Search results

This study aims to evaluate corporate sustainability integration by evaluating corporate practices against the sustainability principles of inclusivity, materiality, responsiveness and impact outlined in AccountAbility’s AA1000 Accountability Principles (AA1000AP) standard.

Data comprise 12 semi-structured interviews with senior managers of listed New Zealand companies. Findings are evaluated against AccountAbility’s principles of inclusivity, materiality, responsiveness and impact, which are based on a normative view of stakeholder theory.

In terms of inclusivity, stakeholder engagement is primarily monologic and is directed more towards traditional stakeholder groups. However, social media, which is gaining popularity, has the potential to facilitate greater dialogic stakeholder engagement. While most companies undertake a materiality assessment (with varying degrees of rigour) to support sustainability reporting, only some use it to drive planning and decision-making. Companies demonstrate responsiveness to stakeholder concerns through corporate governance and sustainability initiatives. Companies are monitoring and measuring their impact on stakeholders using sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs). However, measuring traditional metrics is easier than measuring areas such as the community. In rare instances, the executive’s remuneration is linked to these sustainability KPIs.

The study findings offer useful examples of the integration of sustainability into corporate processes and systems. Practitioners may find the insights useful in understanding how sustainability is currently being integrated into corporate practices by best practice New Zealand companies. Regulators may consider incorporating AA1000AP into their corporate governance guidelines. Finally, academics may find the study useful for teaching business and accounting courses and to guide the next generation of business managers.

First, the study brings together four streams of research on how sustainability reports are prepared (inclusivity, materiality, responsiveness and impact) in a single study. Second, the findings offer novel insights by evaluating corporate sustainability against the requirements of a standard that has received little academic attention.

This study aims to review the literature on non-financial information (NFI) assurance including external assurance of sustainability reports (SRA) and integrated reports (IRA). The objectives are as follows: provide an overview of academic research; understand the nature of NFI assurance engagements by organising the literature around the five key elements of an assurance engagement; develop a framework for understanding NFI assurance; and provide directions for future research.

The study undertakes a structured literature review of 179 articles published from 1999 to 2023.

The review identified 324 researchers located in 35 different countries who published 179 articles on SRA and IRA. The researchers, their locations, journals, methods, theories and themes are examined. The literature is structured around the definition of an assurance engagement including a tripartite arrangement, subject matter, a suitable criterion, sufficient appropriate evidence and a written assurance report. A framework for understanding NFI assurance is offered. Avenues for future research, structured around the five elements of an assurance engagement, are presented.

Researchers will benefit from an overview of the literature and guidance on areas for future research. Lecturers can use the findings to develop content for their auditing courses. Reporting managers will benefit from a better understanding of this new form of assurance. Regulators can use this study’s insights to better inform the development of laws and corporate governance codes mandating NFI assurance. Standard setters can use these findings to guide the emergence of the new assurance standards. Assurance practitioners may use this research to inform practice.

The findings may prove useful in addressing capture, which deters NFI assurance from enhancing disclosure credibility and fulfilling its transparency and accountability role. This is to the detriment of the wider society.

The consolidation of the literature around the five key elements of an assurance engagement is unique. The framework devised offers useful insights into the dynamics of assurance generally and NFI assurance more specifically. The study is timely given the new European Union regulations on NFI reporting and assurance and the work of the International Audit and Assurance Standards Board in developing a specialist NFI assurance standard.

This study aims to examine the methodological and method-related challenges and opportunities arising from the use of video interviews in qualitative accounting research, focussed on collecting contextual data and visual cues, enriching communication quality and building and maintaining rapport with interviewees.

Prior literature and the authors’ experiences using video technologies for research, including conducting interviews, inform this research. This study uses a transactional conceptual refinement of information richness theory and channel expansion theory to critically analyse the challenges and opportunities of using video technology to conduct qualitative research interviews.

The ability, need for and significance of collecting contextual data depend on the researchers’ ontological and epistemological assumptions, and are, therefore, influenced by their research design choices. Video technology enables researchers to view research settings by video. In addition, whilst group/panel interviews have their advantages, it is often difficult to get everyone together in person, something video technology can potentially overcome. The feasibility and the quality of video interviews can be improved if both interview participants are experienced with using video technology, as well as with judicious investment in good quality video technology and through testing and practice. We also discuss how rapport building with interviewees can be facilitated by overcoming the video’s sense of disconnect and enhancing interviewees’ willingness to engage.

