Search results

This paper aims to examine the development and evolution of sustainability reporting and assurance practices in Malaysia to identify the current practice and trend of reporting and the level of awareness on assurance on sustainability reporting in Malaysia.

Interviews and questionnaire surveys were used to obtain respondents' perceptions on issues related to sustainability reporting and assurance practices among the ACCA‐MeSRA (Malaysian Environmental and Social Reporting Award) participants in 2007 coupled with content analysis of corporate annual reports and other standalone reports.

Results from the study provide evidence that most of the information relating to sustainability disclosure reported is integrated in the annual report and with no assurance statement due to low level of awareness and the absence of legislative pressure to commission the practice. The study indicates that companies applied selective reporting on issues relating to monetary contribution predominantly due to minority shareholders' insistence on better return for their investment.

The nature of this study is exploratory and focuses on the evolution of sustainability reporting from the current state of corporate responsibility reporting and the availability of assurance practices in Malaysia. Findings in the study revealed several issues that require further analysis to identify significant factors that would influence sustainability reporting and assurance practices.

This study creates interest in the sustainability reporting and assurance practices in the Asian developing countries as its adaptation is far from developed.

This paper presents preliminary insights of the current trend and future direction of sustainability reporting and assurance in Malaysia.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of sustainability reporting and the assurance thereof in South Africa.

The paper takes the form of a literature review and a study of empirical evidence obtained through content analysis of the sustainability reports of companies listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange Socially Responsible Investment Index for 2009.

Although sustainability reporting and the independent assurance thereof are widely researched and advocated in the literature, only a limited number of companies obtained independent assurance on their sustainability reporting.

The paper supports the recommendations of King III (effective from 1 March 2010) that companies should provide integrated reporting in terms of both their finances and sustainability, and that the sustainability reporting and disclosure should be independently assured.

This case study presents a critical analysis of why and how corporate managers in China are reluctant to adopt sustainability reporting assurance (SRA) provided by externally independent third-party assurers, despite the fact that it is acknowledged as a value-adding activity globally.

A longitudinal fieldwork case study was conducted from 2014 to 2019 in a Chinese central state-owned enterprise (CSOE), a pioneer in sustainability reporting practice since the mid-2000s, to collect first-hand empirical data on managerial perceptions of the adoption of external SRA. Semi-structured interviews with 25 managers involved in sustainability (reporting) practice were conducted. The interview data were triangulated with an analysis of archival documents and board meeting minutes pertaining to the undertakings of sustainability practices in the case study organization.

Our empirical analysis suggests that while managers recognize the benefits of adopting external SRA in enhancing the legitimacy of sustainability accountability, they oppose SRA because of their deep-rooted allegiance to the dominant logic of sociopolitical stability in China. SRA is envisaged to risk the stability of the socialist ideology with which CSOEs are imbued. Therefore, any transformational approach to accepting a novel (foreign) practice must be molded to gain control and autonomy, thereby maintain the hegemony of stability logic. Instead of disregarding external verification, managers of our case SOE appear to harness sustainability reporting as a navigational space to engage in internally crafted alternative manners in order to resist the rationality of SRA.

The empirical analysis presents a nuanced explanation as to why internal managers have hitherto been reluctant to embrace the embedding of independent assurance into the sustainability reporting process. Our prolonged fieldwork provides ample context-specific, intra-organizational evidence regarding the absence of SRA in Chinese CSOEs, which warrants more attention given their considerable presence in the global economy. In addition, the empirical analysis contributes to our understanding of the managerial capture of sustainability issues in a specific context of state capitalism and how organizations and individuals in an authoritarian regime interpret and respond to novel discourses derived from distinct institutional settings.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to understand sustainability assurance (SA), and diversity in that practice, by examining assurance providers’ understandings of the practice and the influences that those understandings have on the actual assurance process. It focuses on the issues beyond the content of statements in SA reports.

This paper employs semi-structured interviews, supplemented by textual data sources. Research participants are assurance providers in the UK, including those within and outside the accounting profession. Drawing on the perspective of actor-network theory, the study focuses on the associations between different actors and how those shape the assurance practice.

The findings indicate that providers’ understandings of SA practice vary significantly. This variation has a major effect on how the assurance practice is conducted. The study identifies four types of SA engagements, which are designated as: social assurance, integrated assurance, formative assurance and compliance assurance. Such a categorization provides a broad-based understanding of the operationalization of SA and the degree of heterogeneity within it.

This paper extends the understanding of SA by focusing on the practice beyond the statements made by assurance providers, which have been the predominant focus of analysis in the existing literature, and by offering a categorization of the diversity in practice. The focus on the associations between assurance providers and other actors provides a new perspective for exploring the fundamentals of the practice.

The purposes of this paper are to provide a preliminary examination of the extent to which Europe’s leading commercial property companies 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 an introduction to corporate sustainability, an outline of the European property market and of the drivers for, and challenges to, sustainability for property companies and a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance. The information on which the paper is based is drawn from the leading European commercial property companies’ corporate websites.

The paper reveals that all of Europe’s leading property companies had either reported or provided information on sustainability but that only approximately half of these 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 force more of the leading European 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 Europe’s leading commercial property companies’ sustainability reporting and as such it will interest professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in the sustainability in the property industry.

In recent times, stakeholders have called on corporate organizations especially those charged with governance to embrace full disclosure on non-financial issues, especially sustainability reporting. Based on this premise, this study aims to examine the influence of corporate board and assurance on sustainability reporting practices (SRP) of selected 80 firms from 8 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

To measure the corporate board, the authors use both board variables and audit committee variables. Also, the authors adapted the sustainability score model as used by previous authors in the field of sustainability disclosure to measure SRPs. The analysis was done using both ordered logistic regression and probit regression models.

The results show that the combination of board corporate and assurance has a positive and significant impact on the sustainability reporting practice of selected firms in sub-Saharan Africa.

The study places emphasis on the need for strong collaboration between the corporate board and external assurance in evaluating and enhancing the quality of sustainability disclosure.

The study bridged the gap in the literature in the area of corporate board, assurance and SRP of corporate firms which has received little attention within sub-Saharan Africa.

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.