The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to document a study of European and UK triple bottom line (TBL) report assurance statements. Design/methodology/approach: In undertaking the research, an international database was constructed from which all known European and UK third‐party assurance statements that accompanied the release of TBL reports were selected for review. Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that there is much variability and ambiguity inherent within the contents of the third‐party statements. Research limitations/implications: The UK and European reports included within the database compiled by the researchers provide the basis of the information used to develop this paper. In selecting assurance statements to include within the database, the latest TBL report from each reporting organization was obtained (and it should be appreciated that many organizations do not produce TBL reports on an annual basis). Of the 170 reports available internationally at the time the research was undertaken, 8 are from 2000, 86 from 2001, 65 from 2002, and 11 from 2003. Whilst the database is the most extensive one of its type, given the finite nature of resources available, it is stressed that the database is not exhaustive. Practical implications: Taken together, the results of this analysis lead us to question the value that such assurance statements provide to the TBL reporting process. Originality/value: Assesses the ambiguity and questions the value of assurance work on TBL statements as currently being undertaken.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business
Elkington, J. (1998) · Environmental Quality Management · doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106 · Cited by 5,341
Cited by
The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective
Diouf, D., & Boiral, O. (2017) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-04-2015-2044 · Cited by 429
Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/ajpt-50736 · Cited by 421
Sustainability Reporting and Assurance: A Historical Analysis on a World-Wide Phenomenon
Junior, R. M., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2014) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1637-y · Cited by 383
Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., & Stewart, J. (2009) · Australian Accounting Review · doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2009.00056.x · Cited by 375
Gualandris, J., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.06.002 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Authors
- Deegan, C., Cooper, B. J., & Shelly, M.
- Venue
- Managerial Auditing Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-04-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 329-371
- ISSN
- 0268-6902 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1990891369
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/02686900610661388
- The paper
- Deegan, C., Cooper, B. J., & Shelly, M. (2006). An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence. Managerial Auditing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610661388
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.