Assurance of Sustainability Reports: Impact on Report Users' Confidence and Perceptions of Information Credibility

This study examines whether (1) assurance, (2) the level of assurance (reasonable vs limited) and (3) the type of assurance practitioner (accountant vs specialist consultant) affect users' perceptions of reliability of sustainability reports. Based on an experimental questionnaire, we find that the provision of assurance improves perceived reliability of the environmental and social information. There are no significant main effects for both the level of assurance and type of assurance practitioner. However, a significant interaction is found between these two experimental factors and report users' perceptions of reliability of such reports. More specifically, report users place more confidence in sustainability reports when the level of assurance provided is reasonable (that is, high but not absolute), and when such assurance is provided by a top tier accountancy firm, compared to when the assurance is provided by a specialist consultant. No such difference is found when the level of assurance provided is limited for either type of assurance practitioner group. The results of this study thus highlight the relevance of assurance for sustainability reporting.     

Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting

Based on the development of a more refined conception of legitimacy than has been used in prior audit/assurance and sustainability accounting research, this paper analyses how the legitimation processes adopted by sustainability assurance practitioners in a large professional services firm have co-evolved with and impacted upon their attempts to develop this form of assurance practice - particularly the construction of assurance statements. The analysis reveals a complex and interdependent interplay between attempts at securing pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy with three key constituencies - clients who commission the sustainability assurance services; (socially constructed) non-client users of the assurance statements; and the firm’s internal Risk Department that approves the wording of assurance statements. Securing these types of legitimacy is shown to require the adoption and alignment of varying legitimation strategies according to the constituency practitioners seek to influence. Developing pragmatic legitimacy with clients depends on establishing moral legitimacy with non-client users of assurance statements while securing moral legitimacy with non-client users is contingent on acquiring pragmatic legitimacy with the firm’s internal Risk Department. The practitioners’ legitimation strategies are underpinned by a commitment to opening up dialogue within the assurance process which is evident in their engagement with potential users of assurance and their efforts to expand assurance statement content and encourage user influence over what is assured. This provides a counterpoint to Power’s (1994, 1999) concerns about the tendency for new assurance forms to restrict debate and dialogue and reveals a rare empirical domain where Power’s (2003b) call for more customised and informative narratives in assurance reporting is being heeded.     

Evidence of assurance enhancing the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures: an empirical analysis

In response to investor and public concerns about harm to the environment, companies are increasingly disclosing environmental information. To enhance the quality of corporate environmental disclosures in a largely voluntary context, various stakeholders are also demanding independent assurance. This study uses a stakeholder‐agency theoretical perspective to examine whether the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures is enhanced when assured. This study also examines the difference in the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures when assurance is provided by either professional accountant assurers or private consultants. Our sample comprises listed companies voluntarily disclosing environmental information in stand‐alone reports, annual reports, and websites. We use an index based upon the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to measure the quality of company environmental reporting. Results of this matched pairs study show that the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures scores significantly higher for assured companies than unassured companies. For assured companies, the quality is no different when assured by accountants or consultants. Additional analysis provides preliminary evidence that experience improves the quality of environmental disclosures.     

Does external assurance contribute to higher quality integrated reports?

This paper contributes to the literature on internal benefits and positive capital market effects of integrated reporting by examining whether or not external assurance acts as a driver of high quality integrated reports. It answers calls for additional research on integrated reporting practice and is also timely, given the current discussions by standard-setters, regulators and other stakeholders on the need for integrated reports to be subject to some form of external verification. The research shows that an increase in the number of elements of an integrated report being subject to external assurance is associated with higher quality reporting. This is especially true when the assurance services are provided by one of the Big 4. The assurance engagements which contribute most significantly to report quality are those covering disclosures dealing broadly with social and environmental sustainability and compliance with the AccountAbility principles of materiality, inclusivity and responsiveness. In turn, if the assurance of only these aspects of an integrated report already improves report quality, there is a clear need for guidance on how the assurance process can be expanded to ensure that all material disclosures are subject to, at least, some form of verification.     

Processes of auditability in sustainability assurance – the case of materiality construction

This study examines how financial audit-styled concepts such as materiality are transferred to non-financial audit arenas. Drawing on a case study of assurors working within a Big 4 professional services firm, we uncover a number of interrelated features of the materiality determination and assessment process within sustainability assurance (assurance on sustainability reports). We illustrate how assuror flexibility, underpinned by assuror intuition, is central to uncovering assurance technologies deemed capable of addressing the materiality of ambiguous sustainability data. Assurors with no financial audit background retrospectively rationalise their intuition using the assumed authority of structured financial audit methodologies. This facilitates the tentative translation of financial audit knowledge to the sustainability assurance domain. Collaborative, holistic decision-making processes inform the assurors’ continual construction of materiality and are characterised by alliances of (accountant and non-accountant) ‘expert’ assurors merging formal and tacit knowledge. These alliances seek social cohesion within sustainability assurance teams in order to establish a social consensus among assurors around the materiality determination and assessment process. Our analysis develops and extends Power’s theorisation of how new areas are made auditable and advances our understanding of the more practical aspects of non-financial assurance services offered by Big 4 professional services firms.     

Assurance provided by auditors' reports on prospective financial information: implications for the expectation gap

The results of this study indicate significant differences in beliefs between auditors, users and preparers of prospective financial information, concerning forecast reliability and the role and responsibilities of auditors and management. Contrary to the usual published studies on expectation gap, it was found that auditors believe that forecasts are more reliable than users or preparers. Auditors also believe that they have a higher level of responsibility and accountability than is attributed to them by users or preparers. Beliefs were affected by the type of report issued by the auditor and subjects were able to discriminate between the level of assurance provided by positive and negative assurance opinions. However, based on the responses of shareholders, it appears that the negative assurance opinion on assumptions for an audit might confuse users and might not meet the demands of the market.     

Assuring the integrated report: Insights and recommendations from auditors and preparers

There is little guidance on how integrated reports could be the subject matter of a conventional assurance engagement despite their growing use as an important means of communicating with stakeholders. This paper takes the first step in addressing this issue. The study relies on primary data collected from recorded interviews with 20 audit experts and 20 preparers, complemented by principles from existing professional assurance standards, to develop interpretively three possible assurance models (restricted, integrated and Delphi-inspired assurance).A restricted assurance model concentrates only on the audit of financial statements and the reporting of inconsistencies between the financial statements and other information contained in an integrated report to those charged with an organisation's governance. An integrated approach to ‘assurance’ offers an immediate solution for providing at least some assurance over the integrated report. It relies on different systems of checks and balances to provide directors with a basis for accepting responsibility for their organisations' integrated reports. Finally, a Delphi-inspired model offers a glimpse into how assurance services may evolve in response to the call for integrated reports to be assured. This model relies on a panel of experts to express an opinion on the method used to prepare integrated reports.     

Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors affecting the credibility of sustainability reports

This study investigates factors affecting the credibility of sustainability reporting. Potential factors were first identified from prior studies and then refined through semi-structured interviews with sustainability reporting stakeholders including users, preparers, assurance providers and standard-setters. From this we construct a conceptual framework containing 26 variables that potentially influence credibility assessments of sustainability reports. This large set of variables is then evaluated by using a questionnaire survey of different stakeholder groups. The responses reveal that some source credibility variables (trustworthiness, track record and management expertise), assurance-related variables, and message characteristics (materiality and completeness of sustainability disclosures) are perceived by different stakeholder groups as particularly important to the credibility assessment, with source credibility factors dominating the rankings. An exploratory factor analysis shows that perceptions coalesce on four factors that are concerned with assurance and accountability, source (management) characteristics, message characteristics, and standards & ratings, with the structure of first two being dominated by the variables ranked as most important. The rank analysis also reveals significant differences between users and preparers in the ordering of influential credibility factors, and this is further supported by the significant differences between users’ and preparers’ mean scores for the ‘assurance and accountability’ and ‘source (management) characteristics’ factors.     

The Provision of Other Services by Auditors: Independence and Pricing Issues

This research has three objectives: to identify the extent and level of other services provided by incumbent auditors in the Australian business environment; to examine pricing issues by investigating the relationship between fees for other services and audit fees; and to address the question of independence by (a) identifying whether the incidence of audit qualification is related to the level of other services purchased and (b) investigating whether there is a relationship between audit tenure and the level of other services provided. Information on audit fees, fees for other services, size, audit qualifications, industry and auditor (Big 8(6)/Non-Big 8(6)) was obtained from publicly available information for the majority of the top 500 Australian companies listed on the Australian stock exchange between 1986–1990. This study provides evidence that an increasing number of clients are purchasing other services from their auditor. A significant positive relationship between fees paid for other services and audit fees was also identified. No relationship was identified between the level of other services and the type of audit report issued or audit tenure, supporting the view that audit independence is not compromised by provision of the other services.     

Multilevel Approach to Sustainability Report Assurance Decisions

Using generalised linear mixed models as a statistical tool, this paper analyses the factors that explain the decision of a company to assure their sustainability report and of the choice of a Big 4 auditor as assuror. Specifically, we investigate the variables that affect the two dependent variables, existence of assurance and the profile of the assuror, at two different levels: the characteristics of the reporting company, and the country in which the company is located. Previous literature has explained this relationship as the result of linear regression models, considering only the fixed effects of the factors. Taking into account random effects, we are able to arrive at more precise conclusions on the effect of country (legal tradition and European membership) and company variables (size, public or non‐public, industry and integrated reporting), on the existence of assurance and the profile of the assuror.     

