Therefore, from the arguments above, if the term ‘interest’ constitutes what an 
individual seeks for his own true good, then indeed, the individual’s effort striving 
for that true good would make the common good possible. Then, the individual is not 
just better off, but better as a human person. Additionally, the other members of 
society are better, not necessarily better off. However, if the ‘interests’ of individuals 
or groups count towards their own material betterment at the expense of others, or 
pursued in an inordinate / disorderly manner, then indeed, ‘interest’ cannot be good, 
but indeed remains focussed on the individual, therefore deemed as selfish (de Torre, 
2005). 
Douglass (1980) observes and rightly points out that ‘interest’ in public interest really 
refers to property and property rights. This is exactly what IFAC have included in 
their elaboration of ‘interests’. 
 62 
 
In light of the above, IFAC (2012) does not refer to objects fundamental to every 
human being. ICAEW refers to ‘happiness’ in various contexts, which include 
utilitarian nuances, by equating ‘happiness’ with ‘well-being’ (Njenga, 2011). ICAEW 
mentions Aristotle’s position of the interest of men in the ‘good life’, in connection 
with the discussion on ‘happiness’, but does not delve any further on this aspect 
(ICAEW, 2012).  
In summary, from the above discussion on what IFAC (2012) and ICAEW (2012) say, 
‘interests’ are subjective, ‘wants’ may be mistaken, sources of ‘happiness’ vary from 
person to person. These three aforementioned aspects imply that either the objects of 
‘interest’, ‘want’ and sources of ‘happiness’, are not objective, or, individuals are so 
different from each other that no common ground on what is beneficial to all mankind 
exists. 
Safeguarding the public interest makes more sense when referred to those ‘interests’ 
that affect all the public, not just a limited group, for one to refer to ‘public’ to ‘interest’ 
in the first place.  
Going back to how work well done contributes to growth in virtue, as mentioned in 
the discussion of the meaning of public interest one can say that accountants do 
contribute to the common good, and indeed to all society – the public – although not 
in sense given in the IFAC (2012) documents. 
5.4.4  ‘Public’ and ‘Interest’ in Light of the Common Good 
On the one hand, the accountant bears an obligation to everyone in society (IFAC, 
2012), while on the other, the interests appear limited, directed or inclusive to a certain 
group of people.  
In the first place, IFAC’s detail on public pointed to limited sizes of groups of 
individuals, but IFAC also refers to ‘all society’ but does not elaborate what actually 
constitutes ‘all society’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 2). Therefore, in a certain sense, the objective 
to serve the ‘widest scope of society’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 2) appears vague, because 
nothing is forthcoming from IFAC on how the work of an accountant can achieve the 
objective of serving all society.  
 63 
 
Additionally, IFAC’s list of interests, which it terms as ‘valued by individuals and 
society’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 3) appear of an economic nature. As discussed above, in 
subsection 2.3.3.1, the economic aspects are at the material level, the extrinsic good, 
and though of service to the common good, do not constitute the common good itself, 
as concluded in subsection 2.3.3.4. Interestingly enough, ICAEW (2012) points to 
other aspects, which bear more meaning to individuals and their fulfilment as 
persons, which go beyond the ‘financial situation’ (ICAEW, 2012, p. 39), and leading 
to happiness. These aspects include quality and stability in relationships, trust, 
aspects such as personal values including religion and solidarity, which would be 
more akin to the transcendent good, which lends itself to harmony in society and thus 
human flourishing (Njenga, 2011).  
Hence, from the IFAC (2012) document, the elaboration of public interest bears a 
contradiction between the meaning of ‘public’ and ‘interest’. The word ‘public’ 
appears unsuitable within the notion of public interest if the meaning of ‘interest’ 
remains as given.  Those who benefit from the examples given do not relate to all the 
public but instead focus on collections of individuals with shared interests, sub-sets 
of the set, a part of the whole or clusters of a community. In conclusion, ‘interests’ do 
not rightfully apply to all the public, but to specific groups. To this end, more apt 
expressions may include ‘group interests’, ‘specific interests’, or interests for those 
who have a stake in the object, say ‘stakeholders’ interests’, rather than ‘public 
interest’. Therefore, to adjoin ‘interest’ to ‘public’ comes across as an oxymoron.  
If we take up the position held by Douglass (1980), where the common good is higher 
than the good of any single individual, and if hypothetically, what interests the 
individual are objectively good then the following makes sense. Together with many 
other individuals, the interests of many are also good objectively, nonetheless, the 
common good would be higher and of greater significance to society than the interests 
of many or of the majority of the public. Additionally, Douglass (1980) indicates that 
the common good is not the aggregate of individual objective goods.  This position 
contrasts immensely with the notion of public interest in the IFAC (2012) document. 
 64 
 
5.4.5 Public Interest and Liberalism 
The notion of public interest used by IFAC and ICAEW appears to spring from 
liberalism (Douglass, 1980; Baker, 2005; Argandoña, 2011).  Where the liberalism 
tends to centre on the person and his ensuing interests, aiming to liberate the 
individual from the shackles of those governing. In a certain sense, this position 
ignores that each person bears an intrinsic social dimension that serves to contribute 
to his fulfilment (Argandoña, 2009). 
The common good is common to everyone, that is, a good related to the moral sense 
of uprightness, and not only to material welfare. Therefore, activities that enhance the 
good of each one from the moral perspective, contribute to the betterment of the 
whole person. Thus, the common good is a good higher than merely the good of 
individuals. ‘Interest’, on the other hand, instead relates essentially to private matters, 
such as material well-being and property rights (Douglass, 1980).  
Hence, there may be a link between the concept of ‘interest’ and selfishness’. ‘Interest’ 
may not be objectively beneficial, but rather drawn from opinions, personal 
preferences, wants, or appetites (Douglass, 1980). ‘Public’ on the other hand, refers to 
the majority, along utilitarian lines, the best for a majority (Argandoña, 2011). 
However, these two latter views mentioned ignore a person’s intrinsic social 
dimension, forgetting that each individual person steers towards his purpose in the 
context of society and with the assistance of other persons (de Torre, 2005).  
5.4.6 The Concept of Good and the Notion of Interest 
Appendix I of the IFAC document IFAC (2012) states the term, public interest, 
signifies ‘general welfare’, referring mainly to upholding individuals’ economic 
wellbeing. IFAC acknowledges a distinction between the common good and public 
interest, without elaborating on the difference.  IFAC (2012) gives historical 
background on the understanding of the notion public interest beginning with Plato, 
dwelling on Aristotle’s ideas, moving on to St Augustine and then to Thomas Aquinas 
on natural law.  
 65 
 
Finally, IFAC in its research documentation indicates how the concept of common 
good evolves to arrive at its current meaning based on Enlightenment philosophers, 
namely Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant.  
IFAC does not examine the meaning of public interest in terms of the hierarchy of 
human goods, nor question whether the axiom addresses man’s integral 
development. Additionally, the issue as to whether the role of accountants to serve 
public interest enriches and supports these professionals’ upright ethical conduct 
does not arise in either of the respective discussions. 
The theory of the ‘anthropology on the universal destination of goods’ refers to the 
notion held by CST that material goods are destined to the benefit of all and regards 
equity in terms of outcomes, over and above processes. This ensures the dignity of all 
individuals, without exclusion of any group or individuals from the benefits derived 
from goods made available for all. The proposal rests on the notion that all material 
things are a gift from the Creator that should benefit all humankind  (Pontifical 
Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). 
De Torre indicates that good common to all, must be infinite in nature, which is to 
say, it is an object with the capacity to satisfy the infinite capacity of the human 
person. Essentially, only knowledge and what can be loved can satisfy this capacity 
(de Torre, 2005). Therefore, to link the discussion above on public interest to what de 
Torre says on this feature of the common good: a good common to all means equating 
‘interest’ to small concerns, while on the other hand, the common good is directed to 
all-encompassing aspects of society.  
Moreover, Aristotle says that each thing has a purpose or end, and what perfects any 
person is what helps them achieve that end (NE, 1094a). Thus, what is good helps the 
person achieve that person’s end. Additionally, since a person is intrinsically social, 
then something of this social nature assists the person to achieve his end, and, 
therefore his fulfilment. 
Furthermore, what can be held in common, what can assist a group of individuals in 
society achieve the group’s end, would not be in conflict with what each person of 
that group needs to achieve his end. If expressed in the reverse, the true good for an 
 66 
 
