1 s2.0 S0959652622037283 Main

Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134156
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Assurance process for sustainability reporting: Towards a

conceptual framework
Min Yan a, Fu Jia b, c, *, Lujie Chen d, **, Fangxu Yan d
a
School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, 327 Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK
b
College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China
c
The York Management School University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK
d
International Business School, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Renai Road, Suzhou, 215000, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan This paper seeks to provide insights into the sustainability report assurance process by exploring how reporting
firms and assurance providers work together to produce high-quality and credible assurance outcomes. In this
Keywords: literature review, the assurance process is conceptualised as a systematic procedure that incorporates the detail
Corporate social responsibility of assurance work along with associated barriers and ethical issues. Based on a review of 87 identified papers on
Conceptual framework
this topic covering 2003–2021, this paper develops a conceptual framework of the assurance process by dividing
Sustainability assurance
it into five steps—assurance provider selection, identification, screening, validation and evaluation—and then
Literature review
explains the logic underlying these steps by synthesising the findings from the identified papers. Furthermore,
barriers that impede the adoption of and issues that constrain the benefits of sustainability assurance are also
identified, such as the absence of stakeholder engagement or independence of the assurance provider. Overall,
this paper focuses on the assurance process for sustainability reports, contributing to the conceptual development
of sustainability reporting and providing a comprehensive framework for future study in this emerging field. In
addition, this paper also provides both assurance providers and reporting firms with a detailed roadmap for
decision-making regarding sustainability assurance.
1. Introduction 2019; Fuhrmann et al., 2017). Investors and stakeholders increasingly

perceive sustainability reports as a vital signal in evaluating firms’ social
Sustainability-disclosure-related activities emerged as early as the and environmental efforts (Braam and Peeters, 2018; Morioka and
1930s, and have increasingly received attention over the last 40 years Carvalho, 2016; Peters and Romi, 2015). However, unlike the manda
(Fuhrmann et al., 2017; Jia et al., 2020; Maroun, 2019, 2020). Adverse tory nature of financial reporting, sustainability information is reported
effects of global economic growth, climate change, and the widening voluntarily, leaving room for social performance indicators contained in
wealth gap have forced a reconsideration of the role of the firm in these reports to vary in terms of statistical approach and degree of
human development. Large firms have begun to engage in sustainability disclosure, thus rendering them less verifiable and raising concerns
activities and report their performance more actively through releasing regarding credibility (Archel et al., 2008; Dando and Swift, 2003; Gillet,
sustainability reports (Jia et al., 2020; Maas et al., 2014; Maroun, 2020). 2012).
Sustainability reporting, also called CSR reporting, enables organisa To improve credibility, reduce information risk, and gain legitimacy,
tions to communicate their performance and impacts on a wide range of an increasing number of organisations have begun to include an assur
sustainability topics. In 2017, over 70% of the top 250 global organi ance statement in their sustainability report (Fernandez-Feijoo et al.,
sations released sustainability reports, a substantial increase from 29% 2015; Maroun, 2020). This research focuses on the sustainability report
in 2002 (KPMG, 2015, 2017). Such surge in sustainability reporting can assurance process and explores how reporting firms and assurors work
be interpreted as pressure from the public to eliminate information together to produce credible assurance. According to the International
asymmetry and enhance the accountability of companies (Boiral et al., Auditing and Assurance Standard Board (International, 2013), “an
* Corresponding author. College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.yan@qmul.ac.uk (M. Yan), jeff_fujia@hotmail.com (F. Jia), lujie.chen@xjtlu.edu.cn (L. Chen), Fangxu.yan@liverpool.ac.uk (F. Yan).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134156
Received 29 January 2022; Received in revised form 12 September 2022; Accepted 13 September 2022
Available online 22 September 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Yan et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134156
assurance engagement is an engagement in which a practitioner aims to understand how reporting firms make a choice on assurance provider,
obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence in order to express a and how the selection of an assurance provider further affects the work
conclusion designed to enhance the degree of confidence of the intended undertaken during the assurance process (i.e., identification of assur
users other than the responsible party about the outcome of the mea ance principle, selection of assurance method). In addition, our frame
surement or evaluation of an underlying subject matter against criteria” work is used to explore the possible issues (e.g., challenges) brought by
(p. 7). Based on this, assurance of sustainability reporting is further this cooperation; for example, whether the close relationship between
defined as an engagement in which a third-party assurance provider reporting organisation and assurance provider established during
undertakes assurance over a sustainability report issued by an organi cooperation affects the quality of assurance. As all these issues originate
sation (Farooq and De Villiers, 2019). By referring to the assurance from the cooperation between the reporting organisation and the
report, readers of a sustainability report know whether or not the report assurance provider, we aim to address the following questions:
has been prepared according to agreed criteria. As noted in previous
RQ 1. What is the assurance process for sustainability reports?
studies, independent assurance significantly influences users’ percep
tions of disclosure quality and credibility (Karagiannis et al., 2022; RQ 2. What challenges or issues are encountered in the assurance
Maroun, 2020). process by reporting firms?
Although demand for sustainability assurance is rapidly growing, it To address these questions, we apply the systematic literature review
remains a challenging task, both for assurance providers and reporting method. A total of 87 papers are identified that contribute to our un
firms. One major issue facing assurance providers is infrastructure de derstanding of the assurance process for sustainability reports. We then
ficiencies in sustainability assurance, which inhibit the quality of develop a conceptual framework by categorising the findings into five
assurance and affect the function of a sustainability report (Arena et al., sequential stages or themes (assurance provider selection, identification,
2015; Gillet, 2012; Park and Brorson, 2005; Traxler et al., 2020). Spe screening, validation, and evaluation). In addition, we also summarise
cifically, deficiencies in infrastructure refer to the absence of infra the determinants of assurance (both internal and external) and barriers
structure at both firm and national levels (information system, cost vs. reporting firms may face, such as time constraints, costs, and an under-
benefit, legal environment, and enforcement mechanism), a lack of developed information system. The findings may be helpful for both
unified standards, ambiguity in guidelines, and lack of norms in terms of practitioners and academics interested in understanding the construc
social conduct. Therefore, compared with financial assurance, which is tion of the assurance process.
guided and restricted by explicit rules and laws, producing a The rest of the paper is structured as follows. A description of the
high-quality and reliable assurance statement for sustainability reports methodology is provided in Section 2. Section 3 categorises and presents
is much more difficult and subject to dispute (Boiral and Gendron, 2011; the findings into the above-mentioned five themes. The conceptual
Boiral et al., 2019a,b; Cho et al., 2014; Junior et al., 2014). framework is further advanced by integrating the thematic conclusions
In addition, many reporting firms lack sufficient knowledge on how and discussions in Section 4. Section 5 concludes the paper with the
to choose proper assurance services. Essentially, sustainability assurance current state of assurance practice, research limitations, and directions
is a voluntary initiative in most jurisdictions, and the market is open to for future research.
different types of assurance providers competing for market share
(Farooq and De Villiers, 2019). Scholars and professionals often cate 2. Methodology
gorise sustainability assurance providers into two types: accounting
firms and non-accounting firms (i.e., consultancies) (Edgley et al., 2015; 2.1. Search strategy
Farooq and De Villiers, 2019). Some argue that accounting firms (e.g.,
Big 4 auditing firms) have a relative advantage over consulting firms in According to Carter and Rogers (2008), a systematic review is the
terms of expertise in assurance, while others suggest that consultancies most appropriate method for drawing an integral picture to obtain a
(e.g., environmentalists, biologists, ethicists) have an advantage in the better understanding of a research question. Systematically reviewing
field of sustainability knowledge (Edgley et al., 2015; Farooq and De the existing literature enables authors to synchronise theoretical and
Villiers, 2019; Gillet, 2012). Thus, there is little agreement on whom empirical studies in the targeted field and its subfields (Jia et al., 2018;
reporting firms should recruit to undertake assurance services and the Tranfield et al., 2003). The first step of the systematic review process is a
scope of assurance. In addition, according to Farooq and De Villiers wide search. This is followed by a descriptive analysis of the thematic
(2019), in the engagement between reporting firms and assurance pro findings. In detail, the descriptive analysis is guided by a coding scheme,
viders, client pressure (i.e., managerial capture) and assurance practi where the collected studies are categorised by publication information,
tioners’ purpose of growing income (i.e., professional capture) may also key theme, and issue addressed, hence enabling the collection of trends
affect the quality and reliability of an assurance statement. and research issues related to information. The synchronisation of
While an increasing number of organisations require sustainability theoretical and empirical studies aims to make logical deductions, uti
report assurance services, research on the topic has lagged. Maroun lised for the construction of conceptual framework propositions
(2020) represents the first attempt to provide an overview of the body of (Wacker, 1998, p. 368).
sustainability report assurance by applying a conceptual development The prime databases utilised in this paper are SCOPUS and EBSCO,
approach. This attempt explicitly explains the infrastructure and fea which both contain an enormous number of peer-reviewed published
tures needed to successfully execute the assurance process. However, it materials on SSCM (Jia et al., 2018). According to Rowley and Slack
primarily focuses on the determinants, fragmented practices, and out (2004), the collection process in a systematic review comprises four
comes of assurance, ignoring the specific assurance process. Thus, there steps.
is a need to further explore the assurance process undertaken, which is First, we created a search string that combined all possible termi
critical to better understand how reporting firms and assurance pro nological words used for the selection of articles; these belonged to two
viders work together to produce high-quality and credible assurance categories: sustainability report and assurance. In addition, the key
outcomes in the assurance process. words in the search string were mainly collected through discussions
The lack of understanding of the assurance process inspired this between co-authors, who are experts on the topic and have rich expe
research. To fill this gap, our research aims to obtain insights into the rience in conducting literature reviews. English was agreed on as the
sustainability assurance process by developing a conceptual model, only language for article collection, and the type of document was
leading to a better understanding of how a high-quality and reliable confirmed as “articles” (Fig. 1). After the first screening, a total of 4,494
assurance statement can be produced via interactions between reporting articles were collected (including duplicates).
firms and assurance providers. For example, it may help us to Second, we briefly screened these articles by examining the
2
Fig. 1. Review methodology.
relevance of their titles, to remove any unrelated to sustainability report

