Search results

This study aims to investigate the effect of assurance provider types on the independent assurance statement quality of Asian companies' sustainability report (SR) and examine environmental risk’s role as a moderating variable.

This study analyzes large Asian companies' stand-alone SR using moderated regression analysis to test hypotheses. Textual analysis is conducted to identify environmental risk disclosures.

This study shows that accounting assurance providers affect independent assurance statement quality in terms of compliance with assurance statement elements, while nonaccounting assurance providers can better accommodate environmental risk information required by the intended users.

This study has several limitations. The research focuses on assurance statements and stand-alone SR of large companies in Asia; therefore, future research could examine similar analyses using integrated reports from Asia to investigate whether the results will differ. Additionally, this study does not divide assurance providers into Big-N and non-Big-N; thereby, it can be extended in future research.

Assurance providers need to consider environmental risk as a critical issue for the intended users to issue a high-quality independent assurance statement.

Assurance statements issued by assurance providers increase public confidence in the reliability of the information contained in the SR. Therefore, regulators are expected to immediately set mandatory standards for sustainability assurance practices.

This study proves that accounting assurance providers can improve assurance statement quality. The variable environmental risk is also proven to be a pure moderator in negatively interacting the effect of assurance provider types on independent assurance statement quality.

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.

This paper aims to critically analyse the content of the assurance statements of corporate sustainability reports to examine the degree to which assurance statements enhance and uphold organisational transparency and accountability to stakeholders.

This framework of content analysis draws on a research instrument developed by O’Dwyer and Owen (2005), as well as the most recent assurance guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative) and standards AA1000AS, 2008 and ISAE 3000.

Due to the lack of stakeholders’ engagement in the assurance process, due to the scope limitation placed on the assurance engagement and due to the reluctance of the assuror to address the assurance statements to the stakeholders groups, sustainability assurance practice cannot be considered as the accountability enabler. With persistent focus on internal systems, process, data generation and data capture, assurance practice is serving more as an internal control tool than as a social accounting/auditing instrument.

A single country context is studied. However, to the extent that assurances are conducted using common sets of assurance standards and guidelines, there is external validity of the findings.

Despite the institutional initiatives by the global and local institutions regarding social and environmental sustainability reporting and assurance, the assurance practice has not yet emerged as a tool of social accountability.

This study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date empirical assessment of the degree to which the sustainability assurance practice encompasses the issue of stakeholders’ interests and forms the potential basis for policy implications to the assurance practice and to the assurance standard setting process.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief for property occupiers who look to monitor trends in sustainability reporting. The paper offers a preliminary examination of the extent to which the UK’s leading commercial property companies are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as a part of their sustainability reporting processes and some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance and an outline of the drivers for, and challenges to, sustainability for property companies. The information on which the paper is based is drawn from the leading UK property companies’ corporate websites.

The paper reveals that approximately half of the UK’s leading property companies had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways, this reduces the reliability and credibility of the leading property companies’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future, growing stakeholder pressure may persuade more of the UK’s leading property companies to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance among the UK’s leading commercial property companies’ sustainability reporting. As such, it will not only interest occupiers but also professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in sustainability in the property industry.

The purposes of this paper are to provide a preliminary examination of the extent to which Europe’s leading commercial property companies are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as part of their sustainability reporting processes and to offer some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with an introduction to corporate sustainability, an outline of the European property market and of the drivers for, and challenges to, sustainability for property companies and a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance. The information on which the paper is based is drawn from the leading European commercial property companies’ corporate websites.

The paper reveals that all of Europe’s leading property companies had either reported or provided information on sustainability but that only approximately half of these companies had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways, this reduces the reliability and credibility of the leading property companies’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future, growing stakeholder pressure may force more of the leading European property companies to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance among Europe’s leading commercial property companies’ sustainability reporting and as such it will interest professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in the sustainability in the property industry.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a preliminary examination of the extent to which the UK’s leading house builders are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as part of their sustainability reporting processes and to offer some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance and a brief outline of house building in the UK and of the sustainability challenges the industry faces. The information on which the paper is based is drawn for the top twenty UK house builders’ corporate Websites.