individual is always in harmony with the good of all, the good held in common, the 
common good (de Torre, 2005). Thus the good is common since it is for every person, 
not just for the majority, or a limited group, in a society. 
‘Interest’ mentioned above points to a benefit in terms of economics, or by way of 
material goods. Nevertheless, material goods are only a small aspect of the common 
good, since man reaches his fulfilment not solely with the possession of material 
good, but more in perfecting himself integrally (Njenga, 2011). 
Additionally, the common good is universal, by which each individual achieves his 
own end in his own way, which is the way that person relates to the common good, 
and thus, is termed as the proper good (de Torre, 1980). The proper good of each 
person is different from that of the others, but when one attains their proper good, 
they contribute to the common good. It is possible that proper good may be confused 
with individual ‘interests’. As noted above in subsection 2.2.1, one person’s ‘interests’ 
are not necessarily the ‘interests’ of another. From this perspective, ‘interests’ and 
proper good coincide. Nonetheless, striving for one’s proper good results in a positive 
impact for the common good. This is not the case for ‘interests’. When an individual 
seeks his own ‘interests’, the person does not necessarily contribute to the ‘interests’ 
of all, since all the other members of society do not necessarily enjoy any additional 
benefits thereof (de Torre, 2005).  
For that reason, what is common does not make an item good, but something is 
common because it is good (Haldane, 2009). Hence, just because a group have 
collective ‘interest(s)’, does not make that ‘interest’ good. That ‘interest’ may not 
contribute to the perfection of each individual and of the society, but instead, the 
‘interest’ may cause deviation from the integral fulfilment of the parts and of the 
whole of society. 
To explore this matter further, those things that enhance individuals in developing 
virtues, enhance the common good, not to mention that virtues contribute in a true 
sense to the common good, so that in the end, other members of society benefit from 
the individual’s actions, that is from the person’s good habits (Argandoña, 2009). 
Thus, by way of inference, the individual’s good actions enhance social interaction to 
the benefit of all (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). 
 67 
 
Likewise, individuals are happier in the true sense of the word, which is not just well-
being, when they and others carry out actions that are morally upright, therefore 
good, not only those actions that just satisfy their own ‘interests’. 
5.5 Conclusion to the Discussion 
This chapter dealt with the third question of the research, which entailed an analysis 
of what the notion of public interest as held by ICPAK, and, what selected ICPAK 
members meant by the notion of public interest, in light of the concept of the common 
good. 
  
 68 
 
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
6.1 Introduction 
This Chapter contains a summary of the findings according to the three research 
questions introduced under subsection 0. Conclusions are drawn from the 
summarized findings in Chapters 4 and 5. The recommendations given below are 
based on those conclusions. Suggestions for further research are also considered at 
the end of this Chapter. 
6.2 Summary of Key Findings  
This research sought to determine the meaning of public interest within the context 
of the accountancy profession in Kenya, specifically focusing on ICPAK and ICPAK 
members, with analyses using the concept of the common good. 
The research addressed the research questions as given in subsection 0, and presented 
once again below: 
1. What does the notion of public interest mean for ICPAK? 
2. What do a selected number of ICPAK members understand by the notion of 
public interest as proposed by ICPAK? 
3. What does public interest as held by ICPAK and ICPAK members mean, within 
the perspective of the Aristotelian concept of the common good? 
  
 69 
 
6.2.1 The notion of public interest as held by ICPAK 
In response to the first research question on the meaning of the notion of public 
interest as held by ICPAK, ultimately the research determined that ICPAK has not 
published its own definition or explained the meaning of the notion of public interest. 
Going through the inference made in subsection 3.3.1, this research takes the 
proposals given by IFAC in 2012 as the notion of public interest held by ICPAK.  
The main document where IFAC deals with the definition and meaning of public 
interest is the IFAC Policy Position Paper No. 5 - A Definition of Public Interest. From this 
document, IFAC defines public interest as ‘the net benefits derived for, and 
procedural rigor employed on behalf of, all society in relation to any action, decision 
or policy’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 1). The definition captures two aspects that can be assessed 
consequent on accountants’ actions, decisions or policies, namely net benefits and the 
procedural rigour. 
In reference to net benefits, IFAC considers the need for an analysis on cost / benefit 
consequent on actions carried out by accountants, with ‘negative and positive 
outcomes’, for the ‘short and long term’, and assessed in both ‘quantitative and 
qualitative terms’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 6).  
On procedural rigor, IFAC proposes certain qualities that should be adhered to, 
namely, ‘transparency, public accountability, independence, competence, adherence 
to due process, and, participation’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 1).  
  
 70 
 
6.2.2 ICPAK members’ understanding of the said notion of public 
interest 
Regarding research question two, most interviewed ICPAK members agreed in 
general with the definition and meaning that IFAC (2012) gives on public interest. 
When asked about specific aspects in the definition, the ICPAK members provided 
divergent views that ranged over a spectrum of issues. 
A number of ICPAK members spoke about the similitude of public interest to the 
common good, such as the role of accountants to serve society; the public interest 
relates to the well-being of society; and, serving the public interest requires that 
accountants work with professionalism and honesty: truth and fairness.  
It was quite interesting to hear more than one ICPAK member comment that 
‘interests’ do not relate only to financial concerns such as those listed by IFAC. A 
number considered that the actions of an accountant have an impact on aspects 
including, but also beyond the economic matters of entities. All the ICPAK members 
expressed the need for accountants to be honest, and as one mentioned the work of 
accountants affects the livelihood of many individuals. 
When the discussion entered into the meaning of ‘public’, the views were divergent 
to cover an array of possibilities, from one who thought the accountant is answerable 
to all in society, and on the other hand, one quite emphatic on the impossibility for 
accountants to serve and be answerable to all society. 
  
 71 
 
6.2.3 Analysing the meaning of public interest from the perspective 
of the common good 
In response to research question three, at the level of analysing the meaning of public 
interest as held by ICPAK and the understanding of that notion by ICPAK members, 
in light of the common good, this study settled in dealing with the meaning of public 
interest in the two themes from the IFAC document: Policy Position Paper No. 5 - A 
Definition of Public Interest. The themes considered dealt with the meaning of ‘public’ 
and the meaning of ‘interest’. 
Three aspects arose from the 2012 IFAC’s definition of public interest (IFAC, 2012), 
using the common good from the Aristotelian tradition as an analytical tool. Firstly, 
from the scrutiny of interests listed by IFAC, it seems to imply that the only focus of 
accountants bears on financial matters. Indeed the work of accountants relates mainly 
to financial information, which in turn has a bearing on economic decisions. From this 
perspective, IFAC’s explanation of public interest implies the impact of the work of 
accountants, therefore, remains at contributing only at the extrinsic level of good: the 
lowest level of contribution to the common good of society. 
Secondly, the kind of work accountants undertake relates to the provision of 
information. From the discussion on the various levels of good from a metaphysical 
point of view, information by its nature contributes at a higher level of good in 
society, than that which relates to economic consideration, that is the intrinsic level. 
The third aspect in IFAC’s explanation of public interest includes certain qualities in 
the actions, decisions and policies that accountants need to ensure the rigor of process. 
These qualities can also be termed as virtues, which contribute to the highest good in 
a society that is, the transcendent good, both for accountants themselves and all 
society.  
When dealing with the matter of the ‘public’, the groups identified in the IFAC 
position are the ‘public’ that share two things: in the first place, the shared market 
place for goods and services, and secondly, for improved living standards, which may 
imply the exclusion of a part of society. 
 72 
 
