Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The G4 version of the GRI framework is assumed to be used for all GRI reports from the end of 2015 (GRI 2013a).

  2. http://database.globalreporting.org/.

References

  • AccountAbility. (2008). Assurance standard. London: AccountAbility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14, 97–115.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A., Owen, D. L., & Gray, R. (2000). External transparency or internal capture? The role of third-party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belal, A. R., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate social reporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., & Gendron, Y. (2011). Sustainable development and certification practices: Lessons learned and prospects. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(5), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., & Henri, J.-F. (2017). Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Business and Society, 56(2), 283–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Impression management in sustainability reports: An empirical investigation of the use of graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest, 12(1), 16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7), 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance minding the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beelde, I., & Tuybens, S. (2015). Enhancing the credibility of reporting on corporate social responsibility in Europe. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(3), 190–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4), 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Cooper, B. J., & Shelly, M. (2006). An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(4), 329–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, A. (2010). How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(6), 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, A., McAllister, M. L., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2014). Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., Monk, E., & Roberts, C. (2006). The emancipatory potential of online reporting: The case of counter accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(5), 681–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives—a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.

    Article  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 

  • Gürtürk, A., & Hahn, R. (2016). An empirical assessment of assurance statements in sustainability reports: Smoke screens or enlightening information? Journal of Cleaner Production, 136(A), 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilson, G., & Murck, B. (2000). Sustainable development in the mining industry: Clarifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy, 26(4), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., & Stewart, J. (2009). Assurance of sustainability reports: Impact on report users’ confidence and perceptions of information credibility. Australian Accounting Review, 19(3), 178–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, A., Green, W. J., & Simnett, R. (2011). The competitive market for assurance engagements on greenhouse gas statements: Is there a role for assurers from the accounting profession? Current Issues in Auditing, 5(2), A1–A12.

    Article  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.

  • 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, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2015). Managing materiality: A preliminary examination of the adoption of the new GRI G4 guidelines on materiality within the business community. Journal of Public Affairs. doi:10.1002/pa.1586.

    Article  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). Elsevier

  • Junior, R. M., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2014). Sustainability reporting and assurance: A historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Livesey, S. M., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by The Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment, 15(3), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Becatti, L. (2009). Assurance services for sustainability reports: Standards and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 363–377.

    Article  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

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability. Organization, 13(6), 801–839.

    Article  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). Elsevier

  • Moroney, R., Windsor, C., & Aw, Y. T. (2012). Evidence of assurance enhancing the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures: An empirical analysis. Accounting & Finance, 52(3), 903–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. (2007). Seeking stakeholder-centric sustainability assurance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(1), 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. L., Swift, T. A., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., & Brorson, T. (2005). Experiences of and views on third-party assurance of corporate environmental and sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(10), 1095–1106.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Perego, P., & Kolk, A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997a). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997b). Expertise and the construction of relevance: Accountants and environmental audit. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. K. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikka, P. (2006). The internet and possibilities for counter accounts: Some reflections. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(5), 759–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Haniffa, R., & Fairbrass, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for investigating ‘capture’ in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. F., & Solomon, A. (2006). Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4), 564–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(3), 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, D., & Boiral, O. (2015). Strategies for climate change and impression management: A case study among Canada’s large industrial emitters. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). Sustainability accounting and accountability. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, R., & Millington, A. (2014). Corporate social disclosures: A user perspective on assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(5), 863–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Funding

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. & Brotherton, MC. Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective. J Bus Ethics 155, 703–721 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4

Keywords

Navigation