The paper reveals that only a minority of the UK’s top 20 house builders had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance or verification as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways this reduces the reliability and credibility of the house builders’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future growing stakeholder pressure may force the UK’s house builders to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance in the UK house builders’ sustainability reporting process, and as such it will interest professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in sustainability in the construction industry.

The purpose of this study is to consider three distinct bodies of literature and uses stakeholder theory as the premise of this study. The first deals with corporate sustainability reporting and voluntary disclosure behaviour, and corporate governance at the firm level, the second deals with the decision to utilize assurance services (voluntary adoption) and the third relates to the choice of auditor/assurance provider.

This study investigates these issues using archival data from some of the Top 200 listed companies in 2010 from the countries Australia and the UK. The final matched-pair sample consists of 220 listed companies.

The study finds that audit client size and the strength of corporate governance structures are significant in explaining the decision to produce a standalone sustainability report. Whereas few of these variables provide any explanatory value on the voluntary decision to assure the sustainability report, the existence of an active and diligent audit committee does have positive significance. Finally, the existence of an active and diligent sustainability committee is significant in explaining the choice of assurance provider where a member of the auditing profession was selected by the firm’s management.

Few studies (if any), have found a link between governance characteristics, sustainability report production, and assurance provider. The current study attempts to address this knowledge gap, and also considers the assurance work by professionals outside the auditing profession, and identifies which governance and firm-level characteristics may explain demand for their assurance services. This current study, assists to understand the low incidence of assurance and what might be necessary to increase demand for this type of assurance.

A number of organisations outsource their information systems and information technology infrastructure to a type of organisation called a “service organisation”. In the current business environment, where cyber risks are increasing, it is important to have a mechanism to ensure the credibility of these service organisations. This paper, therefore, aims to understand the contextualisation of accountability and trust of related organisations through the use of assurance engagements.

This paper is conceptual in nature; however, textual data sources are used to support the theorisation of accountability and trust in the context of companies using service organisations. It uses publicly available assurance reports and related assurance standards for observing the accountability mechanism in practice, to understand the purpose of the assurance.

Assurance statements for service organisations mainly provide reputation-based, not contract-based, accountability. Limited access to the assurance reports and limited responsibility of service auditors potentially decrease the degree of this reputation-based accountability. The findings reveal a potential accountability paradox regarding the role of assurance practice, as to whether it serves as a managerial tool to build trust or as an accountability mechanism for stakeholders.

This paper extends the understanding of accountability and trust in the context of this unconventional form of organisational relationship. It urges more transparency in terms of the accessibility of assurance reports to provide information to wider stakeholders. The findings add to the latent literature on organisational trust and voluntary assurance practice.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an exploratory general review of both the corporate social responsibility (CSR) agendas being publicly reported by the world's leading spirits and beer producers and the nature of their reporting CSR processes, and then to offer some wider reflections on the ways these producers are addressing and pursuing CSR strategies.

The paper begins with a short discussion of the characteristics of CSR, then draws its empirical material from the most recent CSR reports posted on the websites of the world's top five spirits and top five beer producers.

The findings reveal that the leading spirits and beer producers are moving towards integrating CSR into their core business, and while they particularly emphasise their commitment to foster responsible drinking, they also address a wide range of impacts within the marketplace, the communities in which they operate, the environment and the workplace. Although the leading producers generally adopt a very positive approach in their CSR reports, independent external assessment of the reporting process is very limited. More generally, the paper offers some critical reflections on the CSR agendas currently being pursued by the leading spirits and beer producers.

The paper provides an accessible review of, and some reflections on, the CSR agendas being pursued by some of the world's leading spirits and beer producers, and as such it will interest academics in business and management and hospitality departments, a range of people working in management positions within the drinks industry, and those professionals who work with the industry.