6.3 Conclusions 
Therefore, the notion of public interest as held by ICPAK indicated the work of 
accountants focussed only on those economically affected by the work of accountants, 
hence, accountants do not serve all society. Additionally, the ICPAK members 
interviewed on their understanding of ICPAK’s notion of public interest, admitted 
the impossibility for accountants to serve all society. From the Aristotelian traditional 
view of the common good, the meaning of public interest as held by ICPAK and 
ICPAK members indicated that the meaning of public interest for accountants could 
be considered an oxymoron: not benefitting all society, and directed to limited 
interests. Yet, when analysed further accountants are encouraged to uphold high 
standards of conduct and strive towards virtues, which means accountants do indeed 
influence all of society. 
6.4 Recommendations  
From responding and analysing the third research question which examined the 
meaning of public using the Aristotelian tradition, two recommendations are given, 
namely: one, greater clarification on the meaning of public interest is needed to allay 
the contradictoriness of the term, since with accountants focusing only on part of 
society, means not all society but, only a part of the public benefits from their work. 
Secondly, the term ‘interest’ may be limited and as the accountant needs to live up to 
certain high standards, then the aim of accountants could be to serve the common 
good, rather than the public interest notion presented by IFAC. 
6.5 Suggestions for Future Research 
Further work to be undertaken can include an analysis of the aspects of the 2012 IFAC 
position paper –related to General Assessments – on cost / benefit and on processes. 
Similar to the work undertaken by Davenport and Dellaportas (2009), on Australian 
accountants, a survey on Kenyan accountants could harness material to collect a 
wider range of views on public interest, as alluded to subsection 3.3.3 above. These 
 73 
 
views then could be analysed in terms of the Aristotelian tradition of the common 
good. 
Further research could be undertaken covering an in-depth analysis of the qualities 
accountants should uphold in ensuring rigour of due process, namely: ‘transparency, 
public accountability, independence, competence, adherence to due process, and, 
participation’ (IFAC, 2012, p. 1) within the theoretical framework based on the 
Aristotelian tradition. Some data has been collected from ICPAK members as 
mentioned in subsection 3.4.2.2 above, and provided in Appendix VIII, G, but has not 
been presented in the main part of this dissertation, nor analysed in depth. 
 74 
 
LIST OF REFERENCES 
ACCA. (2016). Setting High Professional Standards for Public Services Around the World. 
ACCA, ACCA Global Forum for the Public Sector. London: The Association 
of Chartered Certified Accountants. Retrieved February 9, 2018, from 
https://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/ACCA_Global/Technical/pub
sect/ea-public-sector-policy-.pdf 
Accounting-Degree.Org. (2013). The 10 Worst Corporate Accounting Scandals of All Time. 
Retrieved March 4, 2013, from http://www.accounting-
degree.org/scandals/: http://www.accounting-degree.org/scandals/ 
Ahinful, G. S., Addo, S., Boateng, F. O., & Boakye, J. D. (2017). Accounting Ethics and 
the Professional Accountants: The Case of Ghana. International Journal of 
Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, 1(1), 30-36. Retrieved August 26, 
2018 
AICPA. (2013, October 31). American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code of 
Professional Conduct. Retrieved December 29, 2013, from American Institute of 
CPAs: 
http://www.aicpa.org/Research/Standards/CodeofConduct/Pages/et_sec
tion_53__article_ii_the_public_interest.aspx 
Alford, H., & Naughton, M. (2001). Managing as if faith mattered: Christian social 
principles in the modern organization. Notre Dame, Indiana, United States of 
America: University of Notre Dame Press. 
Aquinas, T. (1947). S Th I-II q.90 a.2. (B. Brothers, Ed., & F. o. Province, Trans.) 
Aquinas, T. (1949). On Kingship (1949 ed.). (t. b. Phelan, & O. revised by I. Th. 
Eschmann, Eds.) Toronto: Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval 
Studies. Retrieved June 2018, 18, from 
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeRegno.htm 
Aquinas, T. (1951). Commentary on Aristotle's Politics. (S. 1. edition, Ed., & E. L. 
O'Neill, Trans.) Retrieved June 2018, 18, from 
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/Politics.htm 
Ardelean, A. (2013). Defining the Public Interest in Relation to the Accountancy 
Profession: Some Perspectives. Scientific Annals of the 'Alexandru Ioan Cuza' 
University of Iasi, 60(2), 1-17. doi:DOI 10.2478/aicue-2013-0026 
Argandoña, A. (2009, January). The Common Good of the Company and the Theory of 
Organization. Professor of Economics "la Caixa" Chair of Corporate Social 
Responsibility and Corporate Governance. Barcelona: IESE. 
Argandoña, A. (2011, July). The Common Good. IESE Insight, p. 10. 
Aristotle. (1944). 1944, Aristot. Pol. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, 21. (H. Rackham, Trans.) 
Athens, Greece, Greece: William Heinemann Ltd, London; Harvard 
University Press, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collections 
Aristotle. (1944). Nichomachean Ethics, 1097a. Nichomachean Ethics. (Rackman, Ed.) 
Athens, Greece. Retrieved 12 25, 2018, from 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristot.+Nic.+Eth.+1097a
&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054 
Aristotle. (n.d.). Nicomachean Ethics, 1094a. Nicomechean Ethics. (H. Rackman, Ed.) 
Athens, Athens, Greece. Retrieved 02 08, 2013, from 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristot.+Nic.+Eth.+1094b
&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054 
 75 
 
Aristotle. (n.d.). Politics. 1944, Aristot. Pol., 21. (Rackham, Trans.) Athens, Greece: 
William Heinemann Ltd, London; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 
Retrieved 12 25, 2018, from 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.
01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1281a 
Baker, R. C. (2005). What is the meaning of “the public interest”?: Examining the 
ideology of the American public accounting profession",. Accounting, Auditing 
and Accountability Journal, 18(5), 690-703. doi:10.1108/09513570510620510 
Barry, B., & Rees, W. (1964). The Public Interest. The Public Interest (pp. 1-39). Oxford: 
Oxford University Press on behalf of the Aristotelian Society. Retrieved July 
26, 2018, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4106601 
Barry, N. (1995). An Introduction to Modern Political Theory (3rd ed.). London: 
Macmillan International Higher Education. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-24104-0 
Baumol, W. J. (1975). Business Responsibility and Economic Behavior. In E. S. Phelps 
(Ed.), Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory (p. 232). New York, New York, 
United States of America: Russell Sage Foundation. 
Brown, R. [. (2013). A History of Accounting and Accountants. (R. Brown, Ed.) October, 
New York, United States of America: Routledge. 
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford 
University Press. Retrieved February 20, 2018 
Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2008, March). The Unholy Alliance of Business 
and Science. The Twelfth Annual International Conference Promoting Business 
Ethics. 78, pp. 199-206. Springer. 
Buys, P., Visser, S., & Oberholzer, M. (2012, Dec 13). A critical consideration of ethical 
foundations for the accounting profession. Koers - Bulletin for Christian 
Scholarship, 77(2), 1-7. doi:10.4102/koers.v77i2.45 
Carcello, J. V. (2009, May 1). Governance and the Common Good. Journal of Business 
Ethics, 89(1 Supplement), 11-18. 
Cheffers, M., & Pakaluk, M. (2007). Understanding Accounting Ethics (2nd Edition, 
Revised ed.). Sutton, Massachusetts, United States of America: Allen David 
Press. 
Clayton, Scoggins, & Westley. (2002, Spring). Enron: Market Exploitation and 
Correction. Financial Decisions, 1(Article 1). 
Cochran, C. E. (1974). Political Science and 'The Public Interest'. Journal of Politics, 36, 
327-255. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-
and-c 
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method 
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, United States of America: Sage 
Publications. Retrieved January 27, 2018 
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method 
approaches (4th ed.). Lincoln, United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc. 
doi:300.72'1-dc23 
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2010, June 24). Determining Validity in Qualitative 
Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 124-130. Abingdon, United Kingdom: 
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. doi:DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 
Davenport, L., & Dellaportas, S. (2009). Interpreting the Public Interest: A Survey of 
Professional Accountants. Australian Accounting Review No. 48, 19(1), 11-23. 
de Torre, J. M. (1980). Christian Philosophy. Manila, Philippines: Sinag-Tala Publishers. 
 76 
 