盈余持续性、审计师类型对盈余持续性的影响及资本市场反应

以我国2002~2008年期间A股上市公司为研究对象,延续Sloan的方法,利用mishkin检验来考察公司盈余持续性、审计师类型对盈余持续性的影响及股票市场反应。发现公司盈余中应计成分持续性低于现金流量成分;四大审计客户的盈余持续性要高于非四大审计的客户;与公司盈余中现金流量成分相比,四大审计师更显著提高公司盈余中应计成分的持续性;股票价格中所包含的公司盈余预期不能反映公司盈余中应计成分和现金流量成分持续性的差别;股票价格中包含的盈余预期可以总体上反映四大与非四大审计师对公司盈余持续性影响的差异,但股票价格中包含的盈余预期不能反映四大与非四大审计师对公司盈余中应计成分和现金流量成分持续性影响的不同,市场符合＂幼稚投资者＂假说。     

Corporate carbon assurance and the quality of carbon disclosure

Based on an international sample, this study examines the association between corporate carbon assurance and carbon disclosure. We find that companies that adopt carbon assurance tend to have better carbon disclosure quality than their unassured peers. Cross-sectional analyses demonstrate that the positive relationship is stronger in stakeholder-oriented countries. We also document that carbon assurance plays a substitutive role for country-level carbon regulation and social trust. Further analyses suggest that carbon assurance has differential impacts on specific types of carbon disclosure and the quality of carbon disclosure increases with the percentage of reported emissions assured and the level of carbon assurance.     

What do analysts do? Discussion of “Information interpretation or information discovery: which role of analysts do investors value more?”

Three decades of accounting and finance research has extensively studied the outputs from financial analysts. However, there is sparse systematic evidence on what analysts do to generate their outputs in the form of forecasts, recommendations, and research reports. Livnat and Zhang (Rev Account Stud, 2012) provide interesting new evidence regarding the relative amount of value added that analysts produce by examining investors?? reaction to analysts?? forecast revisions issued promptly after firms?? public disclosures compared with those issued at other times. Their analysis shows that prompt revisions are associated with larger returns, which the authors interpret as evidence that analysts?? ability to interpret public disclosures is more valuable to investors. Three issues bear consideration in the interpretation of these findings.     

Corporate social responsibility committees and the use of corporate social responsibility assurance services

This study examines whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) committees associate with the external assurance of CSR reports. Specifically, we consider the presence and effectiveness of CSR committees. Using a sample of Australian firms over the period 2004–2016, we show the mere presence of a CSR committee is not related to the external assurance of CSR. However, CSR committee effectiveness is positively related. In addition, firms with higher CSR committee effectiveness are more likely to seek external assurance provided by the Big4 accountancy firms and acquire financial audit and CSR assurance services from the same provider. Taken together, CSR committee effectiveness plays an active role in CSR assurance services. Our results are particularly relevant to those with interests in understanding the demand and choice of external CSR assurance services, as well as the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on these services.     

Internal control audits: Judges' perceptions of the credibility of the financial reporting process and likely auditor liability

This paper reports the results of a study in which fifty-seven sitting United States judges participated in a behavioral experiment to assess the perceived credibility of the financial reporting process and the legal risk auditors bear under conditions where they provide an internal control audit report (vs. no report) under two corporate governance environments. We find that participating judges believe internal control audits provide enhanced assurance that intentional misstatements do not exist and also serve to provide elevated protection to the public, but only under conditions of a strong corporate governance environment beyond current regulatory requirements. We also find that, after being informed of an undetected material fraud, judges who currently have high expectations of the auditing profession find auditors more liable when an internal control audit report has been issued (as compared to when no such report has been issued).     

Being private,Big 4 auditors,and debt raising

This study investigates the role of auditor choice (Big 4/Non-Big 4) in debt financing for private and public firms. We find private firms have less access to debt than public firms, and Big 4 auditors support debt raising in both private and public firms. Consistent with private firms facing greater information asymmetry, Big 4 auditors are more important for debt raising in private firms than in public firms. The benefit of appointing Big 4 auditors for private firms' debt raising is greater in the opaque information environment of the global financial crisis. It is also greater when firms are smaller, younger, or have poorer financial reporting quality. We also find evidence consistent with Big 4 auditors mitigating agency conflicts and enhancing debt raising when ownership concentration is higher in private firms.