assurance. This step resulted in 231 articles relating to the subjects of
sustainability and auditing.
Third, as the abstract is an important criterion for further screening,
we used the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the screening step
revealed in Fig. 1. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were discussed at
a group meeting, where the breadth and depth of the article questions
and related topics were exhaustively discussed. At the end of the group
discussion, a consensus was reached regarding all details regarding
screening, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were established
separately. During this process, three researchers/co-authors went
through the process independently and then reached agreement on all
items based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We carried out this re
view from the assurance of nonfinancial information rather than Fig. 2. Distribution of Publications per year.
financial information perspective, which informed our exclusion
criteria. For example, we excluded those that lightly touched on sus emerging. A possible reason for this is that the financial crisis in 2008
tainability report assurance focusing on the economic effects of assur greatly provoked the demand for nonfinancial information disclosure,
ance. We also excluded those that focused merely on the antecedents or which in turn required more reliable assurance for both financial and
consequences rather the assurance process (i.e., assurance provider se nonfinancial information. Our search was completed at the end of
lection, identification, screening, validation, and evaluation). In sum December 2021, for a total of 87 papers contributing to the field of
mary, we sought research containing empirical data and best practice for sustainability assurance released between 2003 and 2021.
assurance of sustainability reports. This step left 135 articles for the last These 87 papers were distributed across 50 journals, as illustrated in
round of selection. Fig. 3. In terms of number of papers, the top five journals contributing to
Finally, we examined all 135 articles by reading their full text. In the field of sustainability reporting assurance are Journal of Business
particular, to further check the relevance of these papers to our research, Ethics (10 papers), Journal of Cleaner Production (8 papers), Corporate
we carried out content analysis of their findings, research gaps, and Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (5 papers), Business
future research directions. Ultimately, some 87 articles were selected for Strategy and the Environment (5 papers), Managerial Auditing Journal (3
descriptive analysis. papers) and Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal (3 papers).
2.2. Descriptive analysis
A descriptive analysis aims to draw an integral map that contains all