de Torre, J. M. (2005). The Common Good and the Good of Society: The Genesis of a 
Concept and Its Consequences. In E. Oketch, L. Franceschi, & P. Mimbi (Ed.), 
Politics and the Common Good (p. 352). Nairobi: Strathmore University Press. 
Dellaportas, S., & Davenport, L. (2008). Reflections on the public interest in 
accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19, 1080-1098. 
doi:doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2007.06.002 
Dolfsma, W. (2006, February 1). Accounting as Applied Ethics: Teaching a Discipline. 
Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 209-215. 
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995, January). The Stakeholder Theory of the 
Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications. The Academy of 
Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. 
Douglass, B. (1980, February). The Common Good and the Public Interest. Jstor, 8(1), 
103-117. 
Dupré, L. (1993). The Common Good and the Open Society. In D. Hollenbach, & B. 
Douglass (Eds.), Catholicism and Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press. 
Enderle, G. (2004). The Ethics of Financial Reporting, the Global Reporting Initiative, 
and the Balanced Concept of the Firm. In G. G. Brenkert, & G. G. Brenkert 
(Ed.), Corporate Integrity and Accountability (p. 296). Thousand Oaks, 
California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. 
Fabo, M. U. (2004). The Objective of Maximum Profit, or the Wishful Thinking of a 
'Hyper-Monetised' Economy. In D. Lutz, & P. Mimbi (Ed.), Shareholder Value 
and the Common Good (pp. 146-164). Nairobi: Strathmore University Press and 
Konrad Adenauer Foundation. 
Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights (2nd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: 
Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 27, 2018 
Finnis, J. (2017, February 23). Aquinas' Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2018 Summer edition). (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) 
Stanford, California, United States of America: The Metaphysics Research 
Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 
Stanford, CA 94305-4115. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from The Stanford 
Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas-
moral-political/ 
FRC UK. (2018, July 16). Financial Reporting Council. Retrieved January 11, 2019, from 
Financial Reporting Council: https://www.frc.org.uk/directors/corporate-
governance-and-stewardship/uk-corporate-governance-code 
Freeman, E. R. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (25th Anniversary 
edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its 
Profits. (The New York Times Magazine) Retrieved February 8, 2013, from 
Student groups in University of Colorado Boulder: 
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-
soc-resp-business.html 
Gichure, C. W. (2008). Ethics for Africa Today (1st Edition ed.). Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya: 
Pauline Publications Africa. 
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008, March 22). Methods of data 
collection in qualitative research: interview and focus groups. British Dental 
Journal, 204(6), 291-295. doi:DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192 
Godfrey, J. M., Hodgson, A., Scott, H., & Tarca, A. (2006). Accounting Theory (6th ed.). 
(J. Whelan, Ed.) Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. 
 77 
 
Goizueta, R. C. (1996, November 20). The Real Essence of Business. Retrieved February 
16, 2013, from The Goizueta Foundation: 
http://www.goizuetafoundation.org/real-essence 
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991, January 1). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. 
Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53-73. 
Haldane, J. (2009). The Individual, the State and the Common Good. In J. Haldane, 
Practical Philosophy: Ethics, Society and Culture (First ed., Vol. II, p. 415). Exeter, 
United Kingdom: Imprint Academic. Retrieved December 13, 2013 
Harper, D. (2010). Common Good. Retrieved September 30, 2013, from Online 
Etymology Dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common 
good 
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. London, 
United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd. 
Herbling, D. (2013, March 28). Regulator extends suspension of CMC shares. Business 
Daily. 
Hollenbach, D. (2002). The Common Good and Christian Ethics (1st Edition ed.). Boston, 
Massachusetts, United States of America: Cambridge University Press. 
ICAEW. (2012). Acting in the Public Interest: A Framework for Analysis. Institute of 
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Market Foundations Initiative. 
London: ICAEW. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from 
icaew.com/marketfoundations 
ICAEW. (2012, August 5). Acting in the Public Interest: What does it mean to you? 
Retrieved February 2, 2018, from ICAEW: https://www.icaew.com/-
/media/corporate/files/technical/ethics/aaa-050812-public-interest-
summary-notes-from-panel.ashx. 
ICPAK. (2006). Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. The Council, Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants of Kenya. Nairobi: Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants of Kenya. 
ICPAK. (2019, May 17). Home page: ICPAK. Retrieved from ICPAK Web site: 
https://www.icpak.com/ 
IESBA. (2018). 2018 Handbook of the International Code of Ethics for Professional 
Accountants. International Federation of Accountants, International Ethics 
Standards Board for Accountants. New York: International Federation of 
Accountants. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from 
https://www.ethicsboard.org/iesba-code 
IFAC (Appendices). (2012). Policy Position Paper No. 5: Appendices. IFAC. New York: 
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 
IFAC. (2004). 1996 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. In IFAC, Handbook of 
International Auditing, Assurance, and Ethics Pronouncements (p. 989). New 
York: IFAC. 
IFAC. (2004). Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. New York, United States of 
America: IFAC. Retrieved July 2018 
IFAC. (2005). Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance, and Ethics 
Pronouncements. In IFAC, Code of Ethics For Professional Accountants (p. 1098). 
New York: IFAC. 
IFAC. (2012, June 29). Policy Position Paper No. 5: A Definition of Public Interest. 
Retrieved February 20, 2014, from International Federation of Accountants: 
http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/definition-public-interest 
IFAC. (2012, June 29). Policy Position Paper No. 5: At a Glance. Retrieved February 20, 
2014, from International Federation of Accountants: 
 78 
 
https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/PPP5-Definition-of-
Public-Interest-At-a-Glance.pdf 
IFAC. (2018, August 17). About IFAC. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from IFAC Web 
site: https://www.ifac.org/about-ifac 
Jennings, B., Callahan, D., & Wolf, S. M. (1987, February). The Professions: Public 
Interest and Common Good. The Hastings Center Report, 17(1), pp. 3-10. 
Retrieved August 9, 2018, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3562447 
Juma, V. (2012, January 30). CMC Motors reverses to Sh181 m loss. Retrieved February 
17, 2013, from Business Daily: 
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/CMC-Motors-
reverses-to-Sh181m-loss-/-/539550/1317014/-/10u7gqy/-/index.html 
Kamaduuka, R. Z., Ofafa, G. A., & Mande, i. M. (2013, March 1). The Relationship 
between Moral Virtues of Local Government Administrator and Ethical Performance. 
Retrieved December 21, 2013, from Kenyatta University Institutional 
Repository: URI: http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/7423 
Ketz, J. E., & Catanach, A. H. (2011, November 21). Enron's Tenth Anniversary: Arthur 
Andersen's Audit Failures at Enron and elsewhere. Retrieved February 7, 2013, 
from Grumpy Old Accountants: 
http://blogs.smeal.psu.edu/grumpyoldaccountants/archives/384 
Kivoi, D. L. (2011, December 8). Meaning and causes of corruption with a special reference 
to Kenya : a moral perspective. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from Kenyatta 
University Institutional Repository: http://ir-
library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/1939 
Lee, T. (1995). The professionalization of accountancy: a history of protecting the 
public interest in a self-interested way. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 
Journal, 8(4), 48-69. 
Lesage, C., Hottegindre, G., & Baker, C. R. (2016). Disciplinary practices in the French 
auditing profession: Serving the public interest or the private interests of the 
profession? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(1), 11-42. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2012-1169 
Lyon, J., & Raef, L. (2012, September). The changing role of the CFO. Retrieved January 
21, 2014, from Association of Chartered Certificed Accountants: 
http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-
technical/finance-transformation/pol-afb-croc.pdf 
Maritain, J. (1966). The Person and the Common Good (Paperback Edition ed.). (J. J. 
Fitzgerald, Trans.) University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, United States of 
America: Scribner. 
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The Smartest Guys in the Room: the Amazing rise and 
scandalous fall of Enron. New York, New York, United States of America: 
Penguin Group. 
Melé, D. (2005, March). Ethical Education in Accounting: Integrating Rules, Values 
and Virtues. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(1), 97-105. 
Millán-Puelles, A. (1971). Bien Común. In 'various', & S. V. Villar (Ed.), Gran 
Enciclopedia Rialp (1st Edition ed., Vol. 4, pp. 225-230). Madrid, Spain: 
Ediciones Rialp, S. A. 
Mimbi, P. C. (2007). The Overlooked Factor: The Power of Being Fully Human. Nairobi, 
Nairobi, Kenya: Strathmore University Press. 
Mimbi, P. C. (2013, January). Towards an Economics Methodology: Exploring the 
Philosophical Foundations of Economics. International Journal of Research in 
Education and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 1-9. 
 79 
 
Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and 
Qualitative Methods. Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press (African Centre for 
Technology Studies). 
Mugwe, D. (2012, August 7). Top CMC directors found to have signed sham accounts. 
Retrieved March 4, 2013, from 
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News: 
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Top-CMC-
directors-found-to-have-signed-sham-accounts-/-/539550/1473566/-
/ovvs2pz/-/index.html 
Njenga, G. N. (2011, May). A Theoretical Analysis of Society and the Common Good 
in Aristotelian Tradition and Modern Liberalism Ethos. Pamplona, Navarre, 
Spain: Instituto Empresa y Humanismo. 
Njiriani, J. (2014, January). Tracing the Roots: Historical Perspective. (C. J. Kigen, Ed.) 
The Accountant, pp. 47-49. 
Omondi, M. (2012, March 15). Audit watchdog refers Deloitte to disciplinary unit. 
Business Daily. 
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: integrating theory and 
practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc. 
Payne, R. (2009, November). Finance's Role in the Organization. Retrieved January 21, 
2014, from Intstitute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales: 
http://www.icaew.com/~/media/Files/Technical/Business-and-financial-
management/finance-direction/finance-s-role-in-the-organisation-finance-
direction.pdf 
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25-41. 
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the 
Church. Vatican City, Vatican City, Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 
Reed, K. (2010, December 21). E&Y sued over Lehmans audit. Accountancy Age. 
Rutto, B. K. (1999). The quest for man's ultimate moral end: a critical examination of self- 
realization in Aristotle's nicomachean ethic. Retrieved December 26, 2013, from 
University of Nairobi Digital Repository: 
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/20922 
Saks, M. (1995). Professions and the public interest. London: Routledge. Retrieved July 
26, 2018 
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. 
Essex: Pearson Education Limited. 
Singleton, T. W., & Singleton, A. J. (2010). Fraud Auditing and Forensic Accounting (4th 
ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey, United States of America: John Wiley & Sons. 
Sison, A. J., & Fontrodona, J. (2012, April). The Common Good of the Firm in the 
Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 211-246. 
Solomon, R. C. (2004). Aristotle, Ethics and Business Organizations. Organization 
Studies, 25(6), 1021-1043. 
St Pierre, K., & Anderson, J. A. (1984, April). An Analysis of the Factors Associated 
with Lawsuits Against Public Accountants. The Accounting Review, 59(2), 242-
263. 
Strathmore University. (2013). Strathmore University Statutes. Nairobi, Nairobi, 
Kenya. 
Sturm, D. (1996). On the Meanings of Public Good: An Exploration. Journal of Law and 
Religion, 13(1), 255-261. doi:doi:10.2307/1051375 
 80 
 
Vaccaro, A., & Sison, A. J. (2011, March 1). Transparency in Business: The Perspective 
of Catholic Social Teaching and the "Caritas in Veritate". Journal in Business 
Ethics, 100(1 Supplement), 17-27. Retrieved from Springer Link. 
Vega, R. (2010, March 15). Lehman debacle one of greatest crimes ever? Retrieved 
February 7, 2013, from The Christian Science Monitor: 
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-
Reckoning/2010/0315/Lehman-debacle-one-of-greatest-crimes-
ever?nav=260151-csm_article-leftColRelated 
Wisker, G. (2007). The Postgraduate Research Handbook (2nd Edition ed.). New York: 
Macmillan International Higher Education. 
Woiceshyn, J. (2012, April 1). How to be Profitable and Moral: A Rational Egoist Approach 
to Business. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from Self-interest versus the common 
good: http://profitableandmoral.com/2012/04/01/self-interest-vs-the-
common-good/ 
Yuengert, A. M. (2001). The Common Good for Economists. Faith and Economics, 
38(Fall 2001), 1-9. 
 
 
  
 81 
 
APPENDICES 
Appendix I: Letter to Strathmore University Research Office for 
Authorisation to Collect Data in Strathmore University 
Speranza Migue 
P.O. Box 4601  
00506  
Nairobi, Kenya.  
28 February 2018  
Prof. Ismael Ateya 
Dean of Research  
Strathmore University,  
P.O. Box 59897 - 00200  
GPO,  
Nairobi, Kenya.  
 
Dear Professor, 
 
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO COLLECT DATA AT 
STRATHMORE UNIVERSITY  
 
I am carrying out research on one aspect that informs the field of accountancy, 
namely, a study on public interest. 
 
I would be very grateful to be given permission to collect data from employees in 
Strathmore University who are members of the Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK). This will be part of the data collected in 
pursuance of my dissertation leading to a Masters in Applied Philosophy and 
Ethics (MAPE) degree.  The title of my dissertation is An Analysis on the 
Meaning of Public Interest as Understood by the Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants of Kenya in Light of the Common Good. 
 
The research entails carrying out interviews of the abovementioned members of 
staff who will assist in ascertaining a view on accountants’ role in society as 
stipulated in an official document of ICPAK.  
 
The findings of this research would certainly help the accounting profession delve 
deeper into their role to society. 
  
I eagerly look forward to a positive response.  
 
Yours sincerely, 
  
Speranza Migue
 82 
 
Appendix II: Covering Letter for Ethical Clearance to SU-IERC 
Speranza Migue 
P.O. Box 4601  
00506  
Nairobi, Kenya.  
8 March 2018  
 
The Ethics Committee 
Strathmore University Institutional 
  Ethics Review Committee 
P.O. Box 59897 - 00200  
GPO,  
Nairobi, Kenya.  
 
Dear Sirs, 
 
REQUEST FOR ETHICAL CLEARANCE TO UNDERTAKE INTERVIEWS IN 
STRATHMOR UNIVERSITY AS PART OF RESEARCH WORK TOWARDS 
FINALISATION OF A DISSERTATION 
 
By way of introduction, I am Speranza Migue, a student pursuing a Masters in 
Applied Philosophy and Ethics (MAPE) degree, under the School of Humanities 
and Social Sciences, here in Strathmore University. The title of my dissertation is: 
An Analysis on the Meaning of Public Interest as Understood by the Institute 
of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya [ICPAK] in Light of the Common 
Good. 
 
The supervisor for this dissertation is Dr. Catherine Dean. She can be reached on 
her email: cdean@strathmore.edu.  
 
The nature of this research entails determining what the accounting profession 
means by public interest. A small part of the research aims at obtaining the views 
of a limited number of members of ICPAK. The questions rest on the position held 
by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), of which ICPAK is a 
member, related to the notion of public interest. The target interviewees comprise 
of staff members in Strathmore University, who are members of ICPAK. 
 
I have upload to the following on the SU-IERC's RhinnO Ethics online platform 
for your perusal:  
My Proposal; 
My Curriculum Vitae as I am the only researcher involved; 
The Participant Information and Consent Form; 
The Questionnaire to be used; and 
Signed Proposal Declaration. 
 83 
 
 
I would be most grateful to be given clearance by your committee in order to 
collect data from employees in Strathmore University who are members of 
ICPAK. 
   
I eagerly look forward to your positive response.  
 
Yours faithfully, 
  
 
 
Speranza Migue 
  
 84 
 
Appendix III: Covering Letter to ICPAK Member Interviewee 
Speranza Migue 
P.O. Box 4601 
00506 
NAIROBI 
 
27 March 2018 
 
Dear Sir, 
 
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN DATA COLLECTION  
RESEARCH INTO AN ANALYSIS ON THE MEANING OF PUBLIC 
INTEREST AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED 
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS OF KENYA IN LIGHT OF THE COMMON 
GOOD 
 
My name is Speranza Migue, and I teach in the School of Accountancy at 
Strathmore University. Thank you for agreeing to meet me. The area of public 
interest is a topic discussed often times by the accounting profession. The aim of 
this voluntary questionnaire is to obtain your views on what the International 
Federation of Accountants (IFAC), and implicitly ICPAK proposes on public 
interest. Your views will help me determine whether members of ICPAK hold a 
similar or different view on IFAC’s meaning of public interest. 
This interview should take no more than forty minutes. The questionnaire consists 
of nine open-ended questions, and six short questions. When providing me with 
your responses, when we finally meet, please answer the issues in the open-ended 
questions from your own perspective. 
Being in this study is voluntary and you are under no obligation to take part. 
However, if you do consent to participate, you may withdraw at any point and 
prior to the questionnaire completion. All responses received are anonymous, and 
information collected is not distributed to any party. All your responses will be 
kept confidential as well as stored securely. What this means is that this discussion 
serves only for the purpose of this research. As you will see in the questionnaire, 
no personal data is collected. In addition, no information in my report will 
identify you as the interviewee. Therefore, only respond to what you want to say. 
Nonetheless, anything you can tell me on public interest would be most 
appreciated. 
Should you have any questions, or, if you would like me to give you a summary 
on the findings from this investigation, please feel free to contact me, Ms Speranza 
Migue on email smigue@strathmore.edu. 
  
 85 
 
If you have a complaint concerning the manner in which this research is 
conducted, please do not hesitate to contact my supervisor Dr. Catherine Dean on 
email: cdean@strathmore.edu or, 
Prof I Ateya 
Research Director  
Strathmore University  
P.O. Box 59857-00200  
City Square, Nairobi 
Tel: 0703034000  
 
Thank you for your assistance.  
 
Speranza Migue  
 86 
 
Appendix IV: Participant Information and Consent Form 
SECTION 1: INFORMATION SHEET  
Investigator: Speranza Migue 
Institutional affiliation: School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS), 
Strathmore University 
Subject Title:  An analysis on the meaning of public interest as understood by the 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya in light of the common good.  
 
