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 paper aims to examine the influence of sustainability assurance report format (separate versus combined with financial information assurance) and level (limited versus reasonable) on nonprofessional investors’ judgments.

This study uses a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment with 436 US nonprofessional investors. The authors manipulate sustainability assurance report format and level to identify differences in judgments of information credibility, investment desirability and investment amount.

This study finds that sustainability assurance level influences participants’ judgments only when the financial and sustainability assurance reports are presented separately. Specifically, participants assess sustainability performance information as more credible and make higher investment judgments when presented with a separate limited, as opposed to reasonable, assurance sustainability report.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board expressed concerns regarding whether assurance reports accompanying emerging forms of extended external reporting (EER) effectively communicate the level of assurance provided by the independent practitioner. The result that assurance level does not influence investor judgments in the combined reporting format appears contrary to the idea that integrated reporting should provide connectivity between financial and sustainability information. The finding that investors make higher investment and credibility judgments with limited assurance is inconsistent with the intent of sustainability assurance professional guidance and recent research results. Together, the findings suggest that investors may not be able to distinguish between differing levels of sustainability assurance when this information is presented in a combined report format.

Standard setters should consider how sustainability assurance report format and assurance level impact nonprofessional investor judgments.

Research on the effects of EER assurance report format is sparse. The results indicate that even slight changes in assurance report wording may cause investors to perceive that a limited assurance report conveys a higher assurance level than a reasonable assurance report.

This study empirically examines perceptions of environmental report believability based on a firm's relative performance and level of assurance obtained on environmental activities under the recently clarified and recodified attestation standards in the United States.

The paper uses a 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment to identify differences in 153 non-expert environmental report users' perceptions of report believability based on positive or negative firm performance and (level of) assurance provided by an accounting firm.

Results show a main effect in that negative performance reports are perceived to be more believable than positive performance reports, as driven by negative performance reports being significantly more believable when no assurance is present. The firm performance effect is eliminated once limited or reasonable assurance is provided. Further, positive performance reports with limited, but not reasonable, assurance are perceived to be more believable than reports without assurance. No differences are identified within the negative performance condition.

Limited assurance might be used as an impression management tool to enhance the believability of positive performance environmental reports. Users, practitioners, and standard-setters should also be aware that users might believe environmental reports are assured, even when no such assurance has been provided.

This paper examines the impact of assured environmental reporting on users that review firms' environmental reports outside of a shareholder/investor role. The study also demonstrates conditions in which firm performance and assurance impact perceptions of report believability.

This paper aims to clarify whether assurance on non-financial corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports impacts the perceptions and decisions of banks as capital providers. The authors investigate the effects of the type of assurance provider and the level of assurance provided on decisions by banks to grant credit, make their own personal investments or recommend share purchases to their customers. The study aims to expand the domain of assurance on CSR reports (CSRR) by taking up a call by Cohen and Simnett (2015), who ask for behavioral research on how non-financial report’s intended users interpret and react to assurance.

The paper is based on an experiment case on a fictitious company with a 2 × 2 + 1 between-subjects design. To overcome concerns regarding external validity and to prove results in a real-world setting, the authors selected German bank directors as subjects due to the extremely high relevance of banks to the German economy. The authors investigated the perceptions of 69 bank directors and analyzed the influence of CSR assurance on their decisions.

The findings suggest that assurance positively influences confidence in CSRR and that, consequently, bankers are more likely to make favorable decisions toward the reporting companies, such as approving applications for credit, investing themselves in the company or recommending the purchase of shares to their clients. These effects are stronger when an accounting firm provides the assurance and when the assurance level is reasonable rather than limited.

The arguments presented are, strictly speaking, limited to the case in the experiment and the views held by the bank directors at the time the authors sent out the questionnaires. Moreover, the cell sizes are quite small. Nevertheless, the authors were able to find highly significant results.

