Search results

This paper aims to examine the influence of sustainability assurance report format (separate versus combined with financial information assurance) and level (limited versus reasonable) on nonprofessional investors’ judgments.

This study uses a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment with 436 US nonprofessional investors. The authors manipulate sustainability assurance report format and level to identify differences in judgments of information credibility, investment desirability and investment amount.

This study finds that sustainability assurance level influences participants’ judgments only when the financial and sustainability assurance reports are presented separately. Specifically, participants assess sustainability performance information as more credible and make higher investment judgments when presented with a separate limited, as opposed to reasonable, assurance sustainability report.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board expressed concerns regarding whether assurance reports accompanying emerging forms of extended external reporting (EER) effectively communicate the level of assurance provided by the independent practitioner. The result that assurance level does not influence investor judgments in the combined reporting format appears contrary to the idea that integrated reporting should provide connectivity between financial and sustainability information. The finding that investors make higher investment and credibility judgments with limited assurance is inconsistent with the intent of sustainability assurance professional guidance and recent research results. Together, the findings suggest that investors may not be able to distinguish between differing levels of sustainability assurance when this information is presented in a combined report format.

Standard setters should consider how sustainability assurance report format and assurance level impact nonprofessional investor judgments.

Research on the effects of EER assurance report format is sparse. The results indicate that even slight changes in assurance report wording may cause investors to perceive that a limited assurance report conveys a higher assurance level than a reasonable assurance report.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether different levels of assurance statements of environmental disclosures affect investment choices in the French context where environmental assurance was voluntary until 2012 and became regulated and mandatory since then.

The authors conducted an experiment during the voluntary context – which represents the vast majority of countries – on a sample of 108 financial analysts.

Environmental disclosure has a positive impact on investment recommendations. More surprisingly, financial analysts are less likely to give recommendations in favor of a company that displays environmental disclosure with low-level assurance than for a company with no assurance statement at all.

When assurance is voluntary and there are at least two levels, this study results suggest that firms should avoid selecting the lowest level of assurance because it negatively affects investor decisions. From this perspective, firms should devote sufficient effort and resources to obtain at least Level 2 environmental disclosure assurance.

Given the recommendations made by financial analysts, the authors could expect that firms may prefer to engage in a higher level of assurance or to provide no assurance rather than minimize their financial efforts and resources to select a lower level of voluntary assurance regarding environmental disclosure.

This study has implications for the voluntary assurance practices of environmental disclosure and can provide support to regulators to promote higher standards in environmental assurance. It documents the relevance to increase the level of requested assurance for environmental disclosure.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, very few studies have examined the additional effect of assurance on environmental disclosure in investors’ decisions. The experiment is conducted with financial analysts in the context of voluntary assurance.

This study aims to examine whether the financial market rewards the sustainable companies by investigating the impact of sustainability assurance levels on market capitalization of the CAC 40 firms. This analysis is complemented by examining the role of company characteristics to investors, providing a clearer picture of the functioning of the capital market.

To analyze the effect of sustainability assurance levels on market capitalization for the period 2011–2021, this study used a simplified version of the linear information model which is based on Ohlson model (1995) and Crouse (2007). This model is a multiple linear regression model which will be applied to panel data.

The study found that sustainability assurance levels negatively impact market capitalization. Higher investment decisions occur when sustainability reports have limited assurance, likely due to resource waste and costs exceeding income. In addition, net income, corporate social responsibility (CSR) indexes, leverage and performance significantly influence market capitalization.

This study offers valuable insights for both companies and investors, providing guidance on making investment decisions based on varying levels of sustainability assurance.

The current study sheds light on a relatively unexplored area regarding the connection between sustainability assurance and market reaction. Hence, this research focuses on a novel aspect of sustainability assurance by investigating how firm visibility in terms of sustainability practices impacts market capitalization.

The study aims to evaluate how different types of assurors and investors’ Big Five personality traits affect the relationship between levels of assurance for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting and individual investors' decision-making in social responsible investment (SRI).

This study adopted an experimental approach with 315 individual investors as participants.

The results show that there are some differences in the individual investors’ decision-making. Accountants are the preferred assuror. Type of assuror and level of assurance for GHG reporting affect investors’ decision-making, in the presence of different levels of investors’ personality traits, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. However, individual investors with different levels of agreeableness do not have similar influence.

This study extends the literature on individual investors’ decision-making in socially responsible investment by examining the combination of the type of assuror, level of assurance and investors’ personality traits. This study also observes three different assurors, accountants, engineers and specialists and four different assurance levels – reasonable, hybrid, limited and not specified.