the different notions and ideas in a certain field, which can shed light on
an emerging research aspect and help to “dive deeper” into the current
state of research. This section contains two subsections, each of which
illustrates the distribution of publications regarding the assurance of
sustainability reports from different aspects.
The 87 articles were collected from various disciplines, including
management, auditing, assurance, sustainable development, and
corporate social responsibility, and thus offered sufficient diversity of
perspectives to form a holistic understanding of the topic. In terms of the
distribution of publications across time, the study period runs from 2003
to 2021 (Fig. 2). However, there were few papers between 2003 and
2009, and a dramatic increase is observed in 2009, with eight papers Fig. 3. Top 5 article sources.
3
2.3. Coding of the demand for sustainability report assurance, including CSR
commitment, extensiveness of sustainability reporting, corporate
After recording essential descriptive data for each article (e.g., governance and potential benefits. First, reporting firms with greater
source, publication year and methodology), we classified and coded CSR commitment are more willing to seek assurance services and
articles based on the broad themes and linked subthemes identified. consider a greater assurance scope (Clarkson et al., 2019). Second, Cho
Since the literature on sustainability assurance is still developing, there et al. (2014) argued that reporting firms with more extensive disclosure
was no well-defined framework to guide our coding. We, therefore, ranges are more likely to pay for assurance services. Third, some studies
adopted an inductive approach that allows themes to emerge from the have investigated the role of a shareholder or stakeholder-oriented
reviewed papers. Three researchers/co-authors were involved in this governance system in securing sustainability assurance, arguing that
coding process. stakeholder-oriented governance has positive impacts on the use of
We found that the papers could be coded based on the assurance sustainability assurance while shareholder-oriented governance has
process, which comprises all the elements needed for sustainability negative impacts (Herda et al., 2014; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Simnett
assurance. Repeated concepts about the assurance process were identi et al., 2009). Finally, the potential benefits of assurance are also
fied as falling into five themes: assurance provider selection, identifi important drivers leading firms to make assurance decisions. For
cation of the basic assurance principle, screening of disclosed content, example, the demand for improved credibility drives firms to get their
validation of the method, and evaluation of the assurance process. sustainability statements assured (Cho et al., 2014). Financial indicators
Empirical papers were generally conducted around evidence that pro also have significant but mixed impacts on assurance initiatives. Spe
vides a better understanding of sustainability-assurance-related phe cifically, some scholars argue that profitability, financial risk and
nomena. Theoretical papers usually applied theories (e.g., institutional leverage have no significant effects on the decision to acquire assurance
theory, stakeholder theory, signalling theory, and legitimacy theory) to (Simnett et al., 2009), but Sierra et al. (2013) found a negative rela
explain companies’ initiatives towards sustainability. The extant liter tionship between leverage and the engagement of assurance. Regarding
ature thus predominantly focuses on the subdivisions of sustainability the added value (either perceived or real) of report assurance, the
assurance, such as stakeholder engagement, the determination and reduction of legal risks, useful guidance generated by assurors, and
screening of assurance scope, and assessing the quality of the assurance enhanced reputation have been identified as the key internal drivers
method, while a macro perspective on an integral assurance model has (Darnall et al., 2009; Gillet, 2012; O’Dwyer et al., 2011; Sawani et al.,
been less of a concern. 2010).
As for external determinants, Farooq and De Villiers (2017) may be
3. Thematic findings the first to aggregate this body of knowledge and conduct a systematic
literature review. They have identified four external drivers: stake
3.1. Sustainability assurance and assurance process holders’ perceptions of credibility, organisational and industrial char
acteristics (e.g., size, industry membership and listing status), media
Compared with financial information assurance, sustainability pressure and characteristics of country-of-origin level drivers. Specif
assurance remains unregulated and there is little by way of actual ically, reporting firms are more likely to seek assurance if it attracts
assurance mechanism (Junior et al., 2014). According to the Interna external stakeholders with a higher level of perceived credibility of
tional (2013), the assurance process may be described as the practice of sustainability reports (Hodge et al., 2009; Romero et al., 2014; Wong
collecting evidence to deliver a conclusive statement that aims to and Millington, 2014). The impacts of organisational size and industrial
enhance stakeholder confidence. Assurors provide assurance statements characteristics on assurance engagement have also been investigated;
through the assurance process, implying that the reliability of disclosed for example, the increasing demand for assurance is primarily emerging
information can be assured to some extent (Manetti and Toccafondi, from the larger listed firms (KPMG, 2015; Simnett et al., 2009; Zorio
2012; O’Dwyer et al., 2011). While the extent of this reliability is un et al., 2013) and firms operating in environmentally sensitive industries
known, and the definition of assurance quality is not fully settled (Cohen (Zorio et al., 2013). Moreover, according to Simnett et al. (2009), firms
and Simnett, 2015), the assurance process is still regarded as a crucial engaging in more highly visible industrial activity and with a larger
factor in controlling the quality of sustainability assurance (Casey and ‘‘social footprint’’ are also more likely to seek assurance. Also, Gillet-
Grenier, 2015; Cho et al., 2014; Hummel et al., 2017; Kolk and Perego, Monjarret (2015) proposed that higher levels of media pressure posi
2010; Ruiz-Barbadillo and Martínez-Ferrero, 2020; Simnett et al., 2009). tively influence the demand for assurance services. Finally, the mixed
Although ISAE 3000 and AA1000 AS have generally defined the roles influences of country-of-origin in assurance engagement have been
and responsibilities of various parties, there is little systematically cat examined. Some scholars argue that reporting firms operating in weaker
egorising the assurance process into sub-steps due to its confidential and legal environments are more likely to get their sustainability reports
complex nature. From the 87 identified papers, we attempted to assured (Perego, 2009; Perego and Kolk, 2012), while others believe that
construct an assurance process that contains activities such as assurance reporting firms based in stronger legal environments are more likely to
provider selection (Channuntapipat et al., 2019; Junior et al., 2014), the engage assurance services (Simnett et al., 2009). Based on Farooq and
identification of basic assurance principles (Aboelmaged, 2012; Manetti De Villiers (2017), Maroun (2020) further considered the role played by
and Becatti, 2009), the screening of verification content (Dando and the investor protection system, arguing that engagement of assurance is
Swift, 2003; Gürtürk and Hahn, 2016; Hummel et al., 2017; O’Dwyer, negatively related to investor protection, since investor protection is
2003), the validation of verification method (Accountability, 2008; regarded as a broad commitment to the rule of law while assurance can
Ackers, 2015; Chen et al., 2016; Fuhrmann et al., 2017), and evaluation be understood as a substitute for the lost confidence provided by the
of sustainability assurance (Gürtürk and Hahn, 2016; Moore et al., legal system (Kolk and Perego, 2010; Maroun, 2020; Simnett et al.,
2006). 2009).
3.2. Determinants of assurance 3.3. Selection of assurance provider
As studies on sustainability report assurance evolve, the impacts of The extant research on assurance provider selection is mixed. The
determinants of assurance decisions have also attracted increasing current debate about assurance provider selection is mainly categorised
attention. Overall, the determinants of assurance can be discussed from into two themes: 1) selection criteria and 2) differences among types of
both internal and external aspects. assurance providers (Casey and Grenier, 2015; Channuntapipat et al.,
In terms of the internal aspect, studies have identified several drivers 2019; Cho et al., 2014; Hummel et al., 2017; Kolk and Perego, 2010).
4
Reporting firms usually make choices based on the degree of harmony Table 1
between their own selection criteria and characteristics of assurance Assurance provider selection.
providers (Moroney et al., 2012), with the selection criteria for assur External Details Papers References
ance providers influenced by both external and internal considerations. Consideration
Thus, final choice of an assurance provider can be seen as the joint effect Qualification Whether practitioners 7 Adams and Evans
of external and internal considerations (Baraibar-Diez and Sotorrio, exhibit sufficient (2004)
2018; Edgley et al., 2010). professionalism (e.g., Boiral et a. (2019a),
First, based on the 87 identified papers, we categorise external necessary expertise, Boiral et al. (2020),
experience, values, Diouf and Boiral
considerations as qualifications of assurors, legal environment, methods and practices) to (2017),
enforcement mechanism, norms, and peer firm influences. Qualifica perform the assurance Jones and Solomon
tions refer to whether practitioners exhibit sufficient professionalism (e. (2010),
g., necessary expertise, experience, values, methods and practices) to International
(2013),
perform the assurance (see Table 1; Boiral et al., 2019, 2020). As
Maroun (2020)
mentioned above, scholars and experts often categorise assurors into Legal Regulation and law factors 6 Boiral et al. (2019),
two groups: accounting firms and consulting firms. It is noted that environment at national level. Fuhrmann et al.
reporting firms’ perceptions of assurance providers regarding the pro (2017),
fessionalism of their activity will affect their choice (Boiral, 2013; Diouf Jia et al. (2018),
Kılıç et al. (2021),
and Boiral, 2017; O’Dwyer et al., 2011). Overall, the professional Pasko et al. (2021),
identity of both accounting and consulting firms is reflected in their Yan (2019),
knowledge of assurance procedures, reporting firms’ businesses and Enforcement Method and activities 3 Kolk and Perego
operations, and sustainability (Adams and Evans, 2004; Boiral et al., mechanism initiated by independent (2010),
institutions to encourage Cubilla-Montilla
2020; Diouf and Boiral, 2017; International, 2013). Accounting firms are
company’ compliance with et al. (2020),
believed to have deeper knowledge on assurance procedures and clients’ law and standards. (i.e., O’Dwyer et al.
industries and operations, while consulting firms are expected to have supervising, educating, (2011)
the edge in understanding the subject of assurance (i.e., sustainability) assessing, and
(Farooq and De Villiers, 2019; Jones and Solomon, 2010). Interestingly, sanctioning).
Norms Environmental factors that 3 DiMaggio and
although accounting and consulting firms question each other’s pro
guide and shape the Powell (1983),
fessionalism, it appears that neither technically ticks all three boxes. business behavior towards Jia et al. (2018),
Therefore, to improve the qualifications of assurors, scholars have sug sustainability. Kolk and Perego
gested using a multi-disciplinary teams of accountants and (2010)
Influence of peer Successful assurance 3 Boiral et al. (2019),
non-accountants on sustainability assurance engagements (Farooq and
firms experience from Gillet (2012),
De Villiers, 2019; Wallage, 2000), which would allow the two groups to companies in same KPMG (2017)
fill any professionalism gap and better fulfil the requirements of the industry.
sustainability assurance engagement (Jones and Solomon, 2010). Internal Details Papers References
Furthermore, it is also argued that the absence of training significantly Consideration
Senior Perception of top 6 Amir and Serafeim
undermines the professionalism of assurance providers (Boiral et al.,
management management of company (2018),
2018; Maroun, 2020; Sharma and Sidhu, 2001). perception on aspects of sustainability Boiral et al. (2019),
The legal environment is constituted by the laws and regulations assurance (expertise, Fuhrmann et al.
with which an organisation must comply for operation; this can vary purpose, role and (2017),
responsibility, cost vs Gillet (2012),
from one country to another due to the different legal systems (Kolk and
benefit). Peters and Romi
Perego, 2010; Yan, 2019). Simnett et al. (2009) found that companies in (2015),
jurisdictions with a less strict legal environment have lower intention to Romero et al.
adopt accounting-oriented assurance (O’Dwyer et al., 2011). By (2014)
contrast, companies in jurisdictions with a strong legal environment are Major Relevant stakeholders’ (e. 6 Adams and Evans
stakeholder g., suppliers, employees) (2004),
more likely to choose accounting auditors as their assurance provider
perception expectations on assurance Fernandez-Feijoo
(Moroney et al., 2012; Simnett et al., 2009). provider (independence et al. (2015),
In contrast to the legal environment, an enforcement mechanism and professional Gray (2006),
emphasises the impact of methods and activities initiated by country- competence of assurance Hummel et al.
provider). (2017),
level institutions to force companies’ legal compliance through super
Jia et al. (2018),
vising, educating, assessing, and sanctioning (Ball et al., 2000; Brown Ball et al. (2000)
and Kohlbeck, 2017; Brown-Liburd and Zamora, 2015; Kondra and Industry Industry characteristics 4 Archel et al. (2008),
Hinings, 1998; Kılıç et al., 2021; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Pasko et al., characteristics refers to core Kend (2015),
2021; Zeng et al., 2010). Evidence proves that companies in countries competitiveness of KPMG (2017),
industry, such as R&D Maroun (2020)
with weaker legal enforcement mechanisms are more likely to employ
ability of IT industry,
accounting auditors rather than consultancies (Choi and Wong, 2007; product quality and safety
Fonseca, 2010; Kolk and Perego, 2010). By contrast, companies in of FMCG industry (Fast
countries with strong legal enforcement mechanisms do not have a Moving Consumer Goods).
distinct preference regarding choice of assurance provider (Kend, 2015;
Pfugrath et al., 2011).
providers for enhancing their legitimacy and social acceptance (Chan
However, Kend (2015) suggested type of assurance provider may be
nuntapipat et al., 2019; Gillet, 2012; Cubilla-Montilla et al., 2020).
less important; instead, whether norms are shareholder-oriented or
Finally, peer pressure might also have an impact on the selection
stakeholder-oriented may be more influential to the selection. Norms