The main implication of the paper is that the purchase of CSRR assurance services has a positive effect on bank directors’ perceptions and decisions. They favor the provision of such services by accounting firms and they prefer a reasonable assurance level. Thus, it can be concluded that bank directors perceive quality differences between assurance providers, are able to recognize the difference between reasonable and limited assurance and that the related information is relevant for their decisions.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the influence of CSRR assurance on decisions by bank directors. The observation of a high decisions-usefulness of CSRR assurance suggests that regulators should consider mandating some form of assurance on non-financial reports throughout the EU member states.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an exploratory assessment of the employment of assurance in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)/Sustainability reports published by the UK's top ten food retailers.

The paper begins with an outline of the characteristics of assurance and the empirical information for the paper is drawn from the assurance material in the CSR/Sustainability reports posted on the internet by five of the selected retailers.

The findings reveal considerable variation in the nature and the scope of the assurance processes undertaken, at best the accent is on limited assurance and some concerns are expressed about the independence of the assessment process. The paper concludes that these concerns can be seen to reduce the reliability and credibility of the assurance process.

The paper provides an accessible review of how the UK's top ten food retailers are employing external assurance statements as part of their CSR reporting and as such it will interest academics, managers within the retail industry and those professionals and consultants who work with the industry.

With the growing attention around carbon emissions disclosure, the demand for external carbon assurance on emissions reports has been increasing by stakeholders as it provides additional credibility and confidence. This study investigates the association between the higher level of external carbon assurance and improvement in a firm's carbon emissions. It provides an understanding of corporate incentives for obtaining a higher level of carbon assurance, particularly in relation to carbon performance enhancements.

Data are collected from 170 US companies for the period 2012–2017 and are analysed using a change analysis. Generalised method of moment (GMM) is used to address endogeneity.

Following the rationales taken by legitimacy and “outside-in” management views, the findings reveal that a higher level of carbon assurance (i.e. reasonable assurance) marginally improves firms' carbon performance (i.e. reported carbon emissions). This is consistent with “outside-in” management view suggesting that a higher level of assurance could be utilised as a tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' needs and concerns, which can be useful in enhancing carbon performance.

The findings are generalisable to US firms and may not extend to other contexts.

The implication of this study for companies is that a high level of sustainability assurance is a useful tool to access detailed information about stakeholder concerns, of which internalisation can help to marginally improve carbon performance. For policymakers, the insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining carbon assurance can help policymakers to develop effective policies and initiatives for carbon assurance. Considering the possible improvements in carbon performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating carbon assurance.

This study extends the existing studies of assurance in sustainability context as well as in carbon context by explaining why companies voluntarily get expensive external verification (i.e. higher level of assurance) of their carbon emissions disclosure. This study responds to calls in the literature for empirical research investigating the association between environmental performance and external assurance with a focus on level of assurance.

1. A higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.

2. Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.

3. Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.

4. Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

A higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.

Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.

Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.

Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

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 explore the roles of the initial perceptions of chief audit executives (CAEs) on the role of internal audit function (IAF) in integrated reporting (IR) in South Africa. This paper draws attention to possible challenges and barriers to internal audit’s (IAs) involvement in the integrated reporting process (IRP).

Detailed interviews were carried out in 2016 with 10 CAEs from the EY Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards for South Africa. An interpretive approach involving thematic content analysis was used to construct key themes which provided the CAE’s initial perception of the IAF’s role in IRP.

Despite the current role being limited, the findings suggest that the IAF has unexploited potential to improve the IRP. These roles include: providing assurance on data integrity; reviewing risks and opportunities; evaluating the adequacy of governance and risk management controls and giving assurance on the IRP. A benefit to the IAFs involvement in the IRP relates to their extensive knowledge of the business. The lack of skills in the IA profession is an area of concern, as there is a shortage of capacity and specialist skills.

The interpretive style will assist IAFs to understand and define their role in the IRP, as well as to follow best practice in the IRP.

This paper is the first to explore the views and make recommendations on the role of the IAF in the IRP. This paper can be seen as an important contribution to academic research as the role of IAF in the IRP is exploratory in a global context.

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 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.