(c) Absolutism and relativism

　　Absolutism and relativism represent two extreme positions of ethical assumptions.
 

　　Definitions

　　An absolutist assumption is one that believes that there are ‘eternal’ rules that should guide all ethical and moral decision making in all situations. Accordingly，in any given situation，there is likely to be one right course of action regardless of the outcome. An absolutist believes that this should be chosen regardless of the consequences or the cost. A dogmatic approach to morality is an example of an absolutist approach to ethics. A dogmatic assumption is one that is accepted without discussion or debate.

　　Relativist assumptions are ‘situational’ in nature. Rather than arguing that there is a single right choice，a relativist will tend to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide，in the light of the situation being considered，which is the best outcome. This will involve a decision on what outcome is the most favourable and that is a matter of personal judgment.
 

　　Outcomes

　　If Anne were to adopt absolutist/dogmatic assumptions，she would be likely to decide that she would need to pursue what she perceives is the right course of action regardless of cost to herself or the relationship with the client or her manager. Given that she unearthed a suspect and unaccounted-for payment，and that she received an inadequate explanation from the client，she would probably recommend extension to the audit beyond the weekend.

　　If Ann were to adopt relativist or pragmatic assumptions，she would have a potentially much more complicated decision to make. She would have to decide whether it was more important，ethically，to yield to the pressure from Zachary in the interests of her short-term career interests or ‘hold out’ to protect the interests of the shareholders. Anne could recommend sign off and trust the FD’s explanation but she is more likely to seek further evidence or assurance from the company before she does so.
 

　　3 (a) Defining and explaining agency

　　Agency is defined in relation to a principal. A principal appoints an agent to act on his or her behalf. In the case of corporate governance，the principal is a shareholder in a joint stock company and the agents (that have an agency relationship with principals)are the directors. The directors remain accountable to the principals for the stewardship of their investment in the company. In the case of Rosh，60% of the shares are owned by shareholders external to the Rosh family and the board has agency responsibility to those shareholders.

　　Criticisms of Rosh‘s CG arrangements

　　The corporate governance arrangements at Rosh and Company are far from ideal. Five points can be made based on the evidence in the case.

　　There are several issues associated with the non-executive directors (NEDs)at Rosh. It is doubtful whether two NEDs are enough to bring sufficient scrutiny to the executive board. Some corporate governance codes require half of the board of larger companies to be non-executive and Rosh would clearly be in breach of such a requirement. Perhaps of equal concern，there is significant doubt over the independence of the current NEDs as they were recruited from retired executive members of the board and presumably have relationships with existing executives going back many years. Some corporate governance codes (such as the UK Combined Code)specify that NEDs should not have worked for the company within the last five years. Again，Rosh would be in breach of this provision.