Skip to main content

Determinants of voluntary assurance on sustainability reports: an empirical analysis

Journal of Business Economics volume 83, pages 1063–1091 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Driven by the ongoing discussion of corporate responsibility, growing numbers of companies have been publishing what have become known as sustainability reports. These reports have in part been subject to voluntary external assurance. Although the percentage of assured reports is significant, the market for this kind of assurance is still in an early stage of development. In this context the present article will ascertain the theoretical determining factors in the demand for voluntary external assurance and subject these in relation to the markets in Germany, the Netherlands and Great Britain to empirical analysis. In the context of the development of hypotheses shaped by agency theory, the constructs of agency costs and signalling can be distinguished. Variables measuring these constructs will be examined. It can be shown that the type and scope of the reporting (i.e., the choice of the Global Reporting Initiative ‘application level’), the existence of a sustainability department, and the size of the company are associated with the demand for voluntary assurance. Additional control variables are examined. Here it appears that the demand for external assurance is highest in Great Britain. Finally, research opportunities in this field will be indicated and recent normative developments briefly sketched.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. The terms used are nevertheless diverse. For a detailed presentation of the historical development of sustainability reporting, see Herzig/Schaltegger 2006, p. 304ff.

  2. An empirical study on the importance of the GRI standards records a significant increase between 2004 and 2006 of some 27 % of the companies listed on the HDAX that publish their sustainability information using the GRI guidelines. See Lackmann 2010, p. 121ff.

  3. See https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/Sustainability-data-revealed-easily-with-new-reporting-format.aspx (available as of the 15th January 2013).

  4. Decision usefulness thus assumes both relevant and credible information. On the concept of decision usefulness, among others, see Wagenhofer/Ewert 2007, p. 105.

  5. However, the relevance of the study is limited because of the small size of the sample (the observation of forty French companies over 2 years); see Gillet and Martinez 2011, p. 13f.

  6. The costs of a voluntary assurance engagement of sustainability reports are not made public. For this reason company and report characteristics which are expected to determine the (gross) benefit of an audit service will be analysed below.

  7. On economically motivated corporate responsibility see also Schreck (2011, p. 749f.), who provides additional references.

  8. Related problems of the measurement of quality apply especially to the question of the weighted or unweighted transformation of individual criteria mentioned in the guidelines to a total score as well as the appraisal when a criterion has been fulfilled. On this point and also empirically on quality measurement of sustainability reports, see Quick/Knocinski (2006). Furthermore, see an analysis of the content of voluntarily published sustainability reports in accordance with the GRI guidelines (Gamerschlag et al. 2011).

  9. As measured by market capitalisation.

  10. The sustainability portal of the SAP AG, which in addition has a corresponding assurance report, is an example of a suitable reporting format. See http://www.sapsustainabilityreport.com/2009/ (available as of the 15th January 2013).

  11. Similar empirical examinations likewise use the model of logistic regression or the logit model. See, for example, Simnett et al. 2009, p. 945; Carey et al. 2000, p. 44 or Chow 1982, p. 284.

  12. The logistic regression was performed alternatively with the variable GRI-A as a dummy variable for the highest GRI application level. The results are comparable with the results of the model presented here.

  13.  The model was alternatively calculated with the size surrogates market capitalisation, sales revenues and size of the workforce. The results are very robust in relation to the variable GRI and the respective size surrogate. CSR is in the use of sales revenue and size of the workforce on the 5 % level significant and in the use of market capitalisation scarcely not significant.

  14. Provided that Germany or the Netherlands are defined as the reference category for the dummy variables, the respective other country variable (GE or NL) is weakly significant. This indicates in relation to the assurance decision that while a weak difference between Germany and the Netherlands can be ascertained, this difference does not exist between the two countries and Great Britain.

  15. An additional indicator for the existence of a mediation effect is the regression result after the inclusion of the interaction term CSR • SIZE, which despite the correlation between the two variables is not significant. In the case of a significant interaction term a moderator effect would thus be assumed. See explicitly on the demarcation of both effects Müller (2009, p. 237ff.).

  16. If a 99% confidence interval is used, the value null lies within the interval boundaries.

  17. Moreover, in order to examine for the variable GRI any interactions with other variables, both the interaction terms GRI • SIZE and GRI • CSR were integrated into the multivariate regression analysis after previous centering. The interaction terms are not significant. The additional results are also robust in consideration of the modeling adjustments.

  18. Here see also the more recent developments in integrated reporting and the discussion paper referring to this matter in IIRC 2011 as well as Nolden/Richter 2012.

  19. