Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the practices, challenges and ethical issues underlying the fabric and dissemination of corporate sustainability ratings.

Based on 36 semi-structured interviews with sustainability rating practitioners, the study shows the trade-offs, ethical judgments and customizable aspects involved in rating practices, which cannot rely only on formal and predefined methods.

In contrast with the official optimistic rhetoric about the rationality and rigor of sustainability rating methods, agencies face serious challenges in the measurement and comparison of performance in this area, particularly in terms of the aggregation of scattered and fuzzy indicators, commercial pressures and the availability, materiality and reliability of the information collected. Despite these concerns, sustainability ratings do appear to be useful in improving corporate responsiveness and increasing investor awareness of the complex and difficult-to-measure aspects of nonfinancial reports.

Rating agencies should collaborate to set up common indicators that would be easier for firms to produce and should better separate their sustainability rating production activities from other services they offer to companies (e.g. consultancy).

This study contributes to the literature on the measurement and promotion of corporate sustainability by analyzing rating practices through the lens of moral fictionalism, which here refers to the human tendency to build ethical judgments on fictional but convenient and useful representations.

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.