process. Successful experiences from peer firms would not only help
refer to the public environment that shapes business behaviour and
companies to understand how the quality of assurance is perceived by
decision-making on sustainability assurance (Kolk and Perego, 2010; Jia
the public but also reduce costs incurred during the trial-and-error
et al., 2018; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Companies usually take into
process (Ackers, 2015; Emtairah and Mont, 2008).
account public expectations when they make choices on assurance
5
When it comes to internal considerations, the perception of man determined by the commercialistic nature of the assuror, while the latter
agement, industry characteristics, governance mechanisms and con depends on the drivers of the reporting firm for assurance engagement
cerns of stakeholders regarding assurance services can be categorised as (Gillet, 2012; Hodge et al., 2009; Simnett et al., 2009). The commer
factors that affect choice of assurance provider. It is argued that top cialistic nature of assurors can exhibit in a variety of forms, such as
management’s perception of sustainability assurance may affect the excessively intimate reporting firm – provider relationships and over
decision on type of assuror. Peters and Romi (2015) considered the role lapping roles between auditing and consulting services (Boiler & Gen
of environmental committees and Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) dron, 2011; Boiral and Henri, 2017; Boiral et al., 2019; O’Dwyer and
characteristics in selecting assurance services, arguing that environ Owen, 2005; Moore et al., 2006). These factors may transform into
mental committees with deeper professional knowledge are more likely pressure to influence the selection of assurance providers. Nevertheless,
to choose accounting rather than consulting firms as their assurors. the exact degree to which this pressure influences selection of assurance
Management perceptions are also established on the differences in providers remains unknown.
assurance quality between accounting auditors and professional con
sultancies. Large accounting firms are generally associated with
3.4. Identification of basic assurance principle
high-quality assurance, including in the auditing procedure and state
ment format (Ackers, 2015; Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006; Perego,
In Table 2, we summarise the basic principles for sustainability
2009; Scott, 2013). An empirical study based on Australian and UK
assurance such as the assurance level (Kolk and Perego, 2010), standards
companies finds no differences in report credibility and assurance
that must be complied with (Accountability, 2008; Boiral et al., 2018),
quality by selecting different types of assurance provider (Pfugrath et al.,
and the objective of the assurance (Boiral et al., 2018).
2011).
Assurance level can be rated as either limited or reasonable (see
Industry characteristics may also affect selection of assurance pro
descriptions in Table 2) by referring to the scope of the verification
viders. Sustainability issues in various industries are complex and
undertaken and the tolerable percentage of errors with respect to stan
different. For example, according to Green et al. (2017), companies in
dards (Gillet, 2012). Sometimes, a reasonable rating may also refer to a
the energy sector tend to place more weight on industry-specific
high level of assurance, while limited assurance can be regarded as
knowledge, objectivity and experience than whether the provider is an
providing only a moderate or ‘less than high’ level of assurance. The
accounting or consulting firm. Similarly, in countries where environ
other component of assurance principles is assurance standards. The
mental performance is highly scrutinised by stakeholders, consulting
most common standards that provide guidance for assurance providers
firms with in-depth business knowledge are favoured as assurance pro
are AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS) and International Stan
viders (Boiral et al., 2019). Compared with those consultancies, ac
dard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (ISAE 3000). These two standards
counting firms focus more on compliance with standards and report
share a common purpose and are complementary (Alsahali and
frameworks than sustainability performance combined with industry
Malagueño, 2021; Junior et al., 2014; Karaman et al., 2021; Manetti and
characteristics (Mock et al., 2007). Moreover, companies that desire
Becatti, 2009). AA1000AS emphasises assurors’ accountability, the
positive wording in the statement of a high sustainability performance
definition of assurance requirements for the assurance provider, and
are more likely to employ consultancies as assurance providers because
stakeholder engagement. Compared with AA1000AS, ISAE 3000 is more
accounting firms are less likely to provide moderate/high-level assur
focused on the importance of misstatement risk and quantitative anal
ance (associated with positive opinions in the statement) due to litiga
ysis. Accordingly, ISAE 3000 is usually applied by accounting auditors
tion risks (Gürtürk and Hahn, 2016).
Other scholars have investigated the impacts of stakeholder concerns
Table 2
on assurance provider selection (Boiral et al., 2019; Dogui et al., 2013;
Identification of assurance principles.
Gillet, 2012). Objectivity and independence of assurance providers are
ranked as the primary concerns for stakeholders in choosing assurance Identification Details Papers References
providers (Boiral et al., 2018; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Manetti and GRI Guidelines Guidelines are for voluntary 4 GRI (2002),
Toccafondi, 2012). This view is supported by Wong and Millington use by organisations for GRI (2013),
reporting on the economic, Karaman et al.
(2014), who stated that the independence of assurance providers
environmental, and social (2021),
significantly affects the extent of credibility of assurance and stake dimensions of their activities, Koster et al. (2019)
holders’ confidence. In the absence of independent sustainability products, and services.
assurance, assurance services may be manipulated, implying informa Assurance Universal standards that 6 Accountability
tion distortion. As stakeholders are vulnerable to managerial unac Standards assuror must comply with, such (2003),
as ISAE 3000, AA1000AS, Accountability
countability and opportunistic behaviour (Arena et al., 2015; Hodge
IESBA. (2008),
et al., 2009; Kolk and Perego, 2010; Smith et al., 2011), third-party Alsahali and
assurance is adopted to relieve information asymmetry by increasing Malagueño (2021),
the transparency and objectivity of reports, thereby increasing the Koster et al. (2019),
confidence of stakeholders (Fuhrmann et al., 2017; Tamimi and Sebas KPMG (2015),
Maroun (2020)
tianelli, 2017). These findings are consistent with Green’s study (2017), Assurance Limited level (moderate or less 9 Channuntapipat
which argued that reputation and objectivity of assurance providers are Level than high level) of assurance: et al. (2019),
more valuable to stakeholders than type of assurance provider. Besides, considering only auditing Fonseca et al.
institutional investors, as one major stakeholder, also have significant procedures and standards, (2014),
internal standards (codes of Gillet (2012),
impacts on firms’ choice of assurance services. Institutional pressure
conduct and manuals of Hoang and Trotman
associated with the environmental and social impacts of firms’ activities internal procedures) or (2021),
leads to a convergence of institutional investors’ attitudes towards sus external standards such as GRI Klodnick et al.
tainability reports. Therefore, regardless of their investment horizon guidelines. (2019),
(long term or short term), they will continuously encourage corporate Reasonable level (high level) of Manetti and Becatti
assurance: to reduce audit risk (2009),
boards to seek high-quality and credibility assurance, mainly by exer to an acceptably low level, Maroun (2020),
cising their voting rights (García-Sánchez et al., 2021). information for auditing should Moroney et al.
According to Gillet (2012), the independence of assurance can be be more than 50 percent of the (2012),
considered from two perspectives: the independence of the assuror and report. O’Dwyer et al.
(2011)
the independence of the assurance process. The former is largely
6
and AA1000AS by consultancies (Göbbels and Jonker, 2003; Ball et al., emergence of pre-assurance service, which aims to provide opinions on
2000; Safari and Areeb, 2020; Tsalis et al., 2020). Recent studies have information such as data integrity, accuracy, accessibility, and reli
shown that reporting firms tend to choose ISAE 3000 over AA1000 ability, for the top management of reporting firms, may mitigate the risk
(Boiral et al., 2019) because large accounting firms are dominant in the of inappropriate verification scope. Nevertheless, such pre-assurance
assurance field, especially in countries where sustainability assurance services are also criticised as being unable to improve information
receives less attention (Pfugrath et al., 2011). asymmetry and other similar issues (Boiral et al., 2019; Gillet, 2012).
Compared with commonly accepted assurance levels and standards, The absence of stakeholder groups in determining the verification
the objective of sustainability assurance is more controversial in this scope has been criticised by scholars for a long time (Dando and Swift,
emerging field due to the potential conflict of interest between major 2003; Farooq and De Villiers, 2019; Gillet, 2012; O’Dwyer, 2003).
stakeholders such as employees, customers, and suppliers on the one Atkins and Maroun (2015) argued that there is a need to engage with
hand and top management on the other (Boiral et al., 2018). According various stakeholders to identify relevant information to be verified and
to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2013), external assurance should ensure that assurance statements provide decision-useful information.
enhance the confidence of report users in relating to the audited com However, this can be challenging in practice since the expectations and
pany’s sustainability performance and help them to make more needs of stakeholders vary from case to case (Atkins and Maroun, 2015;
informed decisions. However, some suggest that sustainability assur IIRC, 2014). Therefore, it is difficult for sustainability assurors to
ance should be considered an instrument for enhancing internal effi respond to the concerns of all stakeholders; not to mention the conflicts
ciency and managing legitimacy (Gürtürk and Hahn, 2016; Hummel of interest across different sets of stakeholder groups (Kolk and Perego,
et al., 2017). Similarly, Romero et al. (2014) argue that the primary 2010). O’Dwyer and Owen (2005) find that stakeholders of companies
objective of assurance practice is to provide guidance on economic ac that have received awards from ESRA (European Sustainability
tivities by enhancing information credibility and accuracy rather than Reporting Awards) rarely engage in the process of preparing and pro
protecting stakeholder interests. Additionally, other scholars argue that ducing sustainability reports or the assurance practices of their com
sustainability assurance should play a monitoring role to reduce man panies. In short, whether the verification scope responds to the concerns
agement’s opportunistic behaviour (Amir and Serafeim, 2018; De Vil of stakeholders needs further investigation (see Table 3).
liers and Alexander, 2014; Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Gomes et al.,
2015; Hoang and Trotman, 2021). The divergence on assurance objec
tives may lead to inappropriate verification scope and failure to meet 3.6. Validation of verification method
users’ expectations. For example, an accounting auditor may understand
the objective of assurance as simply compliance with standardised The verification aspect has attracted dispute concerning its auditing
criteria (i.e., ISO or equivalent standards) and focus on data verification, methods and techniques (Gillet, 2012). Assurance methods comprise the
while report users may hope to better understand the sustainability data collection and analysis approach (Albersmeier et al., 2009). Con
performance and areas that need improvement. sultancies usually apply a diversified approach, employing methods
There are also criticisms in terms of the gap between theoretical such as risk assessment, social analysis, interviews, media analysis and
principles and real-world practices. Specifically, existing professional control of stakeholder processes (Channuntapipat et al., 2019; Mendes
guidelines only develop assurance requirements and the basis for iden et al., 2019; Ruiz-Barbadillo and Martínez-Ferrero, 2020). In contrast,
tifying the extent to which the subject matter conforms to these (Boiral the assurance approach for an accounting auditor is less diversified, and
et al., 2019; Boiral et al., 2020; Farooq and De Villiers, 2017; Maroun, strives to follow a replicable procedure, drawing on inquiry, observa
2020). Therefore, the sustainability assurance process is likely to be tion, inspection, computation, and analysis (Boiral et al., 2018; Chan
conducted based on perfunctory procedures and the reproduction of nuntapipat et al., 2019), which lower the risks such as time constraints,
well-established practices in financial auditing, ignoring the complex
realities of sustainability issues (Clarkson et al., 2019; Maroun, 2020). Table 3
As a result, the assurance statement usually consists of theoretical re Screening of disclosed information.
flections rather than field research, leading to a lack of substance in Screening Details Papers References
sustainability assurance.
Pre-assurance Services before formal 6 Boiral et al. (2018,
engagement versification, in which aims to 2019b),
3.5. Screening of verification content produce a private report to Channuntapipat
management, not a public et al. (2019),
Verification scope is closely associated with misstatement risk and opinion, but a private report to Farooq& de Villiers
management about the (2019),
confidence of report users on assurance (Simnett et al., 2009). According integrity of that data, how Kend (2015)
to GRI (2013), verification scope should be determined based on two key complete and accurate and O’Dwyer and Owen
factors: first, whether the disclosed and assured content is significant to reliable that data is. (2005),
stakeholders and organisations, and second, the extent to which this Smith et al. (2011)
Verification Scope reflects the extent to 10 Ackers (2015),
significance is reflected in reporting and assurance. It is argued that
scope which company sustainability Boiral et al. (2019,
stakeholder engagement in determining verification scope can related disclosures have been b),
strengthen the credibility of reports and force top management to independently verified. Channuntapipat
address crucial sustainability issues of companies and society (Adams Scope is mainly determined by (2021),
and Evans, 2004; Channuntapipat, 2021; Dyck et al., 2019; Gray, 2006; top management of reporting Corporate Register
organization, internal auditing (2013),
Hummel et al., 2017; Krasodomska et al., 2021; O’Dwyer and Owen, team, type of assurance Farooq and De
2005; O’Dwyer et al., 2011). However, the verification scope does not provider, and expectations of Villiers (2019),
always correspond to stakeholder expectations (Duflo et al., 2013; Far stakeholders. Farooq and De
ooq and De Villiers, 2019). Jones and Solomon (2010) argue that Villiers (2017),
Hummel et al.
inappropriate assurance scope fails to satisfy expectations of a broad
(2017),
range of stakeholders and may further affect firm value. O’Dwyer and Krasodomska et al.
Owen (2007) emphasize that the assurance provider should propose an (2021),
effective analytical procedure to detect the relevance of disclosed in Manetti & Becatti.
formation to stakeholders and reporting firms to reduce the risk of (2009),
Maroun (2020)
symbolic assurance. Channuntapipat et al. (2019) find that the
7
detection risks and control risks (Albersmeier et al., 2009; Graham, better sustainability performance (Channuntapipat et al., 2019; Gürtürk
1985; Lamberton, 2005; Wallage, 2000). An accounting auditor may use and Hahn, 2016; Hodge et al., 2009; Hummel et al., 2017). In the
the same assurance procedure for different reporting firms (Boiral et al., assurance statement, the opinions are the component of most concern to
2019; Deegan et al., 2006; Reimsbach et al., 2018). Scholars have report users. Based on the assurance level achieved, opinions are worded
pointed out that it would be beneficial to use diverse testing methods to positively or negatively (Channuntapipat et al., 2019). According to the
collect and analyse data and support assurance opinions (Maroun, 2017; AA1000 standard, assurance opinions should demonstrate to what
Prinsloo and Maroun, 2020); for example, while procedure homogeneity extent the three characteristics — that is, materiality, completeness and
allows a focus on data accuracy, it may neglect the significance of the reliability — are embodied in an assurance statement (Perego and Kolk,
data to stakeholders as well as the environmental complexity of different 2012; Schreck and Raithel, 2018; Simnett et al., 2009). However, Ball
companies. As a result, the credibility of assurance statements to et al. (2000) claim that the language used for opinions may be manip
stakeholders may be reduced (Gürtürk and Hahn, 2016; Park and ulated to avoid negative wording in a statement, resulting in the lack of
Brorson, 2005; Wallage, 2000). precise opinions (Channuntapipat et al., 2019). Therefore, except for the
However, Fonseca et al. (2014) argue that less-diversified verifica enhanced credibility brought by the adoption of sustainability assur
tion methods mitigate the risk of opportunistic behaviour in the assur ance, the extent to which quality of assurance may benefit the reporting
ance field, where there is a lack of unified and compulsive standards for company has not been investigated (see Table 5).
both reporting firms and assurance providers. Different companies
usually have their own sustainability indicators and statistical ap
proaches. Consultancies are more adaptive due to their rich experience 3.8. Barriers to the assurance process
and ability in terms of multiple verification skills (Ackers, 2015; Cohen
and Simnett, 2015). Compared with consultancies, accounting auditors Mismatches between reporting firms regarding the concept of sus
face the challenges of diversified sustainability indicators and statistical tainability and the requirements of guidelines (e.g., GRI) may lead to
approach (Accountability, 2008; Boiral et al., 2018; GRI, 2013). barriers that affect the quality of the assurance process. The major
In practice, consultancies tend to focus more on evaluative ap barrier is the assurance cost constraint (Ball et al., 2000; Channuntapi
proaches and attempt to provide commentary on issues of completeness, pat et al., 2019; Gillet, 2012). From a cost-benefit perspective (Cohen
fairness and overall balance, rather than merely verifying data collection and Simnett, 2015; Hummel et al., 2017; P. Jones et al., 2014), reporting
procedures and accuracy (O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005), while accountants firms may reduce the resources they input if sustainability assurance is
care more about the issue of consistency of information appearing in the more expensive than the value-added it provides (Carey et al., 2021;
organisation’s report with underlying data sets, and hence may be Freeman and Reed, 1983; Gilbert and Rasche, 2008; Hahn and Lulfs,
accused of reducing the process to a mere data checking exercise 2014; Vizcaíno-González, 2021). However, if additional values (social
(O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005). Overall, consulting firms appear to employ acceptance, stock return, governance efficiency) brought by assurance
more strategic approaches than accountants to assurance. On the con are disproportionately emphasised, assurance practice may be treated as
trary, it is noted that the use of different testing methods or techniques is a managerial tool to enhance the internal efficiency of the company. In
associated with the adoption of assurance standards; for example, con that case, the credibility of assurance may be unintentionally eroded due
sultancies were at the fore in employing AA1000. to the risk of some symbolic managerial behaviours (Channuntapipat
et al., 2019; Hummel et al., 2017; Perego and Kolk, 2012).
3.7. Evaluation of the assurance Insufficient allocation of resources is another key barrier in sus
tainability development that can lead to issues such as under-developed
Enhanced credibility is commonly considered the key outcome of information systems and time constraints (Gillet, 2012; Koster et al.,
sustainability assurance (Ackers, 2015; Gomes et al., 2015; Hummel 2019). Sustainability-related information should be reported regularly
et al., 2017; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005; Simnett et al., 2009). As sum
marised by Maroun (2020), assurance outcomes can have both sub Table 4
stantive and symbolic purposes. Symbolic effects of high-quality Validation of disclosed information.
assurance contribute to maintaining and improving company image and Validation Details Papers References
satisfying public expectations. High-quality assurance outcomes may Verification Verification methods are 4 Hummel et al.
help companies to reduce agency costs and legal risks, and also enhance method commonly categorised by (2017),
stakeholder confidence (Boiral and Henri, 2017, 2018; Boiral et al., quantitative and qualitative (control Lamberton
2019; Edgley et al., 2010; Gray, 2006; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005). and review of indicators, (2005),
interviews with insiders, analysis of Mendes et al.
However, Ball et al. (2000) argue that the perceived quality of assurance relevant documents, and surveys (2019),
is more likely to be determined by the adoption of assurance practices with employees). Wallage (2000)
rather than the quality per se, implying that report users and other Conventional accounting techniques:
stakeholders place more weight on whether a report has adopted inquiry, observation, inspection,
computation.
assurance rather than the extent to which the information is assured.
Non-accounting method: control and
From assurance providers’ perspective, sustainability assurance is more review of indicators, interviews
likely to be considered an instrument to build their own reputation and a with insiders, analysis of relevant
new type of income (Comyns et al., 2013; O’Dwyer et al., 2011; Orazalin documents, employee surveys.
and Mahmood, 2019). For reporting firms, third-party assurance can Verification Risk of error: possibility of errors 2 Albersmeier
Risks occurring in the population. et al. (2009),
help a company to neutralise the demand for monitoring and censorship Detection risk: specifies the chance Gillet (2012)
and mitigate heterogeneity risk brought by different sets of stakeholders that the existing error is not clearly
(O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005). detected.
Depending on their purpose, assurance statements can be used as Inherent risk: the possibility that
errors occur in the absence of an
public statements or private reports to management (Boiral et al., 2019a,
effective detection and monitoring
b; Elg and Fundin, 2012; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005). Public statements system.
aim to show the presence of external and independent assurance to the Control risk: chance that error is
public through the assured information of sustainability reports, while still not detected by the detection
private reports focus on the risks and issues that may occur in the and monitoring system and finally
leads to failure of verification.
assurance process and highlight those areas that can be improved for
8
Table 5 Table 6
Evaluation of assurance process. Barriers to assurance process.
Evaluation Details Papers References Assurance Barriers Details Papers References
Public Indicating the level of risk 5 Channuntapipat et al. Time constraint Unable to disclosed 3 Boiral et al. (2019),
statement involved and the (2019), Farooq and De assurance report timely Fuhrmann et al.
circumstances of the Villiers (2019), Gray and regularly. (2017),
assurance engagement and (2006), Gillet (2012),
justifying the assurance O’Dwyer et al. (2011), KPMG (2017)
evidence gathering O’Dwyer (2011) Assurance cost Cost of assurance versus 6 Boiral and Gendron
procedures deployed. constraint Added value of assurance (2011),
Private Private report focuses on 3 Albersmeier et al. (2009), Brown and Zamora
statement the risks and issues that Channuntapipat et al. (2015),
occur in the assurance (2019), Gürtürk and Hahn Carey et al. (2021),
process and highlight those (2016) Dyck et al. (2019),
areas that can be improved Gürtürk and Hahn
for better sustainability (2016),
performance. Vizcaíno-González
Assurance Unqualified opinion: free 3 Accountability (2008), (2021)
opinions from material omission and Accountability (2003), Under-developed Unable to obtain 7 Boiral et al. (2018),
error, fairly presented, give Channuntapipat et al. Information consistent, comparable, Comyns et al. (2013),
a true and fair value. (2019) system and accurate data. Deegan et al. (2006),
Qualified opinions: whether Fernandez-Feijoo
statements make some et al. (2015),
exceptions to accounting Fuhrmann et al.
principles. (2017),
Adverse opinion: whether Gillet (2012),
statement materially Jones et al. (2014)
depart from accounting
standards and not
presented fairly. Table 1). The trade-off between external and internal considerations
Disclaimer of opinions:
lead to different choices across different types of assurance providers (i.
unable to express an
opinion due to scope
e., accounting auditors, consultancies and other certification bodies)
limitation. (Channuntapipat et al., 2019). Notably, basic assurance principles and
methods are applied differently by engaging different types of providers
(Boiral et al., 2019; Maroun, 2020).
and in a timely manner, with effective information management (Gillet, Identification of basic assurance principles (see Table 2), which
2012). According to Gillet (2012), companies with rich experience and usually occurs in the first few rounds of negotiations between the
well-developed information systems are able to collect data and process reporting firm and assurance provider, is the most frequently re-
information effectively and in a timely manner. In contrast, companies occurring concept in the identified papers. These principles provide
with ineffective information management may limit their verification guidance for verification work and a reference for evaluating whether
scope, affecting data accuracy. As a result, a moderate/high assurance the assurance process has been executed in compliance with the stated
level is hard to achieve, reducing the credibility of assurance (Boiral criteria (Maroun, 2020). In terms of assurance level, positive wording in
et al., 2019). Similarly, it is noted that time constraints originate from assurance statements only appears in circumstances in which important
two requirements in the GRI guidelines – timely collecting and timely data and information are assured with high levels of assurance (Barlev
reporting – with both being achieved only by having a well-developed et al., 2017; Klodnick et al., 2019).
information system (Gillet, 2012; Global Reporting Initiative, 2013). Screening is the third step (see Table 3). The basic assurance prin
In addition, although assurance standards such as ISAE 3000 and ciples guide the establishment of the scope of verification by screening
AA1000 AS have been applied to a broad range of subject matter, there is what should be verified preferentially and what should be excluded
a lack of precision in prescriptions to address specific technical chal based on the knowledge and experience of the incumbent assurance
lenges in practice (Simnett and Huggins, 2015; Sonnerfeldt and Pon provider (Ruiz-Barbadillo and Martínez-Ferrero, 2020; Safari and Areeb,
toppidan, 2020). These include the risk and materiality assessment (i.e., 2020; Tsalis et al., 2020). However, for reporting firms who are new to
how to identify the level of materiality and the level of assurance that sustainability assurance, pre-assurance services may play a significant
can reasonably be provided on aspects of the integrated report) as well role in ensuring the significance and validation of the verification scope
as how to assure more discursive and future-oriented information (see by simulating full assurance engagement (Channuntapipat et al., 2019;
Table 6) (Simnett and Huggins, 2015). Gillet, 2012). Furthermore, the pre-assurance is able to test the read
ability of the information system based on the necessity and integrity
4. Conceptual framework and future research directions principle and further reduce risks that may bring uncertainty to the
validation step, such as the risk of missing data and irrelevant
4.1. Conceptual framework development verification.
The fourth step, validation, involves the assessment of the feasibility
A conceptual model is developed to show the steps of the assurance of the verification method and execution of viable methods (see
process. The main process is depicted in the middle of Fig. 4, in five key Table 4). Different types of assurance providers have their own prefer
steps: assurance provider selection, identification, screening, validation ences on verification methods (e.g., quantitative or qualitative). At the
and evaluation. We present these steps sequentially to better explain the end of the verification, the degree of verification completeness should be
assurance work undertaken via an integral picture of the assurance assessed by the assurance provider.
engagement. The fifth step, evaluation of the assurance, mainly involves the
In Fig. 4, the left side of the assurance process indicates the details of assurance statement as the outcome of the assurance process (Boiral
each step. The selection of assurance providers is seen as the start of et al., 2019; Gillet, 2012; Hummel et al., 2017; Perego and Kolk, 2012).
sustainability assurance. There are a variety of external and internal Notably, the assurance provider usually produces two types of out
considerations for reporting firms in selecting assurance providers (see comes: a public statement, which contains assurance opinions (see
9
Fig. 4. Conceptual framework.
Table 5) to meet public expectations, and a private report, to reveal the

