Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective
This article presents, an analysis of the opinions of assurance providers regarding the quality and the limitations of sustainability reports and their recommendations to improve them using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a framework. The qualitative content analysis of 301 assurance statements for sustainability reports from mining and energy companies provides a comprehensive view of the main outcomes of the assurance process, including its limitations, the application of the GRI principles and suggestions for improving sustainability reports. Taking into account the perceptions of practitioners a priori well informed on the quality of sustainability reports—namely assurance providers—this paper complements the current literature on sustainability reporting and its assurance, including critical approaches that question the reliability of sustainability reports, stakeholder engagement and the accountability of reporting practices. This study contributes to the debates surrounding the quality of sustainability reports, the added value of assurance statements and the ethical issues underlying the assurance process. It also contains important practical implications for auditors, standardization organizations and stakeholders.
KeywordsSustainability reporting Assurance statements Auditing Accountability GRI Certification
The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to the Editor and to the anonymous reviewers for their assistance, since their constructive criticism and suggestions helped to improve and develop the paper.
This study was funded by the Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Development Management Standards and a Research Group funded by the Basque Autonomous Government (IT1073-16).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- AccountAbility. (2008). Assurance standard. London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
- Alonso-Almeida, M., Llach, J., & Marimon, F. (2014). A closer look at the ‘Global Reporting Initiative’ sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20.Google Scholar
- GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). (2006). G3 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.Google Scholar
- GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), (2013a). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.Google Scholar
- GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), (2013b). The external assurance of sustainability reporting. Amsterdam: GRI.Google Scholar
- Hummel, K., Schlick, C., & Fifka, M. (2017). The role of sustainability performance and accounting assurors in sustainability assurance engagements. Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- IAASB (International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board). (2011). ISAE 3000 revised, assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information. New York: International Federation of Accountants.Google Scholar
- Iansen-Rogers, J., & Oelschlaegel, J. (2005). Assurance standards briefing AA1000 assurance standard and ISAE3000. AccountAbility/KPMG: London/Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Jones, M. J., & Solomon, J. F. (2010). Social and environmental report assurance: Some interview evidence. In Accounting forum, 2010 (Vol. 34, pp. 20–31, Vol. 1). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
- King, A., & Bartels, W. (2015). Currents of change: the KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2015. Netherlands: KPMG.Google Scholar
- Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182–198.Google Scholar
- Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. In Accounting forum, 2006 (Vol. 30, pp. 121–137, Vol. 2). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
- Perego, P. (2009). Causes and consequences of choosing different assurance providers: An international study of sustainability reporting. International Journal of Management, 26(3), 412–425.Google Scholar
- Power, M. (1997a). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). Sustainability accounting and accountability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar