Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine companies’ reasons for voluntarily obtaining third-party integrated reporting (IR) assurance and the role of external auditors in the assurance process.

By conducting 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews, a wide range of significant actors in the assurance process of integrated reports are addressed. In addition, archive materials are considered. The authors apply institutional theory, agency theory, and the diffusion of innovations theory to analyze IR assurance.

Companies follow coercive pressures by their stakeholders when obtaining external assurance. They intend to appreciate their non-financial indicators and increase their credibility and reliability. Auditors play an important role as change agents for the implementation of IR assurance by, e.g., supporting the correct interpretation of the International Integrated Reporting Council standards and by promoting IR.

First, 25 in-depth interviews can only give a first insight about the stated questions. Second, this paper only considers auditors and company representatives from Germany. Third, investors were not questioned about their attitude toward IR assurance.

The results may serve as a basis for the implementation of IR assurance.

This study combines the relatively unexplored research field of IR with three established theories. Hereby, it exposes companies’ motivation for obtaining external assurance and auditors’ role on the assurance process.

Sustainability assurance services are carried out in a competitive market where a wide range of assurance providers operate without the need for any specific professional qualifications, competencies or skills. Assurance providers have heterogeneous professional backgrounds and experiences that lead to substantial diversity in sustainability assurance quality levels. This paper aims to provide an understanding of sustainability assurance quality. From a legitimacy perspective, the authors focus on the choice of assurance providers by exploring why a company voluntarily chooses an incumbent financial auditor to jointly provide audit and sustainability assurance services. The authors argue that to avoid the legitimacy threats undermining stakeholders’ confidence in the sustainability information disclosed, companies should only choose their incumbent financial auditors to provide sustainability assurance services when these auditors possess the professional attributes associated with sustainability assurance quality.

This study develops regression models for an international sample for 2007–2016, where the authors analyze why a company voluntarily chooses an incumbent auditor to jointly provide audit and sustainability assurance services from a legitimacy theory perspective.

Evidence confirms that the choice of incumbent auditors as assurance providers is more likely when these providers are more specialized in the industry. The authors also find that independence does not play a significant role in this decision. Therefore, an assurance provider’s industry specialization can be understood as an attribute that is associated with sustainability assurance quality and one which limits the legitimacy threats caused by a lack of sufficient sustainability knowledge.

Given that companies have complete freedom when choosing their assurance providers, the selection of a high-quality incumbent auditor is an indirect measure of social commitment and a mechanism to improve public trust. The results confirm that it is fundamental for firms to understand the situations when choosing an incumbent financial auditor to provide sustainability assurance services is the best way to ensure firm legitimacy while obtaining higher sustainability assurance quality due to the spillover effect. This paper provides useful evidence for firms and managers who can become aware that the legitimacy threat associated with the auditing profession’s questionable competence to conduct efficient sustainability assurance engagements can be reduced if they hire an incumbent financial auditor with greater industry specialization. For assurance providers, the results are especially useful, as they should know that companies will be more likely to choose their incumbent financial auditor when that auditor possesses certain professional attributes, like industry specialization. The ability to assimilate and exploit the knowledge gained through auditing activities can be improved even more by specialization, which enhances sustainability assurance quality.

From a social perspective, stakeholders perceive industry specialization as an indicator of the professional skills necessary to increase both the real and perceived quality of sustainability assurance services, thereby limiting the legitimacy threat arising from a lack of sustainability knowledge. The evidence also provides valuable results for regulatory bodies, as it shows that firms are not able to address the legitimacy gap caused by stakeholders’ perceptions that incumbent financial auditors can easily be controlled by companies. Thus, doubts arise as to whether this joint provision undermines auditor independence. Precisely, these doubts about assurance provider independence can erode public confidence in assurance and devalue the quality of the service. The results of this paper highlight the need to strengthen regulation on sustainability reporting and assurance. The advances and relevance of sustainable development in recent years and in future agendas require a firm commitment to sustainability reporting and assurance of quality, reliability, integrity and confidence.

