Search results

The growth in social and environmental reports is followed by a growth in reports including an assurance statement done by an outsider to the company. The aim of this paper is to study the implementation by companies of a third party assurance provision to their sustainability reports.

The author examined the practices of French companies as far as verification of sustainability information is concerned and opted for an exploratory study. The study analyses the assurance statement of French CAC 40 listed companies publishing a sustainability report verified by a third party. It also analyses semi‐structured interviews conducted with sustainability managers and assurance providers.

The paper provides an insight of how assurance reports are stated and it seems that they lack precision and explanation. The interest for companies to engage in the assurance of their sustainability information is to manage their sustainable development policy and to progress in reporting their sustainability information. Moreover, the aim of sustainability verification is to assure users of the accountability and reliability of the disclosed information. The sustainability assurance engagement is mainly a quest for legitimacy.

The sample of semi‐structured interviews could be enlarged and other important actors such as shareholders or non‐financial rating agencies interviewed. Further research could be conducted at an international level, thus allowing embracing institutional contexts for each country.

This paper contributes to the emerging literature about sustainability assurance practices and could be of interest to managers and auditors to improve the assurance practices of social and environmental reporting.

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 examine the competition between accounting sustainability assurance providers (ASAPs) and non-accounting sustainability assurance providers (NASAPs), and how this competition influences the institutionalization of the evolving field of sustainability assurance.

An interpretivist research methodology, guided by an institutional work perspective, is used to analyze interviews with 15 SAPs and 35 sustainability reporting managers (SRMs) in Australia and New Zealand.

ASAPs prefer to use International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (ISAE3000), because it is well recognized in the profession, adheres to ASAPs’ regulatory requirements, and mirrors their financial audit methodologies. This preference influences ASAPs’ institutional work as they compete against NASAPs and how they institutionalize sustainability assurance. ASAPs’ institutional works include presenting sustainability assurance as similar to a financial audit, arguing in support of a single provider for financial audits and sustainability assurance, and undermining NASAPs and their preferred sustainability assurance standard, AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS), by appealing to senior management. In comparison, NASAPs promote AA1000AS as a specialist standard among SRMs, emphasizing the standard’s sustainability enhancing qualities and its flexibility, while discrediting ASAPs and ISAE3000 as out of touch with sustainability objectives.

A new conceptual model is constructed that can be used in institutional work research.

The accounting profession is encouraged to consider more flexible, innovative methods in new assurance markets. This involves using new assurance standards as well as developing specialist standards for new forms of assurance. Regulation over sustainability assurance could be helpful, but regulators should be careful not to stifle competition in this evolving field.

This paper examines how competition between ASAPs and NASAPs influences the institutionalization of sustainability assurance. The paper offers a new model for the analysis of institutional work, which could be used by researchers, new insights into the emerging field of sustainability assurance, as well as a figure and discussion that clarifies the broader implications of the findings.

The importance of sustainability in the property industry is well recognised, and many studies have proved the existence of sustainability premiums in real estate markets. Valuers play the most pivotal role in reflecting the market, however despite the efforts of both academic and professional bodies to improve valuer knowledge and perceptions of sustainability there remains significant limitation of consideration of sustainability in valuation within the profession. The purpose of this paper is to investigate valuation practice through examining institutional grade commercial valuers’ approaches and consideration of sustainability in valuation.

This research used a case study approach and interviewed institutional grade commercial valuers in Melbourne, Australia, exploring their consideration of sustainability in their valuation reports for commercial properties. A semi-structured interview technique was utilised with responses using qualitative content analysis that investigated the processes used, knowledge and incorporation of sustainability in valuation practice.

The study has found substantial limitations in the incorporation of sustainability in property valuation in Melbourne’s real estate market, comprising valuers’ limited knowledge, reluctance to consider sustainability in the valuation process, poor verification or investigation of sustainability considerations, client instructions did not direct valuers to consider sustainability, lack of data and limited tools for detailed analysis.

Although a small sample, the data redundancy found in this research suggests a level of consensus on certain aspects of practice within the sector in Melbourne. This corroborates similar findings from a large-scale study of valuers and property professionals in Europe and the UK (Michl et al. 2016).