Table 7
areas that need to be improved (Channuntapipat et al., 2019; Langer,
Ethical issues of assurance process.
2006).
In Fig. 4, the right side of the assurance process indicates issues that Ethical Issues Details Papers References
arise in sustainability assurance. In the extant literature, these are The commercialism Commercial pressure is 4 Boiral and
mainly concentrated in identification, screening, and evaluation steps pressure for assurance derived from the nature of Gendron
provider the profit-oriented (2011),
due to the potential conflict of interests raised by the profit-oriented
assurance provider, which Dogui et al.
nature of assurance providers (Table 7). For example, the indepen indicates that the behavior (2013),
dence and professionalism of assurance providers may be threatened by of the assurance provider Moore et al.
the potential conflict of auditing and consulting activities, particularly if may emphasize economic (2006),
the boundary between the two roles is not clear (Boiral and Gendron, benefits more than social O’Dwyer
benefits. (2011)
2011), compromising the credibility of assurance (Boiral et al., 2019). Excessive intimate Relationships between 7 Boiral and
Risks of verification (Table 4) are stated on the right side of the client-customer reporting organization Gendron
validation step, and barriers are displayed at the top of the assurance relationship and assurance provider (2011),
process (Table 6). Unlike the issues above, which primarily originate after long-term Boiral and
cooperation (over 3 years) Henri (2017),
from ethical dilemmas, verification risks are inherent and cannot be
affect the independence of Deegan et al.
fully eliminated. A possible mitigation method is intensive interaction assurance provider. (2006),
between the assurance provider and the internal environment of the Gürtürk and
reporting firms (Albersmeier et al., 2009; Deegan et al., 2006). However, Hahn (2016),
such interaction may put the assurance provider at risk of ethical issues, Manetti and
Toccafondi
such as its independence (Zaman et al., 2021). The self-responsibility of (2012),
the assurance provider is the key to risk control and success validation Perego and
(Channuntapipat et al., 2019). Kolk (2012),
Instead of inherent risks, barriers in the framework (Table 6) reveal Zaman et al.
(2021)
resistance that may affect the quality of the assurance process. For
Interdependence Conflicts of interest 6 Deegan et al.
example, high-quality sustainability assurance is usually associated with between auditing and between auditing and (2006),
a high cost of corporate resources (Boiral et al., 2019; Hummel et al., consulting activities consultancy services, Greenwood
2017). If the reporting firm chooses to avoid such cost by reducing the especially for assurance and Suddaby
resources devoted to information management, the resulting provider who run business (2006),
in both consulting and Greenwood
under-developed information system may negatively affect data quality
auditing business field. and Suddaby
(Gillet, 2012; Zorio et al., 2013). Furthermore, the potential of sus (2006),
tainability assurance is also restricted due to an under-developed in Manetti and
formation system. For example, subjective evaluation should be based Toccafondi
(2012),
on data obtained from quantifiable information, and therefore, a lack of
Moore et al.
data limits the potential for subjective assessment (O’Dwyer et al., (2006),
2011). Zaman et al.
(2021)
4.2. Areas for future research

