Corporate choice of providers of voluntary carbon assurance

Abstract

This study investigates corporate incentives for the choice of assurance providers of accounting firms versus nonaccounting firms. Based on an international sample of 3,635 firm-year observations for the period of 2010-2014, we find that firms subject to greater legitimacy and stakeholder pressure (e.g., those with higher carbon emissions in countries with stringent climate protection and stakeholder-orientation) are more likely to choose accounting firms as their assurance provider. We also find supporting evidence that firms with a desire to improve carbon management mechanisms (e.g., firms that adopt carbon reduction incentives with higher carbon transparency) show a tendency to choose consulting firms specializing in climate change management. The overall findings suggest that the choice of assurance provider is a strategic decision, which aligns with a firm's overall corporate social responsibility goal. Our results should help practitioners, managers, and regulators understand the emerging audit practice and market.

Carbon disclosure: a systematic literature review

“…For example, Tang (2019) examines reasons for the growth in demand for carbon assurance in China, suggesting that the emergence of carbon institutions and the significant increase in Chinese government green funding are the two main reasons for the advancement of carbon auditing. Moreover, Datt et al (2020) review the motivations for selection of an accounting firm versus a nonaccounting firm to assure carbon information. They suggest that the final choice of assurance provider depends on complex factors, such as the level of legitimacy, stakeholder pressure and willingness to enhance carbon management mechanisms.…”

Research on extended external reporting assurance: Trends, themes, and opportunities

“…In terms of the assurance of carbon information, Datt et al. (2020) find that firms subject to greater legitimacy and stakeholder pressure (e.g., those with high levels of carbon emission in stakeholder‐oriented countries with stringent climate protection policies) are more likely to choose an accounting assurance provider. In contrast, firms that have a desire to improve carbon management mechanisms (e.g., with carbon committees, carbon reduction initiatives and a greater degree of carbon transparency) are more likely to choose consulting firms as the assurance provider.…”

“…Branco et al (2014) and Fernandez-Feijoo et al (2015) find that listed firms are more likely to obtain assurance compared to non-listed firms. The literature also shows that various firm motives, for example, the desire to improve carbon management mechanisms, building a foundation for systematic business management, having better control of business operations, meeting customer and market requirements, and enhancing the image and reputation drive the assurance decision (Datt et al, 2020;Prajogo et al, 2020).…”

Climate change mitigation: Carbon assurance and reporting integrity

“…Second, it is widely acknowledged that carbon measurement, reporting and assurance provides essential foundations for mitigation actions and informing decision-making at corporate, local, national and international levels (Bui & de Villiers, 2017). Third, despite the emerging literature on carbon assurance, most studies have focused on the choice of providers and standards, and determinants of carbon assurance rather than its consequences or implications (Datt et al, 2018(Datt et al, , 2020. The evidence on the implications of corporate carbon disclosure and assurance for reporting quality is limited.…”