SECTION 2: INFORMATION SHEET–THE STUDY  
2.1: Why is this study being carried out?  
This study is part of an MAPE research dissertation. It will analyse what public 
interest, as understood by accountants, means in light of the common good.  
2.2: Do I have to take part?  
No. Taking part in this study is entirely optional and the decision rests only with you. 
If you decide to take part, you will be requested to be interviewed in order to obtain 
your views public interest in so far as it constitutes the role or purpose of the service 
accountants provide to society. The questions asked are based on the position 
taken by the International Federation of Accountants. The interview will be a one-on-
one session, and you will have the opportunity to inform the investigator of any 
question you are not able to answer. You are free to decline to take part in the study 
at any time without giving any reasons.  
2.3: Who is eligible to take part in this study?  
 This study focusses on accountants who are members of the Institute of Certified 
Public Accountants of Kenya. 
2.4: Who is not eligible to take part in this study?  
 Participants that do not meet the above requirement (2.3) will not take part in the 
study. 
2.5: What will taking part in this study involve for me?  
You will be approached by Speranza Migue (Principal Researcher) and requested to 
take part in the study. If you are satisfied that you fully understand the goals behind 
this study, you will be asked to sign the informed consent form (this form) and then 
taken through a questionnaire to complete. After the study is complete, the Principal 
Research will approach you to inform you of the outcome of the research. 
2.6: Are there any risks or dangers in taking part in this study?  
There are no risks in taking part in this study. All the information you provide will be 
treated as confidential and will not be used in any way without your express 
permission.  
2.7: Are there any benefits of taking part in this study?  
The information will be used to understand what motivates accountants in the 
course of their duties, and may provide insights into ethical aspects, which could 
improve the way accounting students are prepared for the profession. 
2.8: What will happen to me if I refuse to take part in this study?  
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Even if you decide to take part at first 
but later change your mind, you are free to withdraw at any time without explanation.  
2.9: Who will have access to my information during this research?  
All research records will be stored in securely locked cabinets. That information may 
be transcribed into a database but this will be sufficiently encrypted and password 
protected. Only the people who are closely concerned with this study will have 
access to your information. All your information will be kept confidential.  
Nonetheless, the final version of this dissertation, from which no information can be 
 87 
 
traced to you, will be made available online on Strathmore University’s digital 
repository. 
2.10: Who can I contact in case I have further questions?  
You can contact me, Speranza Migue at SHSS, or by e-mail on 
smigue@strathmore.edu, or by phone on +254 732645550.  You can also contact 
my supervisor, Dr. Catherine Dean at the SHSS, Nairobi, or by e-mail 
cdean@strathmore.edu or by phone on +254 70 30 34154.  
 
If you want to ask someone independent anything about this research please 
contact:  
The Secretary–Strathmore University Institutional Ethics Review Board, P. O. BOX 
59857, 00200, Nairobi, email ethicsreview@strathmore.edu, Tel number: +254 703 
034 375  
 
I, _____________________________________________, have had the study 
explained to me. I have understood all that I have read and have had explained to 
me and had my questions answered satisfactorily. I understand that I can change 
my mind at any stage.  
 
Please tick the boxes below that apply to you. 
 
 
Participation in the research study  
I AGREE to take part in this research  __________(Tick if “Yes”) 
 
I DON’T AGREE to take part in this research  ________(Tick if “No”) 
 
 
Participant’s Signature:  
 
____________________________________  Date: ______/_______/_________  
        DD / MM / YEAR  
Participant’s Name:  
 
____________________________________  Time: ______ /_______  
(Please print name)        HR / MN  
  
Investigator’s Signature:  
 
____________________________________ Date: ______/_______/_________ 
        DD / MM / YEAR 
  
Investigator’s Name:  
 
____________________________________ Time: ______ /_______ 
(Please print name)       HR / MN 
 
 88 
 
Storage of information on the completed questionnaire  
I AGREE to have my completed questionnaire stored for future data analysis 
___________(Tick if “Yes”) 
 
 
I DON’T AGREE to have my completed questionnaire stored for future data analysis 
______(Tick if “No”) 
 
 
 
 
Participant’s Signature:  
 
____________________________________  Date: ______/_______/_________  
        DD / MM / YEAR  
Participant’s Name:  
 
____________________________________  Time: ______ /_______  
(Please print name)        HR / MN  
 
  
Investigator’s Signature:  
 
____________________________________ Date: ______/_______/_________ 
        DD / MM / YEAR 
  
Investigator’s Name:  
 
____________________________________ Time: ______ /_______ 
(Please print name)       HR / MN 
 
 
 
 89 
 
Appendix V: Interview questions 
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STRUCTURE OPEN-QUESTIONS TO 
STRATHMORE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ICPAK MEMBERS 
Overall Objective: 
i. To investigate what ICPAK members understand by the notion of public 
interest as proposed by ICPAK 
ii. To analyse ICPAK members’ understanding of the notion of  public interest, 
as held by ICPAK, within the perspective of the Aristotelian concept of the 
common good 
Introduction  
Key Components  
• Thank you  
• Your name  
• Purpose  
• Confidentiality  
• Duration  
• How the interview will 
proceed  
• Any clarifications 
needed  
Good morning / afternoon…. 
Thank you for agreeing to this interview. 
My name is Speranza Migue and I would to ask you a 
number of questions on a topic discussed from time to 
time in the accounting profession. 
This interview should take less than an hour. As I will be 
asking you about your thoughts on various aspects of 
public interest, this interview will be taped since I would 
to capture everything you want to say on the issue. To that 
end, I would be most grateful if you could speak up so 
that your insights can be recorded, and which will help 
me accurately transcribe your remarks. 
All your responses will be kept confidential as well as 
stored securely. What this means is that this discussion 
serves only for purpose of this research. In addition, no 
information in my report will identify you as the 
interviewee. Only respond to what you want to say. 
Anything you can tell me on public interest would be 
most appreciated. 
 
1. Gender? 
Male  
Female  
  
2. How long have you worked in the accounting profession? 
0 – 5 years  
5 – 10 years  
10 – 15 years  
15 – 20 years  
Over 20 years  
  
3. Are you a member of ICPAK? 
Yes  
No  
  
 90 
 
4. How long have you been a member of ICPAK? 
0 – 2 years  
2 – 5 years  
5 – 10 years  
10 – 20 years  
20 – 35 years  
Not a member  
  
5. What sector have you worked besides Strathmore University? 
Not-for-profit  
Profit generating organization  
Auditing   
Business advisory services  
Government agency  
Academia  
Other...  
  
6. Have you worked in another sector before the previous one? 
Not-for-profit  
Auditing   
Business advisory services  
Government agency  
Other...  
  
Thank you for providing the above details. 
 
Introduction  What you think about public interest? 
General thoughts on 
accountant’s role 
  
By way of introduction, public interest is a term used by 
ICPAK as well as IFAC. ICPAK states that accountants have 
a role to safeguard public interest.  You may want to make a 
general comment on this statement. 
Definition: 
 
 
Cost / benefit 
 
 
Rigour of process 
A definition of public interest says that the net benefits derived 
for, and procedural rigor employed on behalf of, all society in 
relation to any action, decision or policy. What do you think of 
this definition? 
What do you think about accountants serving society 
precisely in by ensuring the benefits from their 
interventions, that is their work outweighs the related costs? 
What is your opinion that accountants serve society best 
when their work meets the high standards of regulation and 
the set standards  
Qualities of the actions of a 
professional accountant 
To safeguard the public interest, there is a view that the 
following are the qualities an accountant should exercise in 
their professional work. Please tell me what you think of 
them. 
Transparency 
 91 
 
Public accountability 
Independence 
Competence 
Adherence to due process 
Ensuring all groups involved should participate in decision 
making 
Public Who do you think are the public in the term public interest? 
Interest What does interest mean for you in the term public interest? 
Responsibility What is the most important responsibility for a professional 
accountant, and, why do you think so? 
Any other comments or 
observations 
Would you have any other comments or observation I have 
not covered on public interest? If so, would you like to 
enumerate them? 
 
 92 
 
Appendix VI: Main Characteristics of Public Interest for Accountants 
The main characteristics of public interest from the IFAC 2012 document 
IFAC  Characteristics for Summary 
Cost / benefit: Benefits from 
actions outweigh costs 
Accountants serve society best by ensuring benefits 
outweigh the ensuing costs. 
Process and Qualities thereof: 
Accountants need guidance of regulatory and 
standards-setting bodies 
 Transparency: 
Making information accessible 
to the public.  
Accountants make known to the public information 
related to the processes they undertake to reach 
decisions that impact on the public. 
 Public Accountability: 
 
Accountants subject themselves to scrutiny, letting 
themselves be monitored to improving their services, 
and raising their credibility and trustworthiness  
 Independence: 
 
Accountants have an obligation to act conduct 
themselves in a way that a knowledgeable third-party 
will not doubt the professionals’ freedom from bias or 
prejudice 
 Competence: 
 
Accountants need the prerequisite capacity to undertake 
the tasks they commit to in accord with the regulatory 
and standards-setting boards’ guidelines 
 Adherence to due 
process 
 
The manner in which accountants carry out their 
professional tasks for the service of society should 
follow relevant guidelines that another accountant 
would be able to understand how the first accountant 
arrived at his conclusions 
 Participation 
Accountant need to ensure that all the parties affected 
by their work should participate in clarifying the kind of 
services required by the accountant. 
Who are the public: 
On the one hand, the public for accountants is every 
single individual in society, while on the other it is those 
groups of people affected by the action of accountants. 
Interest: 
 
Interests are those things that affect individuals’ 
economic well-being, which accountants through their 
work bear an impact on. 
The responsibilities of 
accountants and the 
accountancy profession acting 
in the public interest: 
The responsibility of the accounting in line with the 
public interest is mainly to provide sound, verifiable, 
true information related to certain financial matters. 
 93 
 
Appendix VII: Summary of Common Good Features 
The table below contains the main features of the common good reached in the discussion 
on the common good in section 2.3 above, with a summary provided in subsection 2.3.8 
also above. The main characteristics of public interest noted in Chapter 4, are analysed 
in Chapter 5 using these features of the common good. 
Feature 
The common good relates to an objective good 
The common good relates a true good, which is transcendent 
The common good is a goal 
The common good relates a good that is indivisible 
The common good ultimately relates virtues 
The common good is common to all 
In striving for one’s proper good, a person contributes to the common good 
 94 
 
Appendix VIII: Summarised Responses from Interviews of ICPAK Members 
Topic Question 
Quotes from interviews of ICPAK members 
A. Background 
of interviewees 
a. Gender 
6 male interviewees 
b. How long have 
you worked in the 
accounting 
profession? 
1. Over forty years 
2. Over 6 years 
3. 10 years 
4. Over 40 years 
5. 15 years 
6. 0 – 5 years category 
c. How long have 
you been a member 
of ICPAK? 
1. Over 35 years 
2. Over 6 years 
3. 10 years 
4. Over 35 years 
5. 15 years 
6. 2 years 
d. What sector have 
you worked besides 
Strathmore 
University? 
1. Auditing 
2. Profit generating organization 
3. Business advisory services 
4. Profit generating organization 
5. Auditing 
6. Profit generating organization 
e. Have you 
worked in another 
1.   
2. Profit generating organization 
3.   
4. Government agency 
 95 
 
sector before the 
previous one? 
5. Profit generating organization 
6.   
B. Introduction  
 
What you think 
about public 
interest? 
1. PI similar to the CG ‘taking into account those ‘you’ serve’ 
2. PI – what citizens of a country give importance to and not limited to financial matters.  
3. The interest outsiders have on the effects of the economic engagements of an entity. 
4. PI is related to the well-being of society, the public good, which a professional 
achieves by working with professionalism and honesty 
5. The public good; the good of the public in general, as opposed to the selfish interest of 
directors and employees 
6. … interests of the public … our society as a whole … public interest - it’s a very 
important topic for us. 
C. General 
thoughts on 
accountant’s role 
  
By way of 
introduction, public 
interest is a term 
used by ICPAK as 
well as IFAC. ICPAK 
states that 
accountants have a 
role to safeguard 
public interest.  You 
may want to make a 
general comment on 
this statement. 
1. Average member of ICPAK … is probably not aware of the fact that we have a duty to 
uphold the PI, or people pay lip-service to it given the collapse of morals in society 
2. Accountants are meant to be watchdogs. They are supposed to raise the concern 
3. [Agreement with the role of accountants] however the magnitude varies from one 
entity to the other 
4. … their actions are not subject to affect negatively the, the public, the general good of 
people 
5. … looking out for the common good of the public 
6. … financial statements are true and fair and based on that a lot of decisions are made. 
According to me it is very true and, I agree with that statement 
 96 
 
D. Definition: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E. Cost / benefit 
 
 
 
 
 
A definition of public 
interest says that the 
net benefits derived for, 
and procedural rigor 
employed on behalf of, 
all society in relation to 
any action, decision or 
policy. What do you 
think of this 
definition? 
1. … it is a relevant definition. … [though] it’s very easy to pay lip-service to … PI; … it 
is …much more difficult in practise it. 
2.  Net benefits relates to proper utilisation of funds…to improve living standards. In 
terms of procedural rigour… it [is] the training given to accountants … to the good of 
the public. 
3. … there are other matters which can’t be measured, …I feel it doesn’t capture that 
when it talks of net benefits, it kind of restricts it to economics. … talking about 
action, decision or policy, which is good. At least it captures the behaviour of the 
entity. ... it could be expanded 
4. Not too bad … it may be improved, … very general 
5. I found it a bit too general… …because they have to define what are these benefits to 
the public…also, it also does not encompass who are all society… all society,… 
because I do not believe the accountant can be accountable to society in general. … [it 
can be] … more specific. 
6. I … agree to it because for us to be able safeguard PI we will have to employ certain 
regulations and procedures; and, we will have to do our work more rigorously. 
What do you think 
about accountants 
serving society 
precisely in by 
ensuring the benefits 
from their 
interventions, that is 
their work 
outweighs the 
related costs? 
1. My view about this is that again, we will talk about this but the reality on the ground 
is different. … very often accountants want a salary which is in fact out of proportion 
to their benefits to society 
2. … when the accountants do what is expected of them, they override their self-interest 
to serve the society, … they will be upholding integrity …even to the extent it is going 
to cost them their job …they will still stand firm for the truth of which is essential in 
this case. 
3. …it’s easier said than done. … how will you quantify even the benefits? …we can 
measure the cost. …the benefits …qualitatively speaking they might outweigh the 
costs. …then what the accountants can do there is do the best they can to report 
where they can quantify. They tell us what the benefits are, and what costs have been 
incurred. …I would also expect them to also look at that which cannot be quantified 
and report it to us, because as accountants, we are also supposed to disclose… 
 97 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
F. Rigour of 
process 
4. Yes, the benefits are much, much more, because if we are all people of integrity, and 
are doing the right things, and people make decisions because of what we tell them, 
therefore, the public would be richer, and more advised and more guided 
5. We’d need to define these benefits to society. And, secondly, what are these costs? 
…if we’re to meet …all the interests of the public, the costs would have to be very 
high. The cost and the time…it is not even possible for the accountant to … to meet all 
the interest. 
6. Ideally, yes, the benefits should outweigh the cost. But, it’s not always the case …you 
might not get all the benefits you want. There are people who are ethical and doing 
the right thing… It is difficult to determine the benefits. …if everything is in order, 
and PI has been safeguarded, meaning the society has been taken care of, …I think 
that’s the benefit. 
What is your opinion 
that accountants 
serve society best 
when their work 
meets the high 
standards of 
regulation and the 
set standards  
1. …over regulation first of all, it leads to an increase in the cost of doing business 
2. …proper skills set and training and also the knowledge of accountants ... if they are 
adopted it will inform the decision which can be put in place. 
3. I am usual very happy when accountants are demanding of their clients to report. 
…there are so many things that they will do in furtherance of PI that may not be 
popular 
4. I’d agree with it. … Standards are just the minimum, suppose if you can do more, so 
much the better. …standards are set for the general public,… 
5. …the ethical standards, which have to be enforced. …the higher the enforcement, the 
better these public interests are met 
6. …we should have a set rule and regulation; and the process should be rigorous. 
When a process is left for… principles-based, the accountants will always look for 
loopholes in trying to minimize costs, therefore they will not carry out their work as 
they should have. …I would definitely support a proper framework and rigorous 
regulations. 
 98 
 
G. Qualities of 
the actions of a 
professional 
accountant 
To safeguard the 
public interest, there 
is a view that the 
following are the 
qualities an 
accountant should 
exercise in their 
professional work. 
Please tell me what 
you think of them. 
 
