The Impact of Machine Learning Algorithms in Financial Forecasting on Accountants' Professional Ethical Conflicts: The Guiding Role of AI Governance and Ethical Standards
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-jefrr/V1E6/2025-04Keywords:
Machine learning, financial forecasting, accounting professional ethics, ethical conflicts, AI governance, ethical standards.Abstract
This study aims to explore the emerging professional ethical conflicts faced by accountants when applying machine learning (ML) algorithms in financial forecasting, while also evaluating the guiding role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance frameworks and current ethical standards. Using a qualitative research method, the paper conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with senior managers and experts in the finance-accounting and technology sectors in Vietnam, followed by thematic data analysis. The findings indicate the emergence of new, complex ethical conflicts, including algorithmic bias challenging objectivity, the “black box” problem eroding professional judgment, and an accountability gap leading to a “blame the machine” mentality. The study also reveals that current ethical standards have become inadequate, while corporate AI governance frameworks remain formalistic and limited. Theoretically, the study proposes an expansion of the concept of accountants' professional competence to include both “digital literacy” and “digital ethics literacy.” Practically, the results emphasize the urgent need for professional associations to update standards, for businesses to build substantive AI governance frameworks, and for educational institutions to reform their curricula to equip the future generation of accountants.
References
1) Alles, M. G. (2015). Drivers of the use and facilitators and obstacles of the evolution of big data by the audit profession. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 439-449.
2) Bhimani, A., & Willcocks, L. (2014). Digitisation, ‘Big Data’ and the transformation of accounting information. Accounting and Business Research, 44(4), 469-490.
3) Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
4) Chin, M. H., Afsar-Manesh, N., Bierman, A. S., Chang, C., Colón-Rodríguez, C. J., Dullabh, P., ... & Ohno-Machado, L. (2023). Guiding principles to address the impact of algorithm bias on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care. JAMA Network Open, 6(12), e2345050.
5) Fischer, T., & Krauss, C. (2018). Deep learning with long short-term memory networks for financial market predictions. European Journal of Operational Research, 270(2), 654-669.
6) Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2020). Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2223-2273.
7) International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). (2022). Handbook of the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International Independence Standards). International Federation of Accountants.
https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/IESBA-Handbook-2022-Edition.pdf
8) Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183.
9) Moll, J., & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2019). The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. The British Accounting Review, 51(6), 100833.
10) O'neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
11) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
12) Samuel, A. L. (1959). Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 3(3), 210-229.
13) Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 118-132.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hong Van Tran (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