apply quantitative analysis to examine how each consideration may
affect assurance provider selection; for instance, the extent to which the
First, at the level of assurance provider selection, further investiga
perceptions of the management of the reporting firm, or stakeholder
tion is needed to better understand the underlying determinants and
concerns, affect the choice of assurance provider. In addition, scholars
considerations (Boiral et al., 2019). A practical method would be to
10
should consider how reporting firms make trade-offs on expectations with their responsibilities. Research is also needed to investigate to what
among different sets of stakeholders when selecting assurance providers. extent regional, cultural, legal and institutional factors affect assurance
The answers to such questions may provide guidance on the selection of providers’ independence and the quality of their assurance.
assurance providers and help different types of assurance providers to Sixth, the influence of the assurance standard used (e.g., AA1000,
consider their competitive advantages. In addition, in terms of the ISAE3000) on the verification process could also be further investigated.
qualifications of assurance providers, future studies could investigate Current discussion on assurance standards is insufficient, but an absence
the perceptions of practitioners in the area of socially responsible in of practical and unified assurance standards may lead to a crisis of
vestment, extra-financial rating agencies, experts in sustainability confidence in sustainability assurance. Existing standards have been
reporting, environmental managers in reporting organisations or other criticised for representing the benefits of investors’ interest of reporting
potential users/readers of sustainability reports (e.g., regulators, NGOs, firms rather than stakeholders. There is evidence proving that the
trade unions, employees, financial analysts, conscious investors and increasing trend of adopting ISAE 3000 has led to the stagnation of
consumers) about the professionalism of assurance providers. It is stakeholder engagement, but the extent to which this trend diminishes
important to further clarify the impacts of relationship management stakeholders’ influence on sustainability assurance has not been fully
between reporting firms and assurance providers on assurance out explored (Ball et al., 2000; Boiral et al., 2019; Channuntapipat et al.,
comes, as an excessively intimate reporting firm – assurance provider 2019; Cho et al., 2014; Deegan et al., 2006; O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005).
relationship may compromise the independence of the assurance pro This type of investigation would cast light on the determinants of the
vider (Boiral et al., 2019). Longitudinal studies would be helpful to normative and mimetic isomorphism that permeates the rhetoric of
assess such relationships. assurance statements (e.g., influence of the educational background of
Second, existing research mainly focuses on assurance practice from assurance providers, role of assurance standards, guidelines and tem
the management perspective; it is also important to understand sus plates used by different auditors, transfer of accounting procedures to
tainability assurance from the stakeholders’ perspective. While the the assurance of sustainability reports).
quality of assurance, from investors’ perspective, mainly depends on Finally, while existing literature on sustainability assurance is
data accuracy and compliance with standards (Maroun, 2020), stake mainly based on positivist philosophy (Boiral and Henri, 2017; Boiral
holders may perceive this differently, by taking factors such as culture and Gendron, 2011; Cho et al., 2014; Farooq and De Villiers, 2017;
and legal environment into consideration. However, current literature Gillet, 2012; Simnett et al., 2009), reporting firm, assurance provider
does not discuss what constitutes the most efficient sustainability rotation, variation of assurance method, and quality in terms of industry
assurance practice from stakeholders’ perspective, which thus deserves segmentation could be explored from an interpretivism perspective,
further investigation (Gillet, 2012). We may also have to consider the which might help to observe the interaction between sustainability
relevance of CSR information and the relative power of stakeholders. For assurance and the development of the concept of sustainability.
example, prior research has not considered differences in the perceived
importance of CSR disclosures in different jurisdictions and how this 5. Conclusion
explains variations in the extent of CSR assurance. Future studies could
also analyse both the statements of assurance providers included in The objective of this paper was to contribute to the understanding of
sustainability reports and the perceptions of various interested parties – sustainability assurance practice. At the start of this paper, we formu
including assurance providers themselves. lated two research questions: 1) How is an assurance statement pro
Third, there is a need to further explore the assurance process at the duced through the assurance process? 2) What are the challenges and
institutional, regulatory and corporate levels. At the institutional and issues encountered in the assurance process by reporting firms? Through
regulatory level, more research is required to study the extent to which findings from the identified literature on sustainability assurance, we
the legal environment and enforcement mechanism influences business have established a conceptual framework consisting of relevant factors
behaviour regarding sustainability assurance, and the extent to which that help to understand the conducting of sustainability assurance. The
the legal infrastructure can promote a shift in attitudes towards sus framework is comprised of assurance processes, determinants and bar
tainable development. Accordingly, the relationship between different riers. In particular, the assurance process is divided into five sequential
legal systems and assurance quality may be further investigated. At the steps, each of which demonstrates the assurance work undertaken and
corporate governance level, unobservable internal committees or other related ethical issues and risks. Barriers reveal areas of resistance that
director or officer characteristics may also be influential determinants of may affect the quality of the assurance process. As one of the first articles
whether to seek assurance services. Therefore, we encourage future to explore and discuss the sustainability assurance process by inte
research to incorporate alternative and fine-grained measures of sus grating assurance issues into a systematic and sequential procedure, this
tainability expertise, as it relates to the management, board members paper provides directions for future research on the underlying mech
and assurance providers. Finally, we also believe that there are addi anism of sustainability assurance, which will benefit practitioners, ac
tional opportunities for exploring isomorphic and institutional in ademics, and regulators interested in the field of sustainability
fluences on the relationship between environmental corporate assurance.
governance mechanisms and sustainability assurance. However, this paper also has limitations. First, considering the
Fourth, it is important to further investigate how the diversity of the research method applied, our model was developed by evaluating extant
assurance process affects the quality of assurance. Guidance and stan studies and selected practical and theoretical perspectives. Therefore, it
dards are required to regulate the process and guide the participation of was unable to reveal all the complexities of the assurance process.
stakeholders (Cohen and Simnett, 2015; Maroun, 2020). Future research Hence, further empirical investigation is needed to validate and com
could explore how diversity of assurance processes affects assurance plement the framework. Moreover, we applied a content-based
outcomes by applying case studies or other empirical methods (e.g., a approach for the literature review, which highlighted the theme and
survey). The confidential nature of the assurance process makes such called attention to the key contributions on the topic. Nevertheless,
exploration more meaningful to practitioners and regulators for the excessive attention on the assurance process may limit the scope of
development of the concept of sustainability and its assurance. research and hinder the comprehensiveness of exploration of sustain
Fifth, the conceptual framework provided in this paper does not ability assurance.
incorporate assurance providers’ key responsibilities. Again, case
studies that track ongoing assurance engagements from both reporting CRediT authorship contribution statement
firm and assurance provider perspectives may help discover how they
reconcile their ambitions, which originate from profit-seeking pressure, Min Yan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Data curation, was
11
conducted, Initial data analysis was carried out, Writing was done. Fu Boiral, O., Henri, J.F., 2017. Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI
reports of mining organizations. Bus. Soc. 56 (2), 283–317. https://doi.org/
Jia: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, was
10.1177/0007650315576134.
conducted, Modelling analysis was carried out, Validation, of the anal Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Brotherton, M.C., 2019a. Assessing and improving the
ysis was carried out, Writing was done. Lujie Chen: Writing – review & quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 155 (3),
editing, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, was conducted, Validation, 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Brotherton, M.C., Bernard, J., 2019b. Ethical issues in
of the analysis was carried out, Writing was done. Fangxu Yan: Writing the assurance of sustainability reports: perspectives from assurance providers. J. Bus.
– review & editing, Formal analysis, Validation, of the analysis was Ethics 159 (4), 1111–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3840-3.
carried out, Writing was done. Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Brotherton, M.C., 2020. Professionalizing the
assurance of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. Account Audit.
Account. J. 33 (2), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2019-3918.
Braam, G., Peeters, R., 2018. Corporate sustainability performance and assurance on
Declaration of competing interest sustainability reports: diffusion of accounting practices in the realm of sustainable
development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 25 (2), 164–181. https://doi.
org/10.1002/csr.1447.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Brown, V.L., Kohlbeck, M.J., 2017. Providing assurance for sustainability reports: an
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence instructional case. Issues Account. Educ. 32 (3), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.2308/
the work reported in this paper. iace-51582.
Brown-Liburd, H., Zamora, L., 2015. The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
assurance in investors’ judgments when managerial pay is explicitly tied to CSR
Data availability performance. Audit J. Pract. Theor. 34 (1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-
50813.
Casey, R.J., Grenier, J.H., 2015. Understanding and contributing to the enigma of
No data was used for the research described in the article. corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in the United States. Audit J. Pract.
Theor. 34 (1), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50736.
Carey, P., Khan, A., Mihret, D.G., Muttakin, M.B., 2021. Voluntary sustainability
Acknowledgement
assurance, capital constraint and cost of debt: international evidence. Int. J. Audit.
25 (2), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12223.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support by Natural Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
Science Foundation of China 71902159. moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5), 360–387.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816.
Channuntapipat, C., 2021. Can sustainability report assurance be a collaborative process
References and practice beyond the ritual of verification? Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (2), 775–786.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2653.
Channuntapipat, C., Samsonova-Taddei, A., Turley, S., 2019. Exploring diversity in
Aboelmaged, M.G., 2012. Sustainable supply chain management in a developing context:
sustainability assurance practice: evidence from assurance providers in the UK.
an empirical examination of antecedents and consequences. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain.
Account Audit. Account. J. 32 (2), 556–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-
Dev. 3 (3), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2012070103.
2017-2940.
Accountability, 2003. AA1000AS assurance standard. https://www.coc-runder-tisch.de/
Chen, L., Srinidhi, B., Tsang, A., Yu, W., 2016. Audited financial reporting and voluntary
inhalte/texte_grundlagen/Assurance_Standard.pdf.
disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. J. Manag. Account. Res.
Accountability, 2008. AA1000AS assurance standard. https://www.accountability.org/w
28 (2), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51411.
p-content/uploads/2016/10/AA1000AS_italian.pdf.
Cho, C.H., Michelon, G., Patten, D.M., Roberts, R.W., 2014. CSR report assurance in the
Ackers, B., 2015. Can a conceptual framework for corporate social responsibility [CSR]
USA: an empirical investigation of determinants and effects. Sustain. Account.
assurance be developed? Corp. Ownersh. Control 12 (4), 8–23. https://doi.org/
Manag. Pol. J. 5 (2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2014-0003.
10.22495/cocv12i4p1.
Choi, J.-H., Wong, T.J., 2007. Auditors’ governance functions and legal environments: an
Adams, C.A., Evans, R., 2004. Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit
international investigation. Contemp. Account. Res. 24 (1), 3–46. https://doi.org/
expectations gap. J. Corp. Citizen. 14, 97–115. https://doi.org/10.9774/
10.1506/X478-1075-4PW5-1501.
GLEAF.4700.2004.su.00010.
Clarkson, P., Li, Y., Richardson, G., Tsang, A., 2019. Causes and consequences of
Albersmeier, F., Schulze, H., Jahn, G., Spiller, A., 2009. The reliability of third-party
voluntary assurance of CSR reports: international evidence involving Dow Jones
certification in the food chain: from checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food
Sustainability Index inclusion and firm valuation. Account Audit. Account. J. 32 (8),
Control 20 (10), 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.01.010.
2451–2474. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3424.
Alsahali, K.F., Malagueño, R., 2021. An empirical study of sustainability reporting
Cohen, J.R., Simnett, R., 2015. CSR and assurance services: a research agenda. Auditing
assurance: current trends and new insights. J. Account. Organ. Change. https://doi.
34 (1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50876.
org/10.1108/JAOC-05-2020-0060 ahead-of-print.
Comyns, B., Figge, F., Hahn, T., Barkemeyer, R., 2013. Sustainability reporting: the role
Amir, A.Z., Serafeim, G., 2018. Why and how investors use ESG information: evidence
of search, experience and credence information. Account. Forum 37 (3), 231–243.
from a global survey. Financ. Anal. J. 74 (3), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2013.04.006.
v74.n3.2.
Cubilla-Montilla, M.I., Galindo-Villardón, P., Nieto-Librero, A.B., Vicente Galindo, M.P.,
Archel, P., Fernández, M., Larrinaga, C., 2008. The organisational and operational
García-Sánchez, I.M., 2020. What companies do not disclose about their
boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: a survey. Environ. Manag. 41 (1),
environmental policy and what institutional pressures may do to respect. Corp. Soc.
s106–s117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9029-7.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27 (3), 1181–1197. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1874.
Arena, C., Bozzolan, S., Michelon, G., 2015. Environmental reporting, transparency to
Dando, N., Swift, T., 2003. Transparency and assurance: minding the credibility gap.
stakeholders or stakeholder manipulation? An analysis of disclosure tone and the
J. Bus. Ethics 44, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023351816790.
role of the board of directors. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 22 (6),
Darnall, N., Seol, I., Sarkis, J., 2009. Perceived stakeholder influences and organizations’
346–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1350.
use of environmental audits. Account. Org. Soc. 34 (2), 170–187. https://doi.org/
Atkins, J., Maroun, W., 2015. Integrated reporting in South Africa in 2012: perspectives
10.1016/j.aos.2008.07.002.
from South African institutional investors. Meditari Account. Res. 23 (2), 197–221.
De Villiers, C., Alexander, D., 2014. The institutionalization of corporate social
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-07-2014-0047.
responsibility reporting. Br. Account. Rev. 46 (2), 198–212. https://doi.org/
Baraibar-Diez, E., Sotorrio, L.L., 2018. The mediating effect of transparency in the
10.1016/j.bar.2014.03.001.
relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation.
Deegan, C., Cooper, B.J., Shelly, M., 2006. An investigation of TBL report assurance
Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocios 20 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7819/
statements: UK and European evidence. Manag. Audit J. 21 (4), 329–371. https://
rbgn.v20i1.3600.
doi.org/10.1108/02686900610661388.
Barlev, B., Citron, D.B., Haddad, J.R., 2017. Who is afraid of transparency? Account.
Diouf, D., Boiral, O., 2017. Quality of sustainability reports and impression management:
Publ. Interest 17 (1), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.2308/apin-51758.
a stakeholder’s perspective. Account Audit. Account. J. 30 (3), 643–667. https://doi.
Ball, A., Owen, D.L., Gray, R., 2000. External transparency or internal capture? The role
org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2044.
of third-party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports. Bus.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and
Strat. Environ. 9 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(200001/02)9:
institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am. Socio. Rev. 48 (2), 147–160.
1<1::AID-BSE227>3.0.CO;2-H.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
Boiral, O., 2013. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A +
Dogui, K., Boiral, O., Gendron, Y., 2013. ISO auditing and the construction of trust in
GRI reports. Account Audit. Account. J. 26 (7), 1036–1107. https://doi.org/
auditor independence. Account Audit. Account. J. 26 (8), 1279–1305. https://doi.
10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998.
org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1264.
Boiral, O., Gendron, Y., 2011. Sustainable development and certification practices:
Dowling, J., Pfeffer, J., 1975. Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational
lessons learned and prospects. Bus. Strat. Environ. 20 (5), 331–347. https://doi.org/
behavior. Pac. Socio Rev. 18 (1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226.
10.1002/bse.701.
Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., Pande, R., Ryan, N., 2013. Truth-telling by third-party auditors
Boiral, O., Guillaumie, L., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Tayo Tene, C.V., 2018. Adoption and
and the response of polluting firms, experimental evidence from India. Q. J. Econ.
outcomes of ISO 14001: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 20 (2), 411–432.
128 (4), 1499–1545. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt024.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12139.
12
Dyck, A., Lins, K.V., Roth, L., Wagner, H.F., 2019. Do institutional investors drive Hummel, K., Schlickg, C., Fifka, M., 2017. The role of sustainability performance and
corporate social responsibility? International evidence. J. Financ. Econ. 131 (3), accounting assurors in sustainability assurance engagements. J. Bus. Ethics 154 (3),
693–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.08.013. 733–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3410-5.
Edgley, C., Jones, M.J., Atkins, J., 2015. The adoption of the materiality concept in social IIRC, 2014. Assurance on <IR>: An introduction to the discussion. IIRC assurance paper.
and environmental reporting assurance: a field study approach. Br. Account. Rev. 47, Retrieved 08 August 2021 from: http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uplo
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.11.001. ads/2014/07/Assurance-on-IR an-introduction-to-the-discussion.pdf.
Edgley, C., Jones, M., Solomon, J., 2010. Stakeholder inclusivity in sustainability report International, Auditing, Assurance Standards Board, 2013. International standard on
assurance. Account Audit. Account. J. 23 (4), 532–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/ assurance engagements 3000 (revised): ISAE 3000 (revised): assurance engagements
09513571011041615. other than audits or reviews of historical financial information. https://www.iaasb.
Elg, M., Fundin, A., 2012. Quality assurance of information in performance measurement org/publications/international-standard-assurance-engagements-isae-3000-revised-