This study aims to examine the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) award and sustainability assurance levels for the French CAC 40 companies.

A sample of 57 French companies in the CAC 40 index corresponding to 448 observations was analyzed between 2008 and 2020 using an ordinal regression.

The main results conclude that the inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index World, the CSR award and the introduction of the Grenelle 2 law have a significant influence on sustainability assurance levels. However, incentive compensation does not appear to be relevant to explain sustainability assurance levels.

The present study focuses on a sample, limited to companies belonging to the CAC 40 index. To enhance the understanding of sustainability assurance levels, this research may include other global sustainability indices, such as the MSCI World and the FTSE4Good World, in the CSR awards.

This study could be useful for audit practitioners, leading them to reconsider their evaluation methods and take into account CSR incentives for a more objective analysis. Regulators should investigate the current CSR issues to improve CSR disclosure standards. Finally, these findings could motivate other researchers to expand the scope of the research to diverse contexts.

This study helps fill the gap existing in sustainability assurance literature by highlighting the relationship between CSR rewards and sustainability assurance levels.

With the growing attention around carbon emissions disclosure, the demand for external carbon assurance on emissions reports has been increasing by stakeholders as it provides additional credibility and confidence. This study investigates the association between the higher level of external carbon assurance and improvement in a firm's carbon emissions. It provides an understanding of corporate incentives for obtaining a higher level of carbon assurance, particularly in relation to carbon performance enhancements.

Data are collected from 170 US companies for the period 2012–2017 and are analysed using a change analysis. Generalised method of moment (GMM) is used to address endogeneity.

Following the rationales taken by legitimacy and “outside-in” management views, the findings reveal that a higher level of carbon assurance (i.e. reasonable assurance) marginally improves firms' carbon performance (i.e. reported carbon emissions). This is consistent with “outside-in” management view suggesting that a higher level of assurance could be utilised as a tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' needs and concerns, which can be useful in enhancing carbon performance.

The findings are generalisable to US firms and may not extend to other contexts.

The implication of this study for companies is that a high level of sustainability assurance is a useful tool to access detailed information about stakeholder concerns, of which internalisation can help to marginally improve carbon performance. For policymakers, the insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining carbon assurance can help policymakers to develop effective policies and initiatives for carbon assurance. Considering the possible improvements in carbon performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating carbon assurance.

This study extends the existing studies of assurance in sustainability context as well as in carbon context by explaining why companies voluntarily get expensive external verification (i.e. higher level of assurance) of their carbon emissions disclosure. This study responds to calls in the literature for empirical research investigating the association between environmental performance and external assurance with a focus on level of assurance.

1. A higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.

2. Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.

3. Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.

4. Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

A higher level of carbon assurance Marginally improves firms' carbon performance.

Corporate incentives to obtain higher level of carbon assurance is beyond seeking legitimacy.

Higher level of assurance is a useful tool for accessing more information about stakeholders' concerns.

Consistent with “ouside-in”management view, companies internalise stakeholders' concerns to marginally improve performance.

The advent of new enabling technologies and the surge in corporate scandals has combined to increase the supply, the demand, and the development of enabling technologies for a new system of continuous assurance and measurement. This paper positions continuous assurance (CA) as a methodology for the analytic monitoring of corporate business processes, taking advantage of the automation and integration of business processes brought about by information technologies. Continuous analytic monitoring-based assurance will change the objectives, timing, processes, tools, and outcomes of the assurance process.

The objectives of assurance will expand to encompass a wide set of qualitative and quantitative management reports. The nature of this assurance will be closer to supervisory activities and will involve intensive interchange with more of the firm s stakeholders than just its shareholders. The timing of the audit process will be very close to the event, automated, and will conform to the natural life cycle of the underlying business processes. The processes of assurance will change dramatically to being meta-supervisory in nature, intrusive with the potential of process interruption, and focusing on very different forms of evidential matter than the traditional audit. The tools of the audit will expand considerably with the emergence of major forms of new auditing methods relying heavily on an integrated set of automated information technology (IT) and analytical tools. These will include automatic confirmations (confirmatory extranets), control tags (transparent tagging) tools, continuity equations, and time-series cross-sectional analytics. Finally, the outcomes of the continuous assurance process will entail an expanded set of assurances, evergreen opinions, some future assurances, some improvement on control processes (through incorporating CA tests), and some improved data integrity.

A continuous audit is a methodology that enables independent auditors to provide written assurance on a subject matter, for which an entity’s management is responsible, using a series of auditors’ reports issued virtually simultaneously with, or a short period of time after, the occurrence of events underlying the subject matter.