a. Transparency 
1. … it is a very good idea. … they understand what transparency really means. 
2. …an accountant, …you are supposed to be a truthful and honest person. 
3. … tell us everything there. ... need to be cautious, …there could be better ways of 
disclosing to the relevant stakeholders, so that they can take action. …that is 
protecting PI. … it would be better that information goes to the regulator …for the 
benefit of the long-term survival of the entity. 
4. That is a quality he [the accountant] should to have 
5. …it is easier to identify and fraud or any risk at an early stage, because it [the entity] 
is transparent 
6. …whatever information or whatever the details are available should be very easily 
available to the public at large. …that would make an organization transparent. It’s 
policies and procedures should be readily available for the general public or the 
society. Now, that way, it is easier to identify and fraud or any risk at an early stage… 
For a private entity, it would be difficult to have everything transparent. Although, 
there should be some policies which should by law, according to me, be made 
available according to the public.  
b. Public 
accountability 
1. …it is a noble cause; it is a noble idea. It really depends on two things: 1. the level of 
education …the better educated a person is, the more he or she will understand the 
duty of public accountability. … also depends very much on culture. 
 99 
 
2. …[the accountant] should act in a manner that should safeguard the economic 
resources of a society, …like whistleblowing or something which is unethical 
according to his judgement 
3. Are we getting value for money, as [the] public? … it is the accountant there to come 
in and tell us that story. 
4. …he[the accountant] must be accountable to the public. He must know whatever… he 
has a fiduciary duty 
5.   
6. …it is more about public organizations not private 
c. Independence 
1. … is one of those things, which is stressed. …very often we are not actually 
addressing a … more fundamental problem, which is made of two elements: 1. 
honesty; integrity; 2. …courage 
2. He is someone who can stand firm, and without any interference or …in his reporting 
3. …[accountants] should …be aware of their bigger call, that of protecting the PI. … if 
they feel there are things happening within the company which are not proper, they 
should always find ways of making sure that they are addressed. …as auditors … 
independence becomes very important …they are there because of the public …they 
should always uphold that independence. 
4. … [accountants] must not be influenced by anyone in sight, for any price. 
Independence is a must, regardless of what influence, or what interference, or 
whatever kind of inducement that may be made for them to change that 
independence. Without it, everything is lost. 
5. … independence is very important. The higher the independence, the more the public 
interest is met 
6. Independence is crucial …accountants always face true ethical issues, to put their 
interests before the public interest. …they should independent. …we are trained to be 
independent and ethical. 
d. Competence 
1. …as soon as they’ve qualify as an accountant, books are left aside …people are not 
really concerned with remaining technically competent… 
 100 
 
2. … an accountant, should be someone who can apply his skills in the right 
context…He should be someone who is up to date with what is happening in the 
accounting world. 
3. …building confidence in this public. How do you do that? It’s how you do your 
work. …you have to demonstrate you did what you were supposed to do 
4. Unless really you are competent, you have no business in being an accountant, and 
calling yourself that, because you end up misleading everybody and that is a disaster. 
…competence stands out number one for me. 
5. …you have to be competent and practise due diligence on your work 
6. …you have to have constant training … the CPD requirements we’ve got for ICPAK, 
in specific I think is not sufficient. … I think they should make the process more 
rigorous. … the person in charge of safeguarding the PI or in charge of the finances of 
that company should be competent in the field we expect he or she to be competent 
in. 
e. Adherence to 
due process 
1. We pay lip service to this. … and we very often with the more important areas we in 
fact do not follow the due process because it is inconvenient. 
2. As an accountant he should not be in a position to be tempted to cut corners. He 
should be able to follow the guidelines 
3. …there has to be a systematic approach in the way we approach our work as 
accountants. I would say that feeds into competence, due care, skill, how we do our 
work, it has to be procedural. We really have to have some clearance of some sort, be 
it ethical clearance. 
4. That one is in need in guidelines, which guides your processes 
5. I take this is carrying out work as per the standards. So, if that’s what that means, 
then its, this is very important. Those standards are set up to ensure that the auditor 
carries work in a certain way, which is guaranteed to give a certain result or 
anticipated result. It’s very important that the auditor or accountant adheres to due 
process. 
6. That is a must. You have to adhere to due processes. 
 101 
 
f. Ensuring all 
groups involved 
should participate in 
decision making 
1. I do not agree with this at all. I believe … is talking about democracy. … a situation 
where you try to be totally inclusive and you end up in a totally mess. …some people 
will … be involved in decision making, and very often those people do not have 
correct criteria. 
2. …of course the decision making affects the shareholders, the managers. …need to 
assess the situation and … figure out when we should engage them and how; to what 
extent. Of course, not fully, throughout the project or whatever we are doing 
3. …this could be a tall order especially when you bring in the society. It would be like 
allowing everybody to run the affairs of the company now ... if we allow everyone to 
run it, there will be chaos. We have to entrust a few people… we have to trust this 
accountant in what they are doing. …to trust the accountant. We have to have the 
profession. …we can’t all be involved in decision-making of an entity, or whatever it 
is, it won’t be possible. …we can …be proactive enough and see who we should 
engage, who’s involved, and when we can make the decisions on our own. 
4. …, involved in what? Who are they? Unless we define the groups – we can give the 
wrong answer. 
5.  
6. That one is difficult… You cannot make everyone happy. …at the end of the day, the 
work must be done. …if you are trying to get everyone’s opinions, and make the 
decisions, it’s hard, it is not possible, [and] so what we would go for is the common 
good. 
H. Public Who do you think 
are the public in the 
term ‘public 
interest’? 
1. …public …means the whole of society ... All human kind. 
2. …relate it to the citizens of that country …working both in the public and private 
sectors. … should be of age of reason. 
3. …public differs across entities, … at the exposure involved and the number of 
members of the public that are likely to be affected 
4. …anyone who gets information about what I do …means anyone who may be 
affected by what I do.  
 102 
 
5. …other than shareholders, the rest of… the other stakeholders who do not have a 
direct contact with the company. Those affected and those who may be affected… 
potentially. 
6. …is the general society, which includes investors, taxpayers, banks, everyone, 
whether you have direct or an indirect connection. 
I. Interest What does interest 
mean for you in the 
term ‘public 
interest’? 
1. …It is really the good of those particular people from a holistic point of view 
2. … that which concerns the citizens, because it directly affects them. 
3. … Not just the economics, but also affecting the normal way of life, our environment 
4. … Interest therefore means anyone who will want to know what I did, …who will be 
affected by what I did, … 
5. …the monetary interest, there’s monetary, there’s social, environmental 
6. …if there is any rights or obligations in regard to a certain individual or party, they 
would be interested. 
J. Responsibility What is the most 
important 
responsibility for a 
professional 
accountant, and, why 
do you think so? 
1. Number one, honesty is very important… without honesty, basically …no one trusts 
anyone else. 
2. …the most important responsibility of an accountant is integrity. … other desirable 
qualities are under it, are under integrity. 
3. The greatest responsibility is to be truthful.  
4. …independent and accurate reporting based on competence, guided by competence. 
… many people depend on their [the accountant’s] opinion, they [users] rely on that 
to make decisions that are huge and have consequences if their wrong 
5. …the auditor must report on the truth and fair ... the true picture of what is 
happening within the organization. 
6. I think it is safeguarding PI. It is very important, especially for accountants in the 
public sector. Because, it’s simple, if the accountant does not act as expected, or the 
accountant does not do what he or she is expected to do, it leads to a domino effect 
whereby a lot of losses are made. The impact is significant. 
 103 
 
K. Any other 
comments or 
observations 
Would you have any 
other comments or 
observation I have 
not covered on 
public interest? If so, 
would you like to 
enumerate them? 
1.  I tend to feel that we have a very, very much bigger issue in Kenya 
2. …the area of PI has not been sort of sensitised. It has not been given much of the 
attention it deserves… 
3. …looks like there are ongoing discussions made on how we [accountants] can better 
our profession in furtherance of the PI. 
4. …the tragedy of PI… you still keep on seeing companies going the wrong way just 
after the auditor have certified …They knew about PI …people still find serious 
shortfalls …despite having gotten a clean audit report from the auditors…. 
5.   
6. …we have covered almost all the topics…  
 104 
 
Appendix IX: Strathmore University Research Office Approval to Collect 
Data within the University 
 
 105 
 
Appendix X: Approval by Strathmore University Institutional Ethics 
Review Committee 
 
 106 
 
Appendix XI: Turnitin Report on this Dissertation