Search results

This research complements the corporate reporting literature by exploring the different types of assurance, which companies are using to bolster the credibility of their integrated and sustainability reports. A composite quality measure is proposed and this study aims to provide evidence on how combined assurance quality (CAQ) varies among firms.

Content analysis is used to identify “elements” of combined assurance disclosed in integrated and sustainability reports and company webpages. Results are presented in tabular format and supported by non-parametric tests to evaluate differences in CAQ among firms in more detail.

Combined assurance is framed as a function of the responsibility of the board of directors to ensure accurate, complete and reliable reporting and the characteristics of different internal and external sources of assurance. Overall, combined assurance models are being designed conservatively. They focus mainly on specific disclosures and are guided by a limited number of assurance methodologies or frameworks instead of taking a more pluralistic approach to verification of integrated and sustainability reports as a whole.

The study is based on combined assurance practices by a sample of large listed companies in a single jurisdiction. An international comparison of combined assurance and the calibration of the proposed quality measure is deferred for future research.

Limitations in existing assurance practices are identified for the consideration of preparers and assurance providers. The quality schematic also offers practitioners, standard-setters and academics an easy-to-apply technique for examining the different elements of a company’s combined assurance model.

A better understanding of the quality of combined assurance is essential for users’ to place reliance on integrated and sustainability reports and for informing change to existing assurance practices.

The study is the first to examine the operation and quality of combined assurance. The method used to gauge assurance quality provides a useful basis for a more detailed empirical study on the relevance of combined assurance.

This purpose of this paper is to investigate how to implement a combined assurance program.

This paper uses qualitative data obtained through semi-structured interviews with six multinationals at different stages of combined assurance implementation maturity.

The paper finds that organizations are still learning through combined assurance implementation because no organization seems to have attained a mature combined assurance program. Nevertheless, our descriptive findings reveal that a successful combined assurance implementation follows six important components.

One limitation of this study is that, as the organizations studied are at different stages of combined assurance program implementation, data may have comparability issues. Another limitation is that different interviewees were studied from one case to another.

The results have implications both for organizations that do not yet have a combined assurance program in place and for those currently at the implementation stage. It has also implications for chief audit executives who are good candidates to lead a combined assurance implementation and for regulators, as the study describes combined assurance as an important accountability mechanism that helps boards and audit committees exercise their oversight role properly.

The study is the first to address combined assurance implementation. It complements the study of the Institute of Internal Auditors UK and Ireland (2010), which identifies the reasons for failed attempts to coordinate assurance activities, by illustrating combined assurance implementation through six international case studies of organizations at different combined assurance implementation stages.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to reveal the opinions of the auditors, academicians, and institutions that published integrated reports regarding the development and execution of the assurance process of integrated reports.

Design/methodology/approach: For this purpose, interviews were conducted using qualitative research technique to determine awareness about integrated reporting and combined assurance. Within the scope of the research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six auditors, five academicians, and five workers in institutions that published integrated reports. Qualitative data analysis method was used to analyze the data.

Findings: As a result of the research, combined assurance process criteria were proposed in the integrated reports which in line with the opinions of the participants.

Originality/value: Institutions around the world are increasingly publishing integrated reports. However, when institutions publish integrated reports, there is no clear standard or any guidance on how to ensure the reliability of these reports. It is seen that AA1000, ISAE3000, GRI Standards, and some local standards are used to provide assurance. At this point, the combined assurance model can be used for the reliability of the information in the integrated reports. Integrated reporting and combined assurance are still relatively new concepts in Turkey. Furthermore, this study is important in terms of the lack of studies on how to provide combined assurance for integrated report when scanned related literature in Turkey. Although readily integrated reporting continued in Turkey, it continues to be an area of application is still under development. In particular, the research reflects the level of integrated reporting awareness and how to ensure assurance of these 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.

This paper aims to examine the role of the audit committee function as an internal assurance provider in the emerging integrated reporting (IR) practice. In particular, the authors examine the role of the overall effectiveness, as well as specific aspects, of the audit committee function in IR practice.

The authors examine the integrated reports of 246 firm-year observations of large South African companies over a three-year period (2011-2013), following the introduction of an “apply or explain” IR requirement and an embedded “combined assurance” model in South Africa. Drawing from conflicting theoretical perspectives of economics-based (e.g. agency theory) and socio-political theories (e.g. legitimacy theory), the authors develop competing hypotheses to predict the role of the overall, as well as specific aspects, of the audit committee function in IR practice.

Consistent with the predictions of economics-related theories, the authors find that the overall effectiveness of the audit committee function has a strong positive association with the extent and quality of IR practice. In particular, audit committee authority and meetings are shown to have a significant positive impact on IR practice. However, as implied by socio-political theories, the authors do not find a significant association between key aspects of the audit committee function such as audit committee independence and financial expertise and IR practice.