There is urgent need for more education and direction in the consideration and incorporation of sustainability in valuation for valuers. Enhancing the enforcement of guidelines from professional bodies is also crucial in order to deepen the analysis of sustainability in property valuation.

The research has provided an in-depth perspective of valuation practice in the commercial sector, that identifies and expands on the barriers in regard to limited incorporation of sustainability in property valuation reports, physical reporting, comparative analysis and depth of discussion. Further, it highlights the limited consideration of guidance notes in regard to sustainability from professional bodies.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive comprehensive analysis of sustainability reporting (SR) and assurance in Portugal after the onset of the most recent economic crisis.

The authors analyze 290 sustainability reports for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, and find those that include assurance statements and characterize them.

The authors present evidence supporting the view that the Portuguese sustainability reporting assurance (SRA) market follows the international trends and suggest that the most recent economic crisis had a negative effect in terms of publication of sustainability reports but not in terms of its quality and assurance.

The authors merely provide descriptive evidence of SR and the assurance thereof in Portugal.

The authors contribute significantly to the literature on SRA in peripheral countries and in the period of crisis.

The purpose of this study is to consider three distinct bodies of literature and uses stakeholder theory as the premise of this study. The first deals with corporate sustainability reporting and voluntary disclosure behaviour, and corporate governance at the firm level, the second deals with the decision to utilize assurance services (voluntary adoption) and the third relates to the choice of auditor/assurance provider.

This study investigates these issues using archival data from some of the Top 200 listed companies in 2010 from the countries Australia and the UK. The final matched-pair sample consists of 220 listed companies.

The study finds that audit client size and the strength of corporate governance structures are significant in explaining the decision to produce a standalone sustainability report. Whereas few of these variables provide any explanatory value on the voluntary decision to assure the sustainability report, the existence of an active and diligent audit committee does have positive significance. Finally, the existence of an active and diligent sustainability committee is significant in explaining the choice of assurance provider where a member of the auditing profession was selected by the firm’s management.

Few studies (if any), have found a link between governance characteristics, sustainability report production, and assurance provider. The current study attempts to address this knowledge gap, and also considers the assurance work by professionals outside the auditing profession, and identifies which governance and firm-level characteristics may explain demand for their assurance services. This current study, assists to understand the low incidence of assurance and what might be necessary to increase demand for this type of assurance.

This chapter aims to determine the extent of stakeholder engagement in the sustainability accounting and reporting process in three Australian local councils. The frameworks of Arnstein (1969) and Friedman and Miles (2006) and the case study methodology are used to assess the stakeholder engagement practices of three best practice Australian local councils. The findings highlight the existence of five levels of stakeholder engagement ranging from informing to empowering. However, the extent of stakeholder engagement varied depending on the nature and purpose of engagement. This study adds to the limited literature on stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting, especially in a public sector context. This study provides practical insights into engagement with stakeholders and is useful to both organizations and their stakeholders. Although focused on a public sector and Australian context, the findings of this study have implications for stakeholder engagement in various local and global contexts.

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.

Although studies in corporate sustainability have been vastly growing, there has been an increasing demand for more industry-specific sustainability reporting studies to develop a greater understanding of industry differences in sustainability reporting practice. This study aims to measure the quality of sustainability disclosures in the current leading environmentally sensitive industry in Australia – the resources industry.

A scoring index was developed to measure economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability by integrating the fundamental principles of the hard and soft disclosure items from Clarkson et al.’s (2008) environmental index into the social and economic aspects of the Global Reporting Initiative framework. Subsequently, the index was used to assess sustainability disclosures in the annual and sustainability reports of resources companies in Australia.

The main findings show that companies report more of soft disclosure items than the hard ones. It is also found that companies report most sustainability information in the economic aspect rather than the social and the environmental aspects of sustainability. Most companies disclose sustainability information in their annual reports with few companies producing stand-alone sustainability reports.

This study addresses the need for more industry-specific sustainability studies by focusing on Australia’s resources industry. It also contributes to the lack of an existing tool to measure disclosures based on companies’ true contributions to sustainability by developing a new scoring index for hard and soft sustainability disclosures, which includes all three aspects of sustainability (i.e. economic, environmental and social).

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.