The study builds on the limited prior literature and considers the challenges and opportunities related to methodology and method when conducting video-based qualitative interviews in accounting research. Broadly, qualitative researchers will find the paper useful in considering the use of video interviews and in making research design choices appropriate for video interviews.

The purpose of this study is to develop a sustainability reporter classification matrix (hereafter referred to as the “matrix”) to explain why some reporters publish better-quality sustainability reports than others and why some reporters experience improvements in the quality of their sustainability reports while others experience no improvement or a decline in sustainability report quality.

The study draws on the existing literature, which is analysed using a combination of legitimacy theory (i.e. commitment to sustainability reporting) and resource-based view (RBV, i.e. competencies in sustainability reporting).

A two-dimensional matrix is developed representing organisations’ competencies in (explained using the RBV) and commitment to (explained using legitimacy theory) sustainability reporting. Based on these two dimensions the matrix identifies four reporter classifications: incompetent uncommitted reporters (who publish low-quality reports); competent uncommitted reporters (who publish average-quality reports); incompetent committed reporters (who publish average-quality reports); and competent committed reporters (who publish high-quality reports). The matrix explains how reporters can transition from one quadrant/classification to another and how this transition can be either forward (moving from a lower quadrant to a higher quadrant), resulting in improvements in report quality, or backward (moving from a higher quadrant to a lower quadrant), leading to a deterioration in disclosure quality.

The study builds on the extant literature, combining legitimacy theory with the RBV, to provide a more complete explanation for why organisations publish sustainability reports of varying quality and why this quality varies over time. These insights can also be used to explain variations in the quality of integrated reports. The matrix may prove useful to practitioners as a tool for classifying reporters, identifying issues, assessing risk and tracking progress made.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship between female representation on corporate boards and intellectual capital (IC) efficiency – while prior studies focus on the relationship between gender diversity and firms’ financial performance.

Drawing on data from top 500 UK listed firms for 2007–2016 (3,279 firm-years), this study employs an adjusted-value-added intellectual coefficient as a measure of IC efficiency. Further, the two-step system-generalised method of moments has been applied to account for endogeneity issues.

The results reveal a significant positive relationship between female representation on boards and IC efficiency, including human capital, structural/innovation capital and financial capital efficiency. These results are robust to alternative proxies for the independent variable and difference-in-difference estimation.

The results posit that female representation on boards is associated with IC efficiency, which is vital for firms’ value creation and competitive advantage in the knowledge-economy era. The study also endorses current legislation to increase female representation on corporate boards.

This is among the limited studies to explore the role of female representation on boards in IC efficiency – while most prior studies relate IC efficiency to financial performance.

This paper aims to evaluate the extent of materiality assessment disclosures in sustainability reports and their determinants. The study examines the disclosure practices of listed companies based in the member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, colloquially referred to as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

First, the materiality assessment disclosures were scored through a content analysis of sustainability reports published by listed GCC companies during a five-year period from 2013 to 2017. Second, a fixed effect ordered logic regression was used to examine the determinants of materiality assessment disclosures.

While sustainability reporting rates improved across the sample period, a significant majority of listed GCC companies do not engage in sustainability reporting. The use of internationally recognised standards has also declined. While reporters provide more information on their materiality assessment, the number of sustainability reports that offer information on how the reporter identifies material issues has declined. These trends potentially indicate the existence of managerial capture. Materiality assessment disclosure scores are positively influenced by higher financial performance (Return on Assets), lower leverage and better corporate governance. However, company size and market-to-book ratio do not influence materiality assessment disclosures.

The findings may prove useful to managers responsible for preparing sustainability reports who can benefit from the examples of materiality assessment disclosures. An evaluation of the materiality assessment should be included in the scope of assurance engagements and practitioners can use the examples of best practice when evaluating sustainability reports. Stock exchanges may consider developing improved corporate governance guidelines as these will lead to materiality assessment disclosures.

The findings may assist in improving sustainability reporting quality, through better materiality assessment disclosures. This will allow corporate stakeholders to evaluate the reporting entities underlying processes, which leads to transparency and corporate accountability. Improved corporate sustainability reporting supports the GCC commitment to implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and transition to sustainable development.

This study addresses the call for greater research examining materiality within a sustainability reporting context. This is the first paper to examine sustainability reporting quality in the GCC region, focussing particularly on materiality assessment disclosures.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how sustainability assurance providers’ (SAPs) promotion of sustainability assurance influences the scope of engagements, its implications for professional and managerial capture and the ability of sustainability assurance to promote credible reporting.

