The Overstated Expense Claim
A junior accounts assistant, Maya, is processing expense claims. She notices that her line manager, David, has submitted a claim for a £340 client dinner. The receipt is attached but is for £240; David has added a handwritten note saying 'plus taxi £100' with no taxi receipt. Company policy requires receipts for all items over £25 and states that claims must be approved by someone other than the claimant. David is also the person who approves Maya's claims and conducts her appraisal. When Maya queries the taxi element, David says the taxi was 'cash, no receipt, just put it through - it's normal practice here.' Maya is on a temporary contract and hopes to be made permanent.
1. Identify the ethical issues in this situation and explain why they matter, referring to the fundamental principles of professional ethics.
Read the worked answer
Several ethical principles are engaged:
Integrity: Submitting a claim that includes an unsupported £100 item, and describing it as 'normal practice', is dishonest. Integrity requires being straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships.
Objectivity: Maya is under pressure because David controls her appraisal and permanent contract. This creates a conflict of interest that threatens her ability to act objectively and without bias.
Professional behaviour: David's instruction to 'just put it through' asks Maya to breach company policy (receipts over £25, approval by someone other than the claimant). Complying would bring her and the finance function into disrepute.
Confidentiality and competence are less central here, but the lack of a receipt also reflects poor record-keeping.
The core issue is that the claimant is also the approver, which is a structural control failure as well as an ethical one. The judgement is that the claim should not be processed as submitted, and the pressure from a superior does not justify overriding policy.
2. Recommend what Maya should do, considering her vulnerable position as a temporary worker.
Read the worked answer
Maya should act on the principle that policy and integrity take priority over personal convenience, while protecting herself appropriately.
Immediate steps:
- Do not process the £100 taxi element. Process only the £240 supported by receipt, or hold the whole claim pending resolution.
- Ask David, in writing (email), to provide a receipt or a written explanation for the taxi cost, so there is a record of the request.
Escalation: Because David is both claimant and approver, the claim must be approved by someone independent - typically his manager or the finance director. Maya should raise the matter with that person, framing it as a policy/control question rather than an accusation.
Protecting herself: Keep copies of correspondence. If informal escalation fails, use the company's whistleblowing or grievance procedure. Her temporary status does not remove her professional obligations, and retaliating against a worker for raising a genuine concern would itself be improper.
Judgement: The proportionate response is to refuse to process the unsupported element, seek independent approval, and escalate through proper channels - not to confront David publicly or to comply to protect her contract prospects.