systems. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 10 (4), 514–530. https://doi.org/10.1504/ assurance-engagements-other-audits-or-0.
IJPQM.2012.049637. Jia, F., Yin, S., Chen, L., Chen, X., 2020. The circular economy in the textile and apparel
Emtairah, T., Mont, O., 2008. Gaining legitimacy in contemporary world: environmental industry: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 120728 https://doi.org/
and social activities of organizations. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 1 (2), 134–148. https://doi. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120728.
org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2008.022570. Jia, F., Zuluaga-Cardona, L., Bailey, A., Rueda, X., 2018. Sustainable supply chain
Farooq, M.B., De Villiers, C., 2017. The market for sustainability assurance services: a management in developing countries: an analysis of the literature. J. Clean. Prod.
comprehensive literature review and future avenues for research. Pac. Account. Rev. 189, 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.248.
29 (1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2016-0093. Jones, M.J., Solomon, J.F., 2010. Social and environmental report assurance: some
Farooq, M.B., De Villiers, C., 2019. How sustainability assurance engagement scopes are interview evidence. Account. Forum 34 (1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
determined, and its impact on capture and credibility enhancement. Account Audit. accfor.2009.11.002.
Account. J. 33 (2), 417–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2018-3727. Jones, P., Hillier, D., Comfort, D., 2014. Assurance of the leading UK food retailers’
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., 2015. Multilevel approach to sustainability corporate social responsibility/sustainability reports. Corp. Govern. 14 (1), 130–138.
report assurance decisions. Aust. Account. Rev. 25 (4), 346–358. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2011-0027.
10.1111/auar.12104. Junior, R.M., Best, P.J., Cotter, J., 2014. Sustainability reporting and assurance: a
Fonseca, A., 2010. How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon. J. Bus. Ethics 120 (1), 1–11.
critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the International https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1637-y.
Council on Mining and Metals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (6), Karagiannis, I., Vouros, P., Sioutas, N., Evangelinos, K., 2022. Mapping the maritime CSR
355–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.230. agenda: a cross-sectoral materiality analysis of sustainability reporting. J. Clean.
Fonseca, A., McAllister, M.L., Fitzpatrick, P., 2014. Sustainability reporting among Prod. 338, 130139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130139.
mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach. J. Clean. Prod. 84 Karaman, A.S., Orazalin, N., Uyar, A., Shahbaz, M., 2021. CSR achievement, reporting,
(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050. and assurance in the energy sector: does economic development matter? Energy Pol.
Freeman, R.E., Reed, D.L., 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on 149, 112007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112007.
corporate governance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 25 (3), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/ Kend, M., 2015. Governance, firm-level characteristics and their impact on the client’s
41165018. voluntary sustainability disclosures and assurance decisions. Sustain. Account.
Fuhrmann, S., Ott, C., Looks, E., Guenther, T.W., 2017. The contents of assurance Manag. Pol. J. 6 (1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2013-0061.
statements for sustainability reports and information asymmetry. Account. Bus. Res. Kılıç, M., Kuzey, C., Uyar, A., 2021. An international investigation on assurance of
47 (4), 369–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2016.1263550. integrated reports: institutions, assurance quality, and assurers. J. Int. Account.
Gilbert, D.U., Rasche, A., 2008. Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics Audit. Taxat. 42, 100360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2020.100360.
initiatives – a stakeholder theory perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 82 (3), 755–773. https:// Klodnick, V.V., Clark, H.B., Johnson, R.P., Fagan, M.A., 2019. Developing quality
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9591-1. assurance practices and measures for implementing and sustaining the Transition to
Gillet, C., 2012. A study of sustainability verification practices: the French case. Independence Process (TIP) model. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 42 (1), 71. https://doi.org/
J. Account. Organ. Change 8 (1), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10.1037/prj0000324.
18325911211205748. Kolk, A., Perego, P., 2010. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance
Gillet-Monjarret, C., 2015. Assurance of sustainability information: a study of media statements: an international investigation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (3), 182–198.
pressure. Account. Eur. 12 (1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Kondra, A.Z., Hinings, C.R., 1998. Organizational diversity and change in institutional
17449480.2015.1036894. theory. Organ. Stud. 19 (5), 743–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Global Reporting Initiative, 2013. GRI G4 – GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: 017084069801900502.
Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Koster, M., Vos, B., van der Valk, W., 2019. Drivers and barriers for adoption of a leading
Göbbels, M., Jonker, J., 2003. AA1000 and SA8000 compared: a systematic comparison social management standard (SA8000) in developing economies. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
of contemporary accountability standards. Manag. Audit J. 18 (1), 54–58. https:// Logist. Manag. 49 (5), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2018-0037.
doi.org/10.1108/02686900310454246. KPMG, 2015. KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2015.
Gomes, S.F., Eugénio, T.C.P., Branco, M.C., 2015. Sustainability reporting and assurance https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/12/KPMG-survey-of-CR
in Portugal. Corp. Govern. 15 (3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-07-2013- -reporting-2015.pdf.
0097. KPMG, 2017. KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017.
García-Sánchez, I.M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., 2021. What sustainability https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corp
assurance services do institutional investors demand and what value do they give orate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf.
them? Sustain. Account. Manag. Pol. J. 13 (1), 152–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Krasodomska, J., Simnett, R., Street, D.L., 2021. Extended external reporting assurance:
SAMPJ-06-2020-0199. current practices and challenges. J. Int. Financ. Manag. Account. 32 (1), 104–142.
Graham, L.E., 1985. Audit risk – Part II. CPA J. 55, 4–41. September. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12127.
Gray, R., 2006. Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational Lamberton, G., 2005. Sustainability accounting, A brief history and conceptual
value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Account Audit. Account. J. 19 (6), framework. Account. Forum 29 (1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
793–819. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610709872. accfor.2004.11.001.
Green, W., Taylor, S., Wu, J., 2017. Determinants of greenhouse gas assurance provider Langer, M., 2006. Comparability of sustainability reports: a comparative content analysis
choice. Meditari Account. Res. 25 (1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR- of Austrian sustainability reports. In: Schaltegger, S., Bennet, M., Burrit, R. (Eds.),
08-2016-0072. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting: Development, Linkages and Reflection. An
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the Introduction (581–602). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-
Big Five accounting firms. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/ 4974-3_26.
amj.2006.20785498. Maas, K., Crutzen, N., Schaltegger, S., 2014. Special volume of the Journal of Cleaner
Gürtürk, A., Hahn, R., 2016. An empirical assessment of assurance statements in Production on “Integrating corporate sustainability performance measurement,
sustainability reports, smoke screens or enlightening information? J. Clean. Prod. management control and reporting”: call for papers. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 7–8. https://
136, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.089. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.034.
Hahn, R., Lulfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability Manetti, G., Becatti, L., 2009. Assurance services for sustainability reports: standards and
reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. J. Bus. Ethics 123 empirical evidence. J. Bus. Ethics 87 (1), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4. 008-9809-x.
Herda, D.N., Taylor, M.E., Winterbotham, G., 2014. The effect of country-level investor Manetti, G., Toccafondi, S., 2012. The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting
protection on the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. J. Int. Financ. Manag. assurance. J. Bus. Ethics 107 (3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-
Account. 25 (2), 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12018. 1044-1.
Hoang, H., Trotman, K.T., 2021. The effect of CSR assurance and explicit assessment on Maroun, W., 2017. Assuring the integrated report: insights and recommendations from
investor valuation judgments. Audit J. Pract. Theor. 40 (1), 19–33. https://doi.org/ auditors and preparers. Br. Account. Rev. 49 (3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.2308/AJPT-18-092. j.bar.2017.03.003.
Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., Stewart, J., 2009. Assurance of sustainability reports: Maroun, W., 2019. Exploring the rationale for integrated report assurance. Account
impact on report users’ confidence and perceptions of information credibility. Aust. Audit. Account. J. 32 (6), 1826–1854. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2018-
Account. Rev. 19 (3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2009.00056. 3463.
x. Maroun, W., 2020. A conceptual model for understanding corporate social responsibility
assurance practice. J. Bus. Ethics 161 (1), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-018-3909-z.
13
Mendes, J.V., Oliveira, G.R., De Souza Campos, L.M., 2019. The G-Index, a sustainability Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., Martínez-Ferrero, J., 2020. Empirical analysis of the effect of the
reporting assessment tool. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 26 (5), 428–438. https:// joint provision of audit and sustainability assurance services on assurance quality.
doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1589595. J. Clean. Prod. 266, 121943 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121943.
Mock, T.J., Strohm, C., Swartz, K.M., 2007. An examination of worldwide assured Safari, M., Areeb, A., 2020. A qualitative analysis of GRI principles for defining
sustainability reporting. Aust. Account. Rev. 17 (41), 67–77. https://doi.org/ sustainability report quality: an Australian case from the preparers’ perspective.
10.1111/j.1835-2561.2007.tb00455.x. Account. Forum 44 (4), 344–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Moore, D.A., Tetlock, P.E., Tanlu, L., Bazerman, M.H., 2006. Conflicts of interest and the 01559982.2020.1736759.
case of auditor independence: moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Acad. Sawani, Y., Zain, M.M., Darus, F., 2010. Preliminary insights on sustainability reporting
Manag. Rev. 31 (1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379621. and assurance practices in Malaysia. Soc. Responsib. J. 6 (4), 627–645. https://doi.
Morioka, S.N., Carvalho, M.M., 2016. Measuring sustainability in practice: exploring the org/10.1108/17471111011083482.
inclusion of sustainability into corporate performance systems in Brazilian case Schreck, P., Raithel, S., 2018. Corporate social performance, firm size, and
studies. J. Clean. Prod. 136, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. organizational visibility, distinct and joint effects on voluntary sustainability
jclepro.2016.01.103. reporting. Bus. Soc. 57 (4), 742–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315613120.
Moroney, R., Windsor, C., Aw, Y.T., 2012. Evidence of assurance enhancing the quality of Scott, W.R., 2013. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, fourth
voluntary environmental disclosures: an empirical analysis. Account. Finance 52 (3), ed. Sage.
903–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2011.00413.x. Sharma, D.S., & Sidhu, J. (2001). Professionalism vs commercialism: the association
O’Dwyer, B., 2003. Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of between non-audit services (NAS) and audit independence. J. Bus. Finance Account.,
managerial capture. Account Audit. Account. J. 16 (4), 523–557. https://doi.org/ 28(5-6), 563-594.
10.1108/09513570310492290. Sierra, L., Zorio, A., García-Benau, M.A., 2013. Sustainable development and assurance
O’Dwyer, B., 2011. The case of sustainability assurance: constructing a new assurance of corporate social responsibility reports published by Ibex-35 companies. Corp. Soc.
service. Contemp. Account. Res. 28 (4), 1230–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Responsib. Environ. Manag. 20 (6), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1303.
j.1911-3846.2011.01108.x. Simnett, R., Huggins, A.L., 2015. Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D.L., 2005. Assurance statement practice in environmental, social add value? Sustain. Account. Manag. Pol. J. 6 (1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/
and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. Br. Account. Rev. 37 (2), 205–229. SAMPJ-09-2014-0053.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2005.01.005. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F., 2009. Assurance on sustainability reports: an
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., 2007. Seeking stakeholder-centric sustainability assurance: an international comparison. Account. Rev. 84 (3), 937–967. https://doi.org/10.2308/
examination of recent sustainability assurance practice. J. Corp. Citizen. 25 (1), accr.2009.84.3.937.
77–94. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2007.sp.00009. Smith, J., Hanifa, R., Fairbrass, J., 2011. A conceptual framework for investigating
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., Unerman, J., 2011. Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: “capture” in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. J. Bus. Ethics 99 (3),
the case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Account. Org. Soc. 36 (1), 31–52. 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0661-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.01.002. Sonnerfeldt, A.L.L., Pontoppidan, C.A., 2020. The challenges of assurance on non-
Orazalin, N., Mahmood, M., 2019. Determinants of GRI-based sustainability reporting: financial reporting. Account Econ. Law: Convivium 10 (2), 731–757. https://doi.
evidence from an emerging economy. J. Account. Emerg. Econ. 10 (1), 140–164. org/10.1515/ael-2018-0050.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-12-2018-0137. Tamimi, N., Sebastianelli, R., 2017. Transparency among S&P 500 companies: an
Park, J., Brorson, T., 2005. Experiences of and views on third-party assurance of analysis of ESG disclosure scores. Manag. Decis. 55 (8), 1660–1680. https://doi.org/
corporate environmental and sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 1095–1106. 10.1108/MD-01-2017-0018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.006. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
Pasko, O., Zhang, L., Bezverkhyi, K., Nikytenko, D., Khromushyna, L., 2021. Does evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
external assurance on CSR reporting contribute to its higher quality? Empirical Manag. 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
evidence from China. Invest. Manag. Financ. Innovat. 18 (4), 309–325. https://doi. Traxler, A.A., Schrack, D., Greiling, D., 2020. Sustainability reporting and management
org/10.21511/imfi.18(4).2021.26. control – a systematic exploratory literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 122725
Perego, P., 2009. Causes and consequences of choosing different assurance providers: an https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122725.
international study of sustainability reporting. Int. J. Manag. 26 (3), 412–425. Tsalis, T.A., Malamateniou, K.E., Koulouriotis, D., Nikolaou, I.E., 2020. New challenges
Perego, P., Kolk, A., 2012. Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: the evolution for corporate sustainability reporting: united Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable
of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. J. Bus. Ethics 110 (2), 173–190. development and the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1420-5. Manag. 27 (4), 1617–1629. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1910.
Peters, G.F., Romi, A.M., 2015. The association between sustainability governance Vizcaíno-González, M., 2021. Options approach to external assurance in non-financial
characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability reports. Audit J. Pract. reporting. Int. J. Gov. Fin. Intermed. 1 (2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1504/
Theor. 34 (1), 163–198. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50849. IJGFI.2021.116843.
Prinsloo, A., Maroun, W., 2020. An exploratory study on the components and quality of Wacker, J.G., 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-
combined assurance in an integrated or a sustainability reporting setting. Sustain. building research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 16 (4),
Account. Manag. Pol. J. 12 (1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2019- 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9.
0205. Wallage, P., 2000. Assurance on sustainability reporting: an auditor’s view. Audit J.
Pfugrath, G., Roebuck, P., Simnett, R., 2011. Impact of assurance and assurer’s Pract. Theor. 19, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2000.19.s-1.53.
professional affiliation on financial analysts’ assessment of credibility of corporate Wong, R., Millington, A., 2014. Corporate social disclosures: a user perspective on
social responsibility information. Audit J. Pract. Theor. 30 (3), 239–254. https://doi. assurance. Account Audit. Account. J. 27 (5), 863–887. https://doi.org/10.1108/
org/10.2308/ajpt-10047. AAAJ-06-2013-1389.
Reimsbach, D., Hahn, R., Gürtürk, A., 2018. Integrated reporting and assurance of Yan, M., 2019. Corporate social responsibility versus shareholder value maximization:
sustainability information: an experimental study on professional investors’ through the lens of hard and soft law. North-west. J. Int. Law & Bus. 40 (1), 47–86.
information processing. Eur. Account. Rev. 27 (3), 559–581. https://doi.org/ Zaman, R., Farooq, M.B., Khalid, F., Mahmood, Z., 2021. Examining the extent of and
10.1080/09638180.2016.1273787. determinants for sustainability assurance quality: the role of audit committees. Bus.
Romero, S., Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Ruiz, S., 2014. Perceptions of quality of assurance Strat. Environ. 30 (7), 2887–2906. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2777.
statements for sustainability reports. Soc. Responsib. J. 10 (3), 480–499. https://doi. Zeng, S.X., Xu, X.D., Dong, Z.Y., Tam, V.W., 2010. Towards corporate environmental
org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2012-0130. information disclosure: an empirical study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (12),
Rowley, J., Slack, F., 2004. Conducting a literature review. Manag. Res. News 27 (6), 1142–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.005.
31–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170410784185. Zorio, A., García-Benau, M.A., Sierra, L., 2013. Sustainability development and the
quality of assurance reports: empirical evidence. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22 (7),
484–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1764.
14

1 s2.0 S0959652622037283 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0959652622037283 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0959652622037283 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Assurance process for sustainability reporting: Towards a

1. Introduction 2019; Fuhrmann et al., 2017). Investors and stakeholders increasingly

Fig. 1. Review methodology.

relevance of their titles, to remove any unrelated to sustainability report

2.2. Descriptive analysis

A descriptive analysis aims to draw an integral map that contains all

3.2. Determinants of assurance 3.3. Selection of assurance provider

Fig. 4. Conceptual framework.

Table 5) to meet public expectations, and a private report, to reveal the

4.2. Areas for future research

You might also like