Search results

This paper aims to examine the communicative value of assurance reports by investigating whether the impact on information asymmetries is contingent on the length of the contractual relationship between clients and assurance providers, which can compromise the provider’s independence.

Using a firm-level data set of publicly listed international firms from 2007 to 2016, the authors estimate several regression models for panel data by using the generalized method of moments estimator to address the endogeneity issue.

Results find that the greater the communicative value in assurance statements, the lower the information asymmetries. However, this effect is constrained when the assurance provider’s independence is compromised due to an excessively long-term contractual relationship. In other words, assurance statements with more informative value enhance the firm’s transparency and increase users’ confidence in the sustainability information provided. However, the loss of independence linked to longer tenure jeopardizes the communicative value of the assurance report and contributes to reducing information asymmetries.

The study makes at least three clear contributions to current literature. First, the authors contribute to the limited existing research about the communicative value attributed to assurance statements by stakeholders. Second, the authors indirectly contribute to the literature that analyses whether stakeholders understand the assurance report, a complex statement in a growing market. Addressing the communicative value of assurance is certainly a difficult task, as it is a novel and complex activity. Third, the main contribution is providing initial empirical evidence about the moderating effect that assurance provider tenure has in the relationship between the informational content of the assurance report and the level of information asymmetries. To date, there is no empirical evidence regarding the moderating effect of long assuror’s tenure as an important feature of the assurance market, and beyond that, regarding its impact on the communicative value assigned by stakeholders to assurance statements.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the professionalism and professionalization of sustainability assurance providers based on the experiences and perceptions of auditors involved in this activity.

The empirical study was based on 38 semi-directed interviews conducted with assurance providers from accounting and consulting firms.

The findings highlight the division of this professional activity between accounting and consulting firms, each of which question the professionalism of the other. The main standards in this area tend to be used as legitimizing tools to enhance the credibility of the assurance process rather than effective guidelines to improve the quality of the verification process. Finally, the complex and multifaceted skills required to conduct sound sustainability assurance and the virtual absence of recognized and substantial training programs in this area undermine the professionalization of assurance providers.

This work has important practical implications for standardization bodies, assurance providers and stakeholders concerned by the quality and the reliability of sustainability disclosure.

This study shows how practitioners in this area construct and legitimize their professional activity in terms of identity, standardization and competences. The work contributes to the literatures on the assurance of sustainability reports, self-regulation through standardization and professionalization.

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.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between the readability of sustainability reports and assurance provider effort, captured by assurance delay and the moderating effect of the assurance provider.

This sample consists of companies operating in sustainability sensitive industries from 39 countries for the period that covers the years 2016–2018.

The results show that poor sustainability reporting readability is associated with longer assurance delays. Indeed, assurance providers spend more effort assuring clients when sustainability reports are less readable, as shown by long assurance delay. In addition, increases in assurance delay associated with poor sustainability reporting readability are driven by accounting assurance providers. These results hold after controlling for endogeneity using Heckman's (1979) analysis and other measures of assurance delay readability used in prior literature. By checking the specialization of assurance provider partners and setting aside dominant countries, the authors provide insight into the impact of assurance provider specialization on the association between sustainability report readability and assurance provider effort measured by assurance delay and thus, lending further confidence to the strength of the study’s main findings.

This research provides preliminary evidence on the relationship between sustainability reporting readability and assurance delay as well as the influence of accounting assurance providers.

Sustainability assurance practice is viewed as a tool to add or enhance credibility. This study could be considered as another step into driving the standardization of sustainability reporting practice internationally.

This is the first investigation conducted in the sustainability literature on the assurance provider's response to the readability of sustainability reports.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to understand sustainability assurance (SA), and diversity in that practice, by examining assurance providers’ understandings of the practice and the influences that those understandings have on the actual assurance process. It focuses on the issues beyond the content of statements in SA reports.

This paper employs semi-structured interviews, supplemented by textual data sources. Research participants are assurance providers in the UK, including those within and outside the accounting profession. Drawing on the perspective of actor-network theory, the study focuses on the associations between different actors and how those shape the assurance practice.