First, this study contributes to recent empirical studies that focus on the role of sustainability assurance services in the legitimation process of corporate sustainability reporting. However, while that research analyzes how the legitimacy theory explains the voluntary adoption of sustainability assurance, this paper adds to the literature by presenting evidence about why certain incumbent auditors are appointed to carry out sustainability assurance services. Second, this paper contributes to the sustainability assurance quality literature. Third, unlike previous studies that have regressed various client-specific and institutional factors that influence firms’ decisions to choose assurance providers, this study contributes to the research by providing knowledge about a set of professional features that may explain the decision model of assurance providers selection from a legitimacy perspective.

This paper aims to examine the practice of sustainability assurance and in particular the content of the assurance reports disseminated in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. The objective of the research is to study the evolution of the content of the assurance reports of French companies. Have the reports evolved as a result of the standardization and regulation of the audit?

A longitudinal study has been carried out on French companies publishing CSR reports and their sustainability information has been checked for several years. The sample is composed of 19 listed French companies and 135 assurance reports over a period from 2001 to 2015.

The results highlight a change in the content of assurance reports according to standardization and regulatory of sustainability auditing. The content evolves from a generic discourse to a normative discourse notably because of the realization of a majority of assurance missions by accounting professionals and the increasing use of ISAE 3000 as well as by the introduction of the Grenelle II Law.

This paper shows how assurance reports have evolved over time in a particular regulatory context of the introduction of a law specific to assurance, Grenelle II Law, using a sample of French companies.

Although some studies have attempted to provide a historical analysis of this practice, no research has focused on longitudinal analysis in a particular context of introduction of a law specific to the assurance mission. The lack in previous literature resides in the lack of longitudinal analysis of assurance reports in the light of the evolution of the normative and regulatory frameworks.

This study aims to examine trends in the global assurance practices of sustainability reports, updating and broaden the extant literature and proving new insights that could guide future research.

The data were collected for 12,783 companies and exploratory descriptive analyses of sustainability reporting assurance practices were undertaken.

The study shows that assurance growth is lagging behind the growth in sustainability reporting. It reveals that assurer switching is a common practice amongst companies. There is an increasing trend towards the use of the International Standard for Assurance Engagements 3000 by non-accounting assurers. Additionally, in terms of assurance providers, the study finds that accounting firms are dominating the market, however, engineering firms are fast increasing their share of the sustainability assurance market, whilst consulting firms’ share is decreasing. However, the switch towards consulting firms is higher than the switch towards accounting firms in the last switch period.

Overall, the results of this study provide insights about companies’ assurance practices for regulators, assurance providers and companies interested in assuring their sustainability reports.

This study is relevant for companies’ stakeholders, including investors, to enhance their understanding of companies’ current assurance practices.

Prior studies on the assurance practices of sustainability reports are limited in scope (concentrate on large companies) and depth (examine accounting vs non-accounting assures and consider the evolving patterns at the institutional rather than firm-level). This study presents developments and trajectories of assurance practices to inform researchers and practitioners on the global trends by bringing an updated and broader perspective on the topic.

Although the association between sustainability assurance (SA) quality and firm value has been examined in previous studies, the moderating relationship is novel in this study and highlights the effect of corporate environmental sustainability performance (CESP) on the relationship between SA quality and firm value. This study aims to examine whether such an effect is strengthened or weakened by eco-efficiency, as measured by ISO 14001 certification, aggregate CESP score and each individual dimension of CESP (emission reduction [ER], resource reduction [RR] and product innovation [PI]).

The sample includes 40 companies in Euronext Paris with the largest market capitalisations (the Cotation Assistée en Continu 40 [CAC 40] index) from 2010 to 2020. The authors apply the feasible generalised least squares regression technique to estimate all the regression models. Because observed associations may be biased by reverse causation or self-selection, the authors use the instrumental variable approach and Heckman two-stage estimation.