• –

  CICA/AICPA Research Study on Continuous Auditing (1999)

CICA/AICPA Research Study on Continuous Auditing (1999)

Companies must disclose certain information on a current basis.

• –

  Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency (Sarbanes-Oxley) Act (2002)

Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency (Sarbanes-Oxley) Act (2002)

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the level of assurance associated with financial statements affects individual investing decisions.

A between-subjects behavioral experiment is used with a control condition and three treatment conditions involving different levels of auditor assurance.

As the level of assurance progresses from none to compilation to review to audit, investors’ perceptions of risk associated with the investment decrease. However, the type of certified public accounting (CPA) firm association did not seem to influence the amounts that individuals were willing to invest.

The results for the investment scenario in this paper cannot necessarily be generalized to other types of investment scenarios. Also, individuals often obtain more information about an investment prospect than what appeared in this study’s questionnaire. Another limitation is that this study did not have economic incentives such as suffering financial losses from poor investing decisions.

Findings about risk assessments suggest that companies might be willing to pay more for greater levels of CPA firm assurance, but the results pertaining to amounts invested suggest that companies need not consider incurring additional costs to obtain more assurance.

No prior study has unambiguously examined the effects of compilations, reviews and audits on investing decisions. This study explores this issue by conducting an experiment whereby investing judgments are compared across groups who received information about one of four levels of auditor assurance.

This paper aims to clarify whether assurance on non-financial corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports impacts the perceptions and decisions of banks as capital providers. The authors investigate the effects of the type of assurance provider and the level of assurance provided on decisions by banks to grant credit, make their own personal investments or recommend share purchases to their customers. The study aims to expand the domain of assurance on CSR reports (CSRR) by taking up a call by Cohen and Simnett (2015), who ask for behavioral research on how non-financial report’s intended users interpret and react to assurance.

The paper is based on an experiment case on a fictitious company with a 2 × 2 + 1 between-subjects design. To overcome concerns regarding external validity and to prove results in a real-world setting, the authors selected German bank directors as subjects due to the extremely high relevance of banks to the German economy. The authors investigated the perceptions of 69 bank directors and analyzed the influence of CSR assurance on their decisions.

The findings suggest that assurance positively influences confidence in CSRR and that, consequently, bankers are more likely to make favorable decisions toward the reporting companies, such as approving applications for credit, investing themselves in the company or recommending the purchase of shares to their clients. These effects are stronger when an accounting firm provides the assurance and when the assurance level is reasonable rather than limited.

The arguments presented are, strictly speaking, limited to the case in the experiment and the views held by the bank directors at the time the authors sent out the questionnaires. Moreover, the cell sizes are quite small. Nevertheless, the authors were able to find highly significant results.

The main implication of the paper is that the purchase of CSRR assurance services has a positive effect on bank directors’ perceptions and decisions. They favor the provision of such services by accounting firms and they prefer a reasonable assurance level. Thus, it can be concluded that bank directors perceive quality differences between assurance providers, are able to recognize the difference between reasonable and limited assurance and that the related information is relevant for their decisions.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the influence of CSRR assurance on decisions by bank directors. The observation of a high decisions-usefulness of CSRR assurance suggests that regulators should consider mandating some form of assurance on non-financial reports throughout the EU member states.

This paper aims to achieve the following objectives. First, through a longitudinal study, the authors explore the trend of voluntary external assurance of sustainability reports among Italian listed companies from 2008 to 2012. Thus, the authors aim to analyse the content level of the assurance statements and to test whether it is affected by certain corporate variables and by the type of practitioner chosen.

A legitimacy theory framework is adopted to investigate the phenomenon of sustainability report assurance services in Italy. The authors developed an assurance statement disclosure index (ASDI) constructed on the basis of the standards ISAE 3000 and AA1000AS. Thus, the authors tested whether the ASDI is affected by certain corporate variables using an ordinary least square (OLS) regression model. To test how each specific item is related to the assurance provider, a contingency table was developed.

The results of this paper show many differences in the assurance statements content in particular with reference to the criteria used, conclusive comments and recommendations. The presence of a corporate social responsibility committee and an expert who serves on it is positively related to a higher rank on the ASDI. In contrast, Big4 firms seem to be associated with a lower disclosure rank. Finally, Big4 are positively associated with the indications of the provider’s characteristics and negatively with their conclusive comments and recommendations.

This paper presents some findings in an area where little evidence exists, that is, the effects of some variables on the quantity of information disclosed in the assurance statements.