CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 321Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceAccounting and Financial Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Case of Sustainability Assurance: Constructing a New Assurance Service *

O’Dwyer, Brendan·2011·Contemporary Accounting Research
DOI 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01108.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper presents an in-depth longitudinal case study examining the processes through which practitioners in two Big 4 professional services firms have attempted to construct sustainability assurance (independent assurance on sustainability reports). Power’s (1996, 1997, 1999, 2003) theorization of the way in which new subject areas are made auditable is used to frame the findings. The case analysis reveals the fragile nature of efforts to innovate with sustainability assurance and render sustainability reporting auditable. It suggests that innovation in new assurance practices may be constrained by an over-reliance on traditional financial audit training and techniques and certain internal professional services firm control procedures. Practitioners are shown to have experienced considerable discomfort in their attempts to construct a stable and legitimate knowledge base for assurance practice. Tacit knowledge embedded in highly subjective assessments of evidence has been frequently enrolled to make assurance possible in the presence of vague guidance from assurance standards. In light of ongoing practitioner struggles, both firms have publicly acknowledged the limitations of traditional financial audit practice operating alone in the conduct of sustainability assurance. In order to offset these limitations, they have proposed a coupling of ‘‘expert’’ stakeholder assessments of reporting completeness with traditional audit assessments of data reliability. This assigns part of the responsibility for delivering on a key assurance objective (reporting completeness) to what many practitioners perceive as questionable stakeholder expertise. The findings extend prior research highlighting the trial and error nature of the processes through which accountants seek to develop their presence in new markets for their expertise. They also question the extent to which the core aims being espoused for sustainability assurance can be substantively aligned with the operational capabilities available within Big 4 professional services firms.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01108.x

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. AccountAbility, 1999, AA1000 Framework: Standard, guidelines and professional qualification
  2. AccountAbility, 2003, AA1000 assurance standard
  3. AccountAbility, 2008, AA1000 assurance standard
  4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), 2010, Evolution of corporate sustainability practices: Perspectives from the UK, US and Canada
  5. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), AccountAbility, and KPMG, 2004, The future of sustainability assurance
  6. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), AccountAbility, and KPMG, 2009, Assurance-sustainability briefing paper 3: Accountants and sustainability assurance
  7. CorporateRegister.com, 2008, Assure view: The CSR assurance statement report
  8. Denzin, 2000, Handbook of qualitative research, 1
  9. Fedération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE), 2002, Providing assurance on sustainability reports
  10. Fedération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE), 2004, FEE call for action: Assurance for sustainability
  11. Fedération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE), 2006, Key issues in sustainability assurance: An overview
  12. Fedération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE), 2009a, Towards a sustainable economy: The contribution of assurance
  13. Fedération des Experts Comptables Européens, 2009b, Multiple stakeholders: The essence of multidisciplinary teams
  14. Fedération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE), 2009c, Sustainability: The contribution of the accountancy profession
  15. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2006, Sustainability reporting guidelines
  16. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2008, G3 guidelines
  17. Iansen-Rogers, 2005, Assurance standards briefing: AA1000 assurance standards and ISAE3000
  18. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), 2010a, Sustainability assurance: Your choice
  19. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), 2010b, International consistency: Global Challenges Initiative: Providing direction
  20. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), 2007, Proposed strategy for 2009-2011
  21. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), 2011, Sustainability framework 2.0: Professional accountants as integrators
  22. International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (ISAE 3000), 2004, Assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information
  23. Kolk, 2010, Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation, Business, Strategy and the Environment, 19, 182, 10.1002/bse.643 · DOI
  24. KPMG, 2008, KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2008
  25. Latour, 1987, Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society
  26. Owen, 2009, Key issues in sustainability assurance: The views of CSR managers and stakeholders’ representatives
  27. Patton, 2002, Qualitative evaluation and research methods
  28. Royal Dutch Institute for Register Accountants (Royal NIVRA), 2005, Standard for assurance engagements 3410 - Exposure draft: Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports
  29. Royal Dutch Institute for Register Accountants (Royal NIVRA), 2007, Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports, 3410N
  30. Silverman, 2010, Doing qualitative research

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
O’Dwyer, B.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
O’Dwyer, Brendan
ORCID
O’Dwyer, Brendan
Venue
Contemporary Accounting Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10-24
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
1230-1266
ISSN
0823-9150 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01108.x
OpenAlex
W3121864606
Cited by
321
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 6
FWCI
46.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1408 d)
Locations
  • Contemporary Accounting Research (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Financial Management
Keywords
sustainability assurance, sustainability reporting, auditability, audit training, tacit knowledge, reporting completeness, stakeholder analysis, assurance standards, accounting innovation

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