The findings indicate that providers’ understandings of SA practice vary significantly. This variation has a major effect on how the assurance practice is conducted. The study identifies four types of SA engagements, which are designated as: social assurance, integrated assurance, formative assurance and compliance assurance. Such a categorization provides a broad-based understanding of the operationalization of SA and the degree of heterogeneity within it.

This paper extends the understanding of SA by focusing on the practice beyond the statements made by assurance providers, which have been the predominant focus of analysis in the existing literature, and by offering a categorization of the diversity in practice. The focus on the associations between assurance providers and other actors provides a new perspective for exploring the fundamentals of the practice.

The purpose of this paper is to document a study of European and UK triple bottom line (TBL) report assurance statements.

In undertaking the research, an international database was constructed from which all known European and UK third‐party assurance statements that accompanied the release of TBL reports were selected for review.

The results of the analysis indicate that there is much variability and ambiguity inherent within the contents of the third‐party statements.

The UK and European reports included within the database compiled by the researchers provide the basis of the information used to develop this paper. In selecting assurance statements to include within the database, the latest TBL report from each reporting organization was obtained (and it should be appreciated that many organizations do not produce TBL reports on an annual basis). Of the 170 reports available internationally at the time the research was undertaken, 8 are from 2000, 86 from 2001, 65 from 2002, and 11 from 2003. Whilst the database is the most extensive one of its type, given the finite nature of resources available, it is stressed that the database is not exhaustive.

Taken together, the results of this analysis lead us to question the value that such assurance statements provide to the TBL reporting process.

Assesses the ambiguity and questions the value of assurance work on TBL statements as currently being undertaken.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of the choice of an assurance service provider on financial and social performance in an emerging economy. The study also examines whether the chief executive officer’s (CEO) characteristics influence the choice of an assurance service provider.

This study uses descriptive statistics, ordinary least square and probit regression to examine the 800 firm-year observations for the period 2010–2019 and with the Indian stock market as a testing ground.

The study shows that the engagement of assurance service providers reduces financial performance (stock price returns and Tobin’s q). The study also shows that consulting firms and auditing firms improve the social performance disclosure of the firm in an emerging economy. However, consulting firms outweigh auditing firms in improving social performance disclosure. Also, the implementation of mandatory reporting may slightly impede instead of an increase in social performance disclosure in an emerging economy. The study also shows that ageing CEOs prefer consulting firms over auditing firms in assurance service provision. Finally, the study shows that an extended stay in office by a CEO improves the choice of consulting firms, but the effect has a near-neutral significance.

The choice of CEO characteristics as an independent variable adds to the factors or drivers that cause the choice of an assurance service provider in an emerging economy. Also, the measurement variable of stock price returns and Tobin’s q expands the financial performance measurement in the relationship with assurance service providers.

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 assess the cumulative evidence on the determinants of sustainability assurance (SA) reports and the choice of assurance provider quality. It addresses the contradictory and inconsistent findings of past studies conducted over the past two decades.

The authors undertake a meta-regression analysis that enables systematic, comparative assessment of the variables associated with the choice of SA and the type of assurance provider. The authors undertake a chronological analysis with the aim of identifying systematic differences in the empirical evidence across distinct time periods.

The results indicate that there is very little evidence to support many of the expected associations between commonly studied predictor variables (namely, measures based on agency and corporate governance conceptions) and the choice of SA and the assurance provider type. As a result, research on this topic does not make as effective a contribution as might be expected. There is, however, a time period difference. The authors find results from studies using company data prior to 2010 are significantly different from those using post-2010 data. The results indicate the decision to publish SA to be significantly associated with companies in the oil industry and utilities, and larger organisations where agency costs tend to be higher. Obtaining assurance from a higher-quality provider is found to be associated with companies in environmentally sensitive industries and in stakeholder-oriented countries.

The study shows that as yet there is not sufficient evidence to support expected results. Users of the research should be aware of this, and researchers should know that more work is needed. The authors suggest researchers take greater care in the choice and comparability of variable measurement and expand the conceptual base when selecting predictor variables.

Companies need to be more transparent and accountable to critical stakeholders such as report users and regulators, and the latter should be more aware that the organisational practice of SA and choice of service provider have changed over time and are increasingly open to agency and other cultural biases.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply meta-regression techniques for understanding the body of literature on SA and provider choice.