The results show that SA quality had a positive and significant effect on firm value. Second, the authors demonstrate that CESP, as assessed by ISO 14001 certification, has a stronger interaction with assurance quality and acting as a moderator variable. Using the ASSET4 scores, an alternative proxy for CESP, the authors find inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of CESP attributes. The CESP and ER scores are homogeneous and have a positive effect on firm value. However, the PI and RR CESP attributes are not homogenous and do not have the same interactive effect on firm value. The results are robust to the use of an instrumental variable approach and the Heckman two-stage estimation procedure.

Policy implications: Regulators may be interested in the findings when considering current and future assurance requirements for sustainability reporting, and shareholders when considering SA as an investment choice criterion. The insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining high SA quality can help policymakers develop effective policies and initiatives for SA. Considering the possible improvements in sustainability performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating SA.

Firms receive clear confirmation of the importance of investing in SA quality. Financial markets do not evaluate SA dichotomously but reward companies with higher SA quality because of the greater credibility it provides. Firms should allocate a significant percentage of their annual budgets and other relevant resources to environmental training and development programmes to improve and maintain environmental performance. If they care about environmental issues, they must announce this by issuing sustainability reports and seeking assurance of the information disclosed. High-quality assurance not only has a significant effect on investors’ investment reliability judgements but also the perceived credibility of environmental performance fully moderates the effect of assurance on these judgements.

This study has social implications; the authors find that the French market rewards firms that provide a high-quality assurance to guarantee the integrity of their sustainability reports. Therefore, by incorporating environmental sustainability into their financial goals, a better assurance ultimately will urge firms to move from green washing to strategic goals, which is beneficial for society. Further, firms that focus on sustainability as part of their business strategy may attract employees who engage in green behaviours at work and create a friendlier and productive environment because it gives meaning to the work they do and keeps them engaged to the level needed to perform their jobs capably.

This study contributes to the literature by re-examining the relationship between SA quality and firm value. It also provides new evidence on the moderating effect of CESP on the SA quality–firm value nexus. Specifically, it explores the joint effect of credibility and eco-efficiency on market confidence in sustainability information.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the practice of integrated reporting (IR) assurance from the auditors’ point of view, including the main challenges to be addressed and insights on evolution and potential new assurance approaches.

Based on an exploratory research design, the paper conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 expert auditors, accounting assurance providers and non-accounting assurance providers, in the Italian context, combining an open coding approach with an axial coding approach, and using a three-stage process to organize data.

Respondents confirmed that current IR practices do not represent a real paradigm shift and that the need for in-depth changes in the assurance approach will depend on how these practices evolve. The main challenges highlighted are the absence of suitable criteria, the difficulty of assuring narratives and future-oriented information, and the low level of maturity of internal systems and processes of companies and stakeholders. Proposals for overcoming these challenges are framed mainly within current assurance models, although some respondents pointed out the need for a shift towards new assurance approaches.

The paper relies on a small sample of well-informed subjects active in Italy; thus, the results may not represent the views of all auditors.

The findings identify areas that practitioners and assurance provider firms should focus on, looking to IR assurance and its growing importance and application as a future business area. They may be useful to standard setters and regulators to better understand limits and opportunities of requiring IR assurance on specific information not strictly related to financial information, and for the development of guidance or standards for IR assurance.

This research contributes to the currently underexplored area of IR assurance. Relatively few studies have investigated this topic from an empirical point of view, and no study involving auditors has been carried out in the Italian context.

This paper surveys corporate officers responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting and assurance to determine the attributes that influence their choice between an accounting and a non-accounting GHG assurance provider. Differences in the relative importance of these attributes between those selecting accounting and non-accounting assurers are also explored.

A survey questionnaire was completed by 25 corporate officers responsible for reporting and voluntarily assurance of GHG emissions in Australia. The questionnaire asked the respondents to indicate the relative importance of 41 company and assurer attributes in influencing their assurance provider choice.

Results indicate that attributes related to the assurance provider, such as team and team leader assurance knowledge, reputation, objectivity and independence, are more influential than attributes related to the nature of the company or the nature of the GHG emissions. Attributes such as geographical dispersion of operations were found to be differently important to this decision between companies purchasing assurance from accounting and non-accounting firms.

