Ethics & Conduct Module
The parts of professional ethics and governance that are bright lines rather than judgement calls: the fee-dependency thresholds of the IESBA Code, key-audit-partner rotation and cooling-off, the EU 70% cap on non-audit fees, and the King IV composition of a governing body.
Lineage
- Conquest Designer University, 2026 — authored from the brief, the IESBA Code and King IV; no prior institution is claimed
Final research project
Where conduct has a bright line: fees, tenure, non-audit services and board composition
Syllabus
- The conceptual framework: identify, evaluate and address threats; where the Code sets a bright line (IESBA Part 1, Section 120)
- Independence and fees: fee dependency on a client, disclosure, review and withdrawal (Section 410)
- Long association: time-on, cooling-off by role (Section 540); non-audit-fee caps (EU 537/2014 Art. 4(2))
- Governance: non-executive majority, independence, executive presence on the board (King IV Principle 7)
Reference
- Fee dependency (PIE)
- fees from the client > 15% of the firm’s total fees for two consecutive years: disclose to those charged with governance and arrange a pre-issuance review; for five consecutive years: cease to be auditor (IESBA s410)
- Fee dependency (non-PIE)
- > 30% for five consecutive years: disclose and arrange a review (IESBA s410)
- Key audit partner (PIE)
- time-on 7 years; cooling-off: engagement partner 5, EQR 3, other KAP 2 (IESBA s540)
- EU non-audit fee cap
- non-audit fees ≤ 70% of the average audit fee of the last three consecutive years (Art. 4(2))
- King IV Principle 7
- a majority of non-executive members, most of them independent; at least the CEO and the finance executive on the board
Units
Fee dependency on an audit client · Key audit partner rotation and cooling-off · EU cap on non-audit fees · Governing-body composition (King IV Principle 7)
Role when narrated: You are an ethics partner advising a firm or a board. Name the provision, apply the bright line to the facts, and separate what the Code requires from the judgement that remains with the professional.
Fee dependency on an audit client · fee_dependency
Example filled in — consult belowGiven the share of the firm’s fees this client has paid each year, what does the IESBA Code require?
Reference: IESBA Code Section 410 (revised fee-related provisions, effective for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2022): PIE 15% for two / five consecutive years; non-PIE 30% for five consecutive years
Returns
- threshold
- 0.15 (PIE) or 0.30 (non-PIE)
- consecutiveYearsAbove
- Years in a row, ending with the latest, above the threshold
- action
- none, disclose-and-pre-issuance-review, cease-after-fifth-year, or disclose-and-review
The example
{
"publicInterestEntity": true,
"feeShares": [
0.12,
0.16,
0.17
]
}
Agents: POST /faculty/ethics--conduct-module/fee_dependency with JSON {pan, …inputs} and the x-402-payment header. Manifest.
Key audit partner rotation and cooling-off · partner_rotation
Try with the exampleFor this role on a PIE audit, must the partner rotate off now, and for how long must they stay off?
Reference: IESBA Code Section 540 (PIE audit clients): R540.5 time-on of 7 years; cooling-off R540.11 (engagement partner 5), R540.12 (EQR 3), R540.14 (other key audit partner 2)
Returns
- mustRotate
- Years served ≥ 7
- yearsRemaining
- Years left before the time-on limit
- coolingOffYears
- Consecutive years off once rotated
The example
{
"role": "engagement_partner",
"yearsServed": 6
}
Agents: POST /faculty/ethics--conduct-module/partner_rotation with JSON {pan, …inputs} and the x-402-payment header. Manifest.
EU cap on non-audit fees · non_audit_fee_cap
Try with the exampleDo this year’s non-audit fees stay within 70% of the average audit fee of the last three years?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 Art. 4(2): where non-audit services are provided for three or more consecutive years, their fees are limited to 70% of the average audit fee of the last three consecutive years
Returns
- averageAuditFee
- Mean of the three years
- cap
- 70% of the average
- headroom
- Cap − non-audit fees (negative: over the cap)
- breach
- Non-audit fees above the cap
The example
{
"auditFeesLastThreeYears": [
1200000,
1250000,
1300000
],
"nonAuditFeesThisYear": 700000
}
Agents: POST /faculty/ethics--conduct-module/non_audit_fee_cap with JSON {pan, …inputs} and the x-402-payment header. Manifest.
Governing-body composition (King IV Principle 7) · board_independence
Try with the exampleDoes the board have a non-executive majority, mostly independent, with at least two executives?
Reference: King IV Report (2016) Principle 7, recommended practices: a majority of non-executive members, most of whom should be independent; the CEO and the executive responsible for finance as members
Returns
- nonExecutiveMajority
- Non-executives > half the board
- independentMajorityOfNeds
- Independents > half the non-executives
- atLeastTwoExecutives
- Executives ≥ 2
- compliant
- All three
The example
{
"totalMembers": 12,
"nonExecutiveMembers": 9,
"independentNonExecutives": 6
}
Agents: POST /faculty/ethics--conduct-module/board_independence with JSON {pan, …inputs} and the x-402-payment header. Manifest.