Search results

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

There is a growing interest in how firms respond to environmental degradation and societal challenges. Firms respond through their sustainability reports, but assurance of the reports gives confidence to the stakeholders. This study aims to identify the main research development in sustainability assurance which is rising in global studies.

This study uses a bibliometric analysis to assess the global trend in sustainability assurance studies. The methodology is based on descriptive, performance and science mapping. The set is based on 655 documents from the Scopus database, covering the period from 2005 to 2022.

The findings from the study suggest that sustainability studies are relevant, and the researcher's examination of the domain has dramatically increased from 2014 to date. This is due to the rise in the concerns expressed by stakeholders in satisfying themselves about the firm's responsibility to the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030. The findings also show that most research on sustainability assurance is from Spain, the USA, the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. However, the UK has the most collaboration in terms of co-authorship. It is suggestive that the UK has more links than Spain, which is the most productive country with more publications. This may be attributed to the influx of more international students completing a second and third degree in the UK. The study highlights intellectual foundations and emerging trends and outlines avenues for future studies.

This study is limited to the data obtained from the Scopus database.

This study is the first bibliometric study of the sustainability assurance domain.

This study aims to provide a snapshot of voluntary sustainability assurance in New Zealand (NZ) in 2020. we assess the frequency of different assurance elements and discuss aspects of current practices that potentially contribute to the audit expectation gap. we also test whether the determinants of voluntary sustainability assurance in NZ are consistent with international findings.

For 118 companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange in 2020, we hand collected data on whether sustainability information was assured, subject matter assured, assurance level, outcome, provider, disclosure of detailed procedures, standard referenced and criteria applied. we then examine the influences of voluntary sustainability assurance using both univariate and regression analysis.

Approximately 20% of listed companies that disclosed sustainability information provide a sustainability assurance report, indicating low levels of assurance compared to international practices. we note that the presence of different forms of assurance and certification, placement of sustainability information before financial statements and the associated audit report and mixture of assurance levels potentially contribute to the audit expectation gap. Further, voluntary sustainability assurance practices are diverse, and there are notable differences between Big Four accounting firms and other providers in terms of assurance level and standard referenced. Consistent with prior studies, we find size and industry classification as two main drivers of voluntary sustainability assurance.

We contribute NZ-specific insights to the sustainability assurance literature. The findings on voluntary sustainability assurance practices and reflection on the audit expectation gap are timely and relevant to the new climate-related disclosure mandate and pending assurance requirements.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how sustainability assurance providers’ (SAPs) promotion of sustainability assurance influences the scope of engagements, its implications for professional and managerial capture and the ability of sustainability assurance to promote credible reporting.

The authors conducted in-depth interviews with sustainability reporting managers (SRMs) and SAPs in Australia and New Zealand, using an institutional work lens to focus the analysis.

At the start of a new assurance engagement, SAPs offer pre-assurance and flexible assurance scopes, allowing them to recruit clients on narrow-scoped engagements. These narrow-scoped engagements focus on disclosed content and limit SAPs’ ability to add value and enhance credibility. During assurance engagements, SAPs educate managers and encourage changing the norms underlying sustainability reporting. At the end of the assurance engagement, SAPs provide a management report demonstrating added-value of assurance and encouraging clients broader-scoped engagements. However, with each assurance engagement, the recommendations offer diminishing returns, often leading managers to question the value of broad-scoped engagements and to consider narrowing the scope to realize savings. Under these conditions, client pressure (potentially managerial capture) along with practitioners’ desires to grow assurance income (potentially professional capture) can affect SAPs’ independence and the quality of their assurance work.

The study implies that regulation mandating the scope of engagements may be called for.

The authors contribute to the research literature in several ways. First, the findings show how professional and managerial capture occurs before, during and at the end of the assurance process. The authors highlight how perceived value addition from sustainability assurance diminishes over time and how this impacts the scope of engagements (with implications for SAPs independence and the quality of assurance work). The authors show these findings in a table, clarifying the complicated interrelationships. Second, the authors contribute to theory by identifying a new form of institutional work. Third, unlike previous studies focused on SAPs, the authors provide insights from the perspectives of both SAPs and SRMs.

Previous studies have argued that the incapacity of the majority of SR stakeholders to identify the different types of assurance processes contributes to the existence of an expectation–performance gap and affects the credibility of such reports. To improve this situation, the Content Index Model was updated by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in its latest sustainability reporting guideline – “G4”. This paper aims to assess, using a qualitative exploratory approach, whether this updated Content Index Model changes the expectation–performance gap of stakeholders on assurance processes for GRI sustainability reports. This paper also assesses whether this Content Index Model improves the credibility of the assurance processes for GRI sustainability reports, considering participants’ points of view.

This paper used a qualitative approach to obtain participants’ perceptions in relation to the objectives of the paper. Two questions were used to assess whether the updated Content Index Model improves stakeholders’ understanding in regards to the assurance process of GRI sustainability reports, thus changing the expectation–performance gap and improving the credibility of GRI sustainability reports. The following questions were asked: Does the Content Index Model help SR stakeholders to better understand the scope of the assurance processes? and Why? Does the Content Index Model presented help to improve credibility of assured SR? and Why?

Results obtained demonstrate that the updated Content Index Model improves SR stakeholders’ understanding regarding the scope of the assurance processes conducted, thus reducing their expectation–performance gap on assurance processes and improving the credibility of SR. Participants also commented on the relationship among transparency, understand ability, trust and credibility.

First, participants were responsible for identifying the group that best represents his/her professional experience. The fact that participants have professional experience in more than one of the groups identified in this research (assurers, reporters and readers) could have impacted on their perceptions regarding the assurance process. Second, the interviews do not rely on practical experience with the updated Content Index Model, rather, they rely on participants’ perceptions regarding the hypothetical use of this Content Index Model. Third, descriptive statistical analyses in this paper aim to illustrate participants’ perceptions rather than to develop robust statistically significant conclusions. Fourth, the main author of this paper developed the Content Index Model, and this may have impacted the responses of the participants and/or the analysis of data. Also, the specific geographic area where interviews were conducted, the selection technique used and the non-statistical significance of the analyses presented in this paper must be carefully interpreted and cannot be generalised to a broader context based on this paper alone. Finally, interviews were developed and conducted before May 2013, before the GRI officially launched the GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.

As the GRI is the most commonly used sustainability report framework to date, this study has the possibility to affect all companies that publish their sustainability reports based on the GRI framework and all assurance providers currently providing assurance services for such report. Also, findings would be very useful for sustainability reports’ readers worldwide.

As sustainability reports are the most common instruments used by organisations to provide accountability about the environmental and social performance, and assurance is the most common instrument used by organisations to improve credibility of such reports; it is important to assess whether those instruments are achieving their goals and understand the role played by the GRI G4 Content Index Model in this context. As the GRI G4 was recently launched, there is no study published yet assessing the effectiveness of its new content index model.