The study’s main limitation is the small number of participants. Future research may extend this study by exploring the conditions under which companies voluntarily assure GHG emissions as well the motivations of responsible officers in their assurer choice.

This paper provides valuable insights to GHG assurers to assist their understanding of the attributes that are important to potential GHG assurance clients.

The study makes unique contributions to the assurer choice literature by not only addressing this issue in the context of the dichotomous GHG assurance market but also by addressing it from the perspective of the assurance purchaser.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between corporate reporting on issues related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the quality of non-financial information (NFI) corroborated by different types of assurors.

The study methods used include logistic regressions, focusing on data for Spanish listed companies in 2017–2018.

Analysis shows that companies are more likely to report SDG-related performance when their sustainability report is assured. This association remains constant irrespective of the nature of the assurance, which only became mandatory in Spain following the entry into force of Act 11/2018 in this respect. Moreover, companies that hire KPMG or PwC (two of the big four accounting firms) as assurance providers are more likely to report SDG-related performance than those that hire non-accounting firms. Finally, companies with higher quality assurance statements are more likely to address SDG-related matters.

The authors believe the findings reported in this paper will help decision-makers better understand the quality of organisations’ contributions towards achieving the SDGs. Furthermore, this paper has implications for stakeholders, policymakers, academics and assurance providers concerning the relationship between SDG-related reporting and the quality of NFI.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior research has been undertaken to analyse the relationship between SDG-related company reporting and the assurance of NFI.

The purpose of this study is to extend existing knowledge on the determinants of sustainability report (SR) assurance practices. Four different theories – stakeholder theory, institutional theory, signaling theory and legitimacy theory – are used to formulate several hypotheses regarding the main factors that can influence a company’s decision to assure its SRs.

Using a sample of 417 listed organizations based in different European countries over five years, the effects of stakeholder commitment, country orientation toward sustainability, firm environmental performance and business ethics controversies on the decision to assure SRs are assessed.

The results show that a company’s decision to assure its SRs is motivated by the need to maintain good relations with its stakeholders (which is in line with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory), as well as by the willingness to signal their sustainability performance (which is in line with signaling theory) and to gain legitimacy. On the contrary, business ethics controversies do not seem to be relevant to a company’s assurance practices.

This paper provides new insights into the influence that social, environmental and institutional factors have on assurance strategies. New factors that previous research does not investigate – environmental performance, business ethics controversies and corporate governance – are tested. Factors that are already investigated in the literature are considered from an original perspective of introducing alternative measures (e.g. for the scope of national sustainability policies).

This paper aims to review and synthesize the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure literature in order to (1) develop a comprehensive definition of disclosure quality; (2) review the evolution of disclosure quality proxies used by accounting researchers; (3) describe the antecedents to disclosure quality; (4) describe the outcomes of disclosure quality; and (5) identify gaps in the current literature and offer suggestions for future research.

This study conducted a systematic review capturing articles examining CSR disclosure quality. The researchers first searched EBSCO, identifying all relevant articles by searching for “corporate social responsibility,” “CSR,” “ESG” and “sustainability reporting” anywhere in the article. Then, the results were filtered to focus on 23 of the most prominent accounting journals. The search resulted in 592 articles which were individually reviewed for relevance to the authors’ review. This study includes all articles that examine disclosure and provide insight into elements that influence disclosure quality or provide evidence of the effects of disclosure quality on user decision-making.

It is found that a comprehensive definition of CSR disclosure quality has yet to be developed and that proxies for CSR disclosure quality have evolved over time. This study synthesizes the literature on the antecedents of CSR disclosure quality, and how CSR disclosure quality affects users' decision-making and related outcomes. Overall, the review of this study suggests that assurance and a number of corporate features have important effects on disclosure quality. Also, high-quality disclosures are positively associated with many benefits to market participants.

This study complements Huang and Watson's (2015) CSR literature review by comprehensively reviewing and synthesizing the CSR disclosure quality literature that was only emerging when their review was published. Importantly, this study contributes to the CSR disclosure literature by developing a comprehensive definition of CSR disclosure quality that is grounded in the accounting literature and aligned with current frameworks.