The authors conducted in-depth interviews with sustainability reporting managers (SRMs) and SAPs in Australia and New Zealand, using an institutional work lens to focus the analysis.

At the start of a new assurance engagement, SAPs offer pre-assurance and flexible assurance scopes, allowing them to recruit clients on narrow-scoped engagements. These narrow-scoped engagements focus on disclosed content and limit SAPs’ ability to add value and enhance credibility. During assurance engagements, SAPs educate managers and encourage changing the norms underlying sustainability reporting. At the end of the assurance engagement, SAPs provide a management report demonstrating added-value of assurance and encouraging clients broader-scoped engagements. However, with each assurance engagement, the recommendations offer diminishing returns, often leading managers to question the value of broad-scoped engagements and to consider narrowing the scope to realize savings. Under these conditions, client pressure (potentially managerial capture) along with practitioners’ desires to grow assurance income (potentially professional capture) can affect SAPs’ independence and the quality of their assurance work.

The study implies that regulation mandating the scope of engagements may be called for.

The authors contribute to the research literature in several ways. First, the findings show how professional and managerial capture occurs before, during and at the end of the assurance process. The authors highlight how perceived value addition from sustainability assurance diminishes over time and how this impacts the scope of engagements (with implications for SAPs independence and the quality of assurance work). The authors show these findings in a table, clarifying the complicated interrelationships. Second, the authors contribute to theory by identifying a new form of institutional work. Third, unlike previous studies focused on SAPs, the authors provide insights from the perspectives of both SAPs and SRMs.

The purpose of this study is to understand the efforts of key social actors in influencing the reform of Iranian public universities budgeting system, from incremental to performance-based budgeting (PBB), the tensions that arose as competing efforts of institutional change were undertaken, and ultimately the impact of these efforts on the extent to which the Iranian government transitioned to a system of PBB in public universities.

Data comprises of semi-structured interviews with managers and experts involved in the budget setting process and an analysis of budgetary policy documents, reports and archival material such as legislation. An institutional work lens is employed to interpret the findings.

While actors advocating the change were engaged in institutional work directed at disrupting the old budgetary rules by disassociating the rules moral foundations and creating new budgetary rules (through new legislation), universities undertook subtle resistance by engaging in extended evaluation of the new proposed PBB rules thereby maintaining the old budgetary rules. The reforms undertaken to introduce PBB in Iranian universities achieved minimal success whereby incremental budgeting continued to constitute by far a larger percentage of the budget allocation formula for university budgets. This finding illustrates change and continuity in university budgetary systems resulting from institutional work of actors competing to control the basis of resource allocation under the proposed PBB system by proposing contradicting models.

The findings highlight the importance of understanding the interplay of institutional work undertaken by competing social actors as they seek to advance their goals in shaping budgetary reforms in the public-sector. Such an understanding may inform policy makers who intend to introduce major reforms in public-sector budgeting approaches.

Unlike prior studies that largely focused on how organization-level budgeting practices responded to changes in public budgeting rules (i.e. at the site of implementation of the rules), this paper highlights how strategies of change and resistance are played out at the site of setting budgetary norms.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how sustainability reporting managers (SRMs) institutionalise sustainability reporting within organisations.

In total, 35 semi-structured interviews with SRMs in Australia and New Zealand were analysed using an institutional work perspective.

SRMs’ institutional work can be categorised into four phases with each phase representing a different approach to sustainability reporting. Organisations transition from phase one to four as they achieve a higher level of maturity and a deeper embedding and routinisation of sustainability reporting. These include educating and advocacy work undertaken by engaging with managers (phase one), transitioning to a decentralised sustainability reporting process (phase two), transitioning to leaner, focussed, materiality driven sustainability reporting (phase three), and using sustainability key performance indicators and materiality assessment reports for planning, decision-making, goal setting, performance appraisal, and incentives (phase four). However, SRMs face challenges including their inexperience, limited time and resources, lack of management commitment to sustainability reporting and low external interest in sustainability reporting. The study identifies ten reasons why material issues are not always (adequately) disclosed.

This study recommends more training and development for SRMs, and that regulation be considered to mandate the disclosure of the materiality assessments in sustainability reports.

This research extends the existing literature examining how sustainability reports are prepared and sheds further light on how a materiality assessment is undertaken. The study identifies ten reasons for the non-disclosure of material matters, including but not limited to, legitimacy motives. Researchers can use these reasons to refine their methods for evaluating published sustainability reports. At a theoretical level, the study provides four observations that institutional researchers should consider when examining forms of institutional work.

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

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

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

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

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

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