The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CSR report assurance in the USA: an empirical investigation of determinants and effects
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: – The authors aims to examine, first, what factors appear to lead those US companies that do obtain assurance on their CSR reports to do so, and second, whether this assurance appears to be valued by market participants. Design/methodology/approach: – The authors use logistic regression analysis to determine what factors explain the choice to seek assurance. For the second stage of the analysis, the authors rely on Aboody et al.'s market valuation model to examine the association between CSR report assurance and firm value. Findings: – The authors find that industry membership and disclosure extensiveness both appear to influence the choice to attain third-party assurance on CSR reports in the USA. However, the results also indicate that the assurance is not associated with higher market value for report-issuing companies. Research limitations/implications: – The authors examine only large firms and limit the investigation to a single year. Further, the authors do not examine market valuation effects where a broader stakeholder orientation might influence these relations. Practical implications: – The results suggest that improving the incidence of CSR report attestation in the USA may require efforts from the assurance community to better identify the potential benefits of the practice. Originality/value: – This is the first study to focus on CSR report assurance in a setting where country-level influences appear to limit adoption of the practice. As such, the findings are potentially important for understanding both the low incidence of assurance and what might be necessary to increase its use.
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
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003 · Cited by 3,570
Verrecchia, R. E. (1983) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/0165-4101(83)90011-3 · Cited by 3,481
The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009 · Cited by 2,069
Self-citationAssurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 · Cited by 184
Cited by
What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review
Dienes, D., Sassen, R., & Fischer, J. (2016) · Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal · doi:10.1108/sampj-08-2014-0050 · Cited by 441
The expansion of non-financial reporting: an exploratory study
Stolowy, H., & Paugam, L. (2018) · Accounting and Business Research · doi:10.1080/00014788.2018.1470141 · Cited by 328
Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Romi, A. M. (2019) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/09638180.2018.1469424 · Cited by 204
Self-citationBaier, C., Göttsche, M., Hellmann, A., & Schiemann, F. (2022) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04719-7 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- H. Cho, C., Michelon, G., M. Patten, D., & W. Roberts, R.
- Venue
- Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-05-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 130-148
- ISSN
- 2040-8021 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075427888
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 23.71
- 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: CSR report assurance in the USA: an empirical investigation of determinants and effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/sampj-01-2014-0003
- The paper
- H. Cho, C., Michelon, G., M. Patten, D., & W. Roberts, R. (2014). CSR report assurance in the USA: an empirical investigation of determinants and effects. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-01-2014-0003
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.