Search results

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.

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 study aims to examine the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) award and sustainability assurance levels for the French CAC 40 companies.

A sample of 57 French companies in the CAC 40 index corresponding to 448 observations was analyzed between 2008 and 2020 using an ordinal regression.

The main results conclude that the inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index World, the CSR award and the introduction of the Grenelle 2 law have a significant influence on sustainability assurance levels. However, incentive compensation does not appear to be relevant to explain sustainability assurance levels.

The present study focuses on a sample, limited to companies belonging to the CAC 40 index. To enhance the understanding of sustainability assurance levels, this research may include other global sustainability indices, such as the MSCI World and the FTSE4Good World, in the CSR awards.

This study could be useful for audit practitioners, leading them to reconsider their evaluation methods and take into account CSR incentives for a more objective analysis. Regulators should investigate the current CSR issues to improve CSR disclosure standards. Finally, these findings could motivate other researchers to expand the scope of the research to diverse contexts.

This study helps fill the gap existing in sustainability assurance literature by highlighting the relationship between CSR rewards and sustainability assurance levels.

Although the association between sustainability assurance (SA) quality and firm value has been examined in previous studies, the moderating relationship is novel in this study and highlights the effect of corporate environmental sustainability performance (CESP) on the relationship between SA quality and firm value. This study aims to examine whether such an effect is strengthened or weakened by eco-efficiency, as measured by ISO 14001 certification, aggregate CESP score and each individual dimension of CESP (emission reduction [ER], resource reduction [RR] and product innovation [PI]).

The sample includes 40 companies in Euronext Paris with the largest market capitalisations (the Cotation Assistée en Continu 40 [CAC 40] index) from 2010 to 2020. The authors apply the feasible generalised least squares regression technique to estimate all the regression models. Because observed associations may be biased by reverse causation or self-selection, the authors use the instrumental variable approach and Heckman two-stage estimation.

The results show that SA quality had a positive and significant effect on firm value. Second, the authors demonstrate that CESP, as assessed by ISO 14001 certification, has a stronger interaction with assurance quality and acting as a moderator variable. Using the ASSET4 scores, an alternative proxy for CESP, the authors find inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of CESP attributes. The CESP and ER scores are homogeneous and have a positive effect on firm value. However, the PI and RR CESP attributes are not homogenous and do not have the same interactive effect on firm value. The results are robust to the use of an instrumental variable approach and the Heckman two-stage estimation procedure.

Policy implications: Regulators may be interested in the findings when considering current and future assurance requirements for sustainability reporting, and shareholders when considering SA as an investment choice criterion. The insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining high SA quality can help policymakers develop effective policies and initiatives for SA. Considering the possible improvements in sustainability performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating SA.

Firms receive clear confirmation of the importance of investing in SA quality. Financial markets do not evaluate SA dichotomously but reward companies with higher SA quality because of the greater credibility it provides. Firms should allocate a significant percentage of their annual budgets and other relevant resources to environmental training and development programmes to improve and maintain environmental performance. If they care about environmental issues, they must announce this by issuing sustainability reports and seeking assurance of the information disclosed. High-quality assurance not only has a significant effect on investors’ investment reliability judgements but also the perceived credibility of environmental performance fully moderates the effect of assurance on these judgements.

This study has social implications; the authors find that the French market rewards firms that provide a high-quality assurance to guarantee the integrity of their sustainability reports. Therefore, by incorporating environmental sustainability into their financial goals, a better assurance ultimately will urge firms to move from green washing to strategic goals, which is beneficial for society. Further, firms that focus on sustainability as part of their business strategy may attract employees who engage in green behaviours at work and create a friendlier and productive environment because it gives meaning to the work they do and keeps them engaged to the level needed to perform their jobs capably.

This study contributes to the literature by re-examining the relationship between SA quality and firm value. It also provides new evidence on the moderating effect of CESP on the SA quality–firm value nexus. Specifically, it explores the joint effect of credibility and eco-efficiency on market confidence in sustainability information.

This study elucidates the interactive relationship of sustainability assurance (SA) quality with corporate environmental sustainability performance (CESP) and firm value and explores the moderating impact of CESP on the SA quality–firm value relationship.

The sample comprises 320 firm-year observations of 40 companies listed on the Cotation Assistée en Continu (CAC 40) from 2010 to 2019. The authors use the simultaneous equations model to capture the CESP and SA quality–firm value relationship and apply the three-stage regression and generalised method of moments approaches to address possible endogeneity.

The results show that CESP, as assessed by International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 14001 certification, has a significant positive effect on firm value, the relevance of which implies that in the case of good environmental performance, society's perception of a firm is much more favourable; consequently, the firm is likely to be rewarded with a premium value in capital markets. In addition, environmental performance has a stronger interaction with SA quality, acting as a moderator variable; thus, greater SA quality signals credibility owing to increased eco-efficiency. The authors interpret their findings within a multi-theoretical framework that draws insights from legitimacy, stakeholders and signalling theoretical perspectives.

This study contributes to the literature by re-examining the relationship between SA quality and firm value. It also provides new evidence of the moderating effect of CESP on the SA quality–firm value nexus. Specifically, this study explores the joint effects of credibility and eco-efficiency on market confidence in sustainability information. The authors use a simultaneous equation model to capture the reciprocal association between SA quality and firm value, whereas prior studies on SA quality and market performance have frequently used single-equation regression. The authors also find that CESP positively moderates the relationship between SA quality and firm value. Including CESP and exploring the moderating impact of eco-efficiency on the SA quality–firm value relationship is a novel approach.

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.

This paper aims to investigate whether the perceived level of corruption influences companies' decision to address principles and standards aimed, inter alia, at fighting corruption [i.e. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), (2) United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), (3) International Standards Organisation (ISO) 26,000 and (4) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines] in companies' sustainability reporting.

The paper uses a sample of 1,171 sustainability reports published in the year 2017 by organisations from Asia and Africa's low- and middle-income countries.

Results from the Probit model reveal that corruption negatively affects corporate sustainability reporting activity. Indeed, the more companies are exposed to high levels of corruption, the less likely they appear to engage in sustainability reporting. Furthermore, the authors find clear regional and sector-level differences in the extent to which companies engage in sustainability reporting. The results show that Asian companies operating in the agricultural and financial services sectors exhibit significantly higher reporting activity, whilst those operating in the construction and mining sectors report less than the sectors' peers.

The authors' findings provide important implications for understanding companies' behaviour in the sustainability reporting in emerging economies as well as for designing corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure initiatives in the future.

This paper provides a better understanding of the impact of corruption on companies' reporting behaviour in the context of emerging economies.

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.

This paper aims to investigate the potential influence of managers on sustainability assurance. When the quality of sustainability reporting is questionable because of subsequent restatements, the authors explore whether assurance is used to enhance its credibility as a legitimization tool or as an impression management strategy. Additionally, the authors analyze how capital markets react to this potential managerial capture and, particularly, whether investors penalize this practice through the cost of capital.

Using an international sample from 2012 to 2016 and panel data regressions, this study relies on DICTION’s master variables of optimism and certainty to examine the impact of managers on assurance and the market’s reaction to these practices.

The study shows that some managers might use assurance as a legitimization tool rather than as a means of reinforcing the credibility of sustainability reporting. In such cases, the results reveal that investors penalize (reward) managerial influence (no influence) on assurance.

The new findings help companies understand that they will not improve their financing terms if investors perceive that managers have influenced assurance. Moreover, these findings emphasize the need for standardization to clarify assurance criteria and prevent managerial influence.

Managerial influence on assurance raises doubts about its value in terms of reducing information asymmetry and especially improving investors’ decision-making.

The present study represents the first evidence of the potential use of assurance for non-informative purposes. The authors provide clear evidence of how investors penalize managerial influence on assurance, in contrast to the mainstream literature, which shows that this practice always improves investors’ decision-making and is rewarded.

This study examines how assurors make sense of sustainability assurance (SA) work and how interactions with assurance team members and clients shape assurors’ sensemaking and their actual SA work.

To obtain detailed accounts of how SA work occurs on the ground, this study explores three SA engagements by interviewing the main actors involved, both at the client firms and at their Big Four assurance providers.

Individual assurors’ (i.e. partners and other team members) sensemaking of SA work results in the crafting of their logics of action (LoAs), that is, their meanings about the objectives of SA work and how to conduct it. Without organizational socialization, team members may not arrive at shared meanings and deviate from the team-wide assurance approach. To fulfill their objectives for SA work, assurors may engage in socialization with clients or assume a temporary role. Yet, the role negotiations taking place in the shadows of the scope negotiations determine their default role during the engagement.

Two options are available to help SA statement users gauge the relevance of SA work: either displaying the SA work performed or making it more uniform.

This study theoretically grounds how assurors make sense of SA work and documents how (the lack of) professional socialization, organizational socialization and socialization of frequent interaction partners at the client shape actual SA work. Thereby, it unravels the SA work concealed behind SA statements.