Search results

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) is currently in the process of revising International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000. The purpose of this paper is to review the implications of this revision process for providing assurance on sustainability reports, and identify policy‐related research opportunities associated with this review.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual and critical review of standards development, and archival analysis of ISAE 3000 exposure draft responses.

In the revision of ISAE 3000, concerns have been expressed by a number of parties around the distinction between reasonable and limited assurance, the procedures necessary in properly undertaking a limited assurance engagement and the structure and content of a limited assurance report. These concerns can be addressed by appropriate research initiatives which can inform these policy issues.

Research opportunities are identified, in particular the use of experimental design to examine implications of changing the requirements of the procedures for limited assurance on assurance practitioners and of changing aspects of the assurance report on the level of assurance conveyed by limited assurance reports.

The paper contains a review of the standard‐setting process and has implications for assurance providers of sustainability reports, standard setters and regulators.

The paper provides an update of relevant standards for assurers of sustainability reports and review and appraisal of issues raised in the recent revision process of ISAE 3000.

This study aims to review the literature on non-financial information (NFI) assurance including external assurance of sustainability reports (SRA) and integrated reports (IRA). The objectives are as follows: provide an overview of academic research; understand the nature of NFI assurance engagements by organising the literature around the five key elements of an assurance engagement; develop a framework for understanding NFI assurance; and provide directions for future research.

The study undertakes a structured literature review of 179 articles published from 1999 to 2023.

The review identified 324 researchers located in 35 different countries who published 179 articles on SRA and IRA. The researchers, their locations, journals, methods, theories and themes are examined. The literature is structured around the definition of an assurance engagement including a tripartite arrangement, subject matter, a suitable criterion, sufficient appropriate evidence and a written assurance report. A framework for understanding NFI assurance is offered. Avenues for future research, structured around the five elements of an assurance engagement, are presented.

Researchers will benefit from an overview of the literature and guidance on areas for future research. Lecturers can use the findings to develop content for their auditing courses. Reporting managers will benefit from a better understanding of this new form of assurance. Regulators can use this study’s insights to better inform the development of laws and corporate governance codes mandating NFI assurance. Standard setters can use these findings to guide the emergence of the new assurance standards. Assurance practitioners may use this research to inform practice.

The findings may prove useful in addressing capture, which deters NFI assurance from enhancing disclosure credibility and fulfilling its transparency and accountability role. This is to the detriment of the wider society.

The consolidation of the literature around the five key elements of an assurance engagement is unique. The framework devised offers useful insights into the dynamics of assurance generally and NFI assurance more specifically. The study is timely given the new European Union regulations on NFI reporting and assurance and the work of the International Audit and Assurance Standards Board in developing a specialist NFI assurance standard.

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 paper is to examine the competition between accounting sustainability assurance providers (ASAPs) and non-accounting sustainability assurance providers (NASAPs), and how this competition influences the institutionalization of the evolving field of sustainability assurance.

An interpretivist research methodology, guided by an institutional work perspective, is used to analyze interviews with 15 SAPs and 35 sustainability reporting managers (SRMs) in Australia and New Zealand.

ASAPs prefer to use International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (ISAE3000), because it is well recognized in the profession, adheres to ASAPs’ regulatory requirements, and mirrors their financial audit methodologies. This preference influences ASAPs’ institutional work as they compete against NASAPs and how they institutionalize sustainability assurance. ASAPs’ institutional works include presenting sustainability assurance as similar to a financial audit, arguing in support of a single provider for financial audits and sustainability assurance, and undermining NASAPs and their preferred sustainability assurance standard, AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS), by appealing to senior management. In comparison, NASAPs promote AA1000AS as a specialist standard among SRMs, emphasizing the standard’s sustainability enhancing qualities and its flexibility, while discrediting ASAPs and ISAE3000 as out of touch with sustainability objectives.

A new conceptual model is constructed that can be used in institutional work research.

The accounting profession is encouraged to consider more flexible, innovative methods in new assurance markets. This involves using new assurance standards as well as developing specialist standards for new forms of assurance. Regulation over sustainability assurance could be helpful, but regulators should be careful not to stifle competition in this evolving field.

This paper examines how competition between ASAPs and NASAPs influences the institutionalization of sustainability assurance. The paper offers a new model for the analysis of institutional work, which could be used by researchers, new insights into the emerging field of sustainability assurance, as well as a figure and discussion that clarifies the broader implications of the findings.

This paper aims to examine whether an expectation gap exists between different stakeholders (i.e. emissions preparers, emissions assurers and shareholders) in relation to the assurance of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the paper seeks to explore whether stakeholder expectations are influenced by the uncertainties inherent in the assurance engagement for different industry sectors (i.e. greenhouse gas emitter or greenhouse gas user entities).

An experimental survey was used to address the stated aims. Three stakeholder groups: shareholders, greenhouse gas emissions preparers and assurers, completed a survey based on the greenhouse gas emissions assurance for either an emitter or user entity.

The results provide support for the existence of an expectation gap in the emission assurance setting. Fundamental differences were identified between the stakeholder groups in relation to the responsibilities of the assurer and management; as well as the reliability and decision usefulness of the emissions statement. Moreover, the extent of the gap was found to differ between user entity engagements and emitter entity engagements.

The paper highlights the need for the assurance services profession and assurance standard setters to consider mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness of communicating the assurance function in this setting in order to enhance the credibility and social value of emissions assurance.

The paper is the first to examine the expectation gap in the greenhouse gas emissions assurance context. It thereby also contributes to the literature on the expectation gap in the assurance of non‐financial information. Moreover, the research findings provide standard setters with unique insights into areas to consider as they work toward the development of an international assurance standard for greenhouse gas emissions statements.

The growth in social and environmental reports is followed by a growth in reports including an assurance statement done by an outsider to the company. The aim of this paper is to study the implementation by companies of a third party assurance provision to their sustainability reports.

The author examined the practices of French companies as far as verification of sustainability information is concerned and opted for an exploratory study. The study analyses the assurance statement of French CAC 40 listed companies publishing a sustainability report verified by a third party. It also analyses semi‐structured interviews conducted with sustainability managers and assurance providers.

The paper provides an insight of how assurance reports are stated and it seems that they lack precision and explanation. The interest for companies to engage in the assurance of their sustainability information is to manage their sustainable development policy and to progress in reporting their sustainability information. Moreover, the aim of sustainability verification is to assure users of the accountability and reliability of the disclosed information. The sustainability assurance engagement is mainly a quest for legitimacy.

The sample of semi‐structured interviews could be enlarged and other important actors such as shareholders or non‐financial rating agencies interviewed. Further research could be conducted at an international level, thus allowing embracing institutional contexts for each country.

This paper contributes to the emerging literature about sustainability assurance practices and could be of interest to managers and auditors to improve the assurance practices of social and environmental reporting.

This research complements the corporate reporting literature by exploring the different types of assurance, which companies are using to bolster the credibility of their integrated and sustainability reports. A composite quality measure is proposed and this study aims to provide evidence on how combined assurance quality (CAQ) varies among firms.

Content analysis is used to identify “elements” of combined assurance disclosed in integrated and sustainability reports and company webpages. Results are presented in tabular format and supported by non-parametric tests to evaluate differences in CAQ among firms in more detail.

Combined assurance is framed as a function of the responsibility of the board of directors to ensure accurate, complete and reliable reporting and the characteristics of different internal and external sources of assurance. Overall, combined assurance models are being designed conservatively. They focus mainly on specific disclosures and are guided by a limited number of assurance methodologies or frameworks instead of taking a more pluralistic approach to verification of integrated and sustainability reports as a whole.

The study is based on combined assurance practices by a sample of large listed companies in a single jurisdiction. An international comparison of combined assurance and the calibration of the proposed quality measure is deferred for future research.

Limitations in existing assurance practices are identified for the consideration of preparers and assurance providers. The quality schematic also offers practitioners, standard-setters and academics an easy-to-apply technique for examining the different elements of a company’s combined assurance model.

A better understanding of the quality of combined assurance is essential for users’ to place reliance on integrated and sustainability reports and for informing change to existing assurance practices.

The study is the first to examine the operation and quality of combined assurance. The method used to gauge assurance quality provides a useful basis for a more detailed empirical study on the relevance of combined assurance.

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 investigate the nature and extent of internal audit functions’ (IAFs) involvement in environmental, social and governance assurance (ESG) and consulting in Australia. To identify emerging priorities, and the profession’s capacity to respond to these, the paper also explores internal audit practitioners’ perceptions of the current and future importance of these issues and the adequacy of their skills and expertise in meeting the challenges associated with their involvement in these areas.

Data were collected from 100 Chief Audit Executives and internal audit service provider partners through a survey.

Governance issues are a key area of focus for respondents’ assurance and consulting efforts, followed by social and environmental issues, respectively. While governance issues are perceived to be of greatest current importance to IAFs, environmental issues are most commonly expected to increase in importance over the next five years, and are reported to be in greatest need of further development of IAFs’ skills and expertise.

As the corporate landscape and expectations around transparency and accountability increase, the internal audit profession needs to address the current perceived skills gap in their ability to provide assurance and consulting on ESG issues to ensure their continued relevance and ability to meet stakeholders’ needs and expectations in providing effective integrated assurance and in contributing to internal improvements.

This paper provides initial empirical evidence of the nature and extent of internal audit’s involvement in ESG assurance and consulting.