This study informs local and international regulatory authorities, as well as the business community, about the potential significance of internal assurance mechanisms such as the audit committee function in the emerging IR practice. Given the practical challenges associated with independent external assurance provisions, the findings of this study suggest that internal assurance mechanisms – such as the audit committee function – can be genuine and cost-effective alternative assurance mechanisms in enhancing the credibility and reliability of non-financial reporting practices, particularly the emerging IR practice. The results also inform academic researchers to take cognisance from the expanding roles and responsibilities of audit committees and conduct in-depth investigation on “how” the audit committee function is handling the increasing responsibilities.

The study provides initial empirical account towards the role of the audit committee function in the emerging IR practice. The study is novel because it shows the significance of internal assurance mechanisms in wider organisational reporting practice.

Credibility concerns regarding integrated reports can harm the intended decrease of information asymmetry between a firm and its investors. Therefore, it is crucial to examine whether voluntary third-party assurance enhances the credibility of integrated reports and, thus, decreases information asymmetry. Furthermore, this study aims to investigate the interaction effect between assurance quality and the disclosed connectivity of the capitals, a distinguishing feature of integrated reports.

Content analysis is performed of the 176 assurance statements included in the 269 integrated reports of Forbes Global 2000 firms disclosed from 2013 to 2015 and the 269 integrated reports themselves. Regression analyzes are applied to examine the associations between assurance, the disclosed connectivity of the capitals and information asymmetry.

The presence of an assurance statement in an integrated report significantly decreases information asymmetry. Surprisingly, assurance quality is not significantly associated with information asymmetry. However, an interaction analysis reveals that combining high assurance quality with high disclosed connectivity of the capitals allows a significant decrease in information asymmetry.

The paper demonstrates that the connectivity of the capitals of integrated reports and assurance quality are connected and together are associated with information asymmetry.

The results imply, both for report preparers and standard setters, that assurance quality is advantageous only when combined with disclosed connectivity of the capitals.

More information on non-financial information measured by the connectivity of the capitals of integrated reporting has an interaction effect together with assurance quality on information asymmetry.

This paper builds on a unique data set derived from the contents of integrated reports and accompanying assurance statements. Furthermore, it extends the integrated reporting literature by investigating the interaction between assurance quality and the disclosed connectivity of the capitals, which had not previously been examined in combination.

In South Africa, King III requires companies to have their corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures independently assured. Within this context, the purpose of this paper is to examine internal audit’s CSR assurance role.

With reference to the International Professional Practices Framework of the Institute of Internal Auditors, the first phase of the study conceptually considers whether internal audit does qualify as an independent CSR assurance provider. Using a content analysis of integrated reports, the second phase examines the extent to which internal audit’s CSR assurance role has been disclosed. The final phase relies on survey responses to understand the emerging trends observed in the second phase.

The study finds that although internal audit does provide independent CSR assurance, this assurance is primarily intended for internal stakeholders to assist in improving the quality of CSR reporting practices. With one notable exception across the study period, the results suggest that any benefits accruing to external stakeholders were not deliberate, but merely incidental. The paper concludes by arguing that although internal audit will continue to incorporate material CSR issues into its mandatory risk-based auditing approach, the results will not necessarily be publicly available. The extent of reliance that external stakeholders can place on company CSR disclosures are therefore not directly influenced by internal audit’s involvement in CSR-related matters. However, by adopting a proactive CSR role, internal audit can assist reporting companies improve their CSR reporting practices.

Although CSR assurance has been extensively researched, this is one of the first studies to specifically consider the CSR assurance role of the internal audit activity. Despite its South African orientation, given the emerging nature of the CSR assurance phenomenon, the study findings have global implications.

Despite its voluntary nature, the Johannesburg stock exchange (JSE) requires all listed companies to apply the King III principles, including providing independent CSR assurance. King III has accordingly made independent CSR assurance a de facto mandatory requirement, albeit on an “apply or explain” basis. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact mandatory corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance practices in South Africa, within a King III context.

To understand the impact of King III on South African CSR assurance practices, a longitudinal study covering reporting periods both before and after King III implementation. The first stage reviewed the annual reports of the 200 largest JSE-listed companies to establish the frequency of CSR assurance provision. The second stage involved performing a content analysis on the CSR assurance reports.

King III is driving the institutionalisation of CSR assurance practices in South Africa, as evidenced by the growth in CSR assurance since the implementation of King III. The study also found that the audit profession’s dominance was being eroded by specialist CSR assurors providing higher levels of assurance, despite concerns about the rigour of their assurance methodologies. Voluntary CSR assurance practices have resulted in the inconsistent application of CSR assurance practices, impairing the ability of stakeholders to understand the nature and scope of CSR assurance engagements. It is argued that this deficiency may be overcome through the imposition of a mandatory CSR assurance regime.

The pervasive impact of the King Code of Governance on South African organisations makes it appropriate to examine its impact on South African CSR assurance practices. As such, this paper represents one of the first studies to specifically consider the impact of a mandatory regulatory requirement for independent CSR assurance and suggests a future direction for global CSR assurance practices.