Variation in sustainability assurance practice: An analysis of accounting versus non-accounting providers

Abstract

Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rightsUnless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law.• Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.• Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research.• User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of 'fair dealing' under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) • Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

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

“…The main standards in this area, namely ISAE 3,000 and AA 1,000 AS, tend to be used as legitimization tools to enhance the credibility of the assurance process rather than effective guidelines to improve the quality of the verification process. Notable variations in the differentiation strategies pursued by accounting and non‐accounting assurers result in differences in their choice of standards, aspects of the assurance process (e.g., materiality, scope, team composition), and emphasis on particular expertise (Channuntapipat et al, 2020; Farooq & De Villiers, 2019b). Accounting assurers’ claims about the rigor of their assurance procedures and standards, extensive resources and the effectiveness of the intra‐firm quality control mechanisms, and arguing in support of a single provider for both financial statement audits and sustainability assurance serve to establish their intention to develop an image of superiority (Channuntapipat et al., 2020; Farooq & De Villiers, 2019b).…”

“…Notable variations in the differentiation strategies pursued by accounting and non‐accounting assurers result in differences in their choice of standards, aspects of the assurance process (e.g., materiality, scope, team composition), and emphasis on particular expertise (Channuntapipat et al, 2020; Farooq & De Villiers, 2019b). Accounting assurers’ claims about the rigor of their assurance procedures and standards, extensive resources and the effectiveness of the intra‐firm quality control mechanisms, and arguing in support of a single provider for both financial statement audits and sustainability assurance serve to establish their intention to develop an image of superiority (Channuntapipat et al., 2020; Farooq & De Villiers, 2019b). By contrast, non‐accounting assurers promote themselves among sustainability report managers as agile multifaceted professionals and subject matter specialists using AA 1,000 AS, a dedicated standard, while discrediting accounting assurers and ISAE 3,000 as “out of touch” with sustainability objectives (Channuntapipat et al., 2020; Farooq & De Villiers, 2019b).…”

The limits of institutional work: a field study on auditors' efforts to promote sustainability assurance in a trust society

“…Auditing assurors have until recently enjoyed a competitive advantage as only they have been allowed to apply the ISAE 3000 standard in their assurance work. However, in December 2015 the IASB released the use of that standard to all assurance providers, including consulting assurors, thus removing auditors' competitive advantage in this respect (see Channuntapipat et al, 2020).…”

Can sustainability report assurance be a collaborative process and practice beyond the ritual of verification?

“…However, Park and Brorson (2005) assert that managers demand SA to make sure that their disclosed sustainability information is verifiable and credible. Besides this perceived value of credibility enhancement, due to its consultancy nature of SA practice, SA providers might potentially give suggestions and recommendations to organizations on how they could improve their sustainability reporting (Channuntapipat, Samsonova‐Taddei & Turley, 2019, 2020; O'Dwyer, 2011) and adopting important sustainability performance indicators (Park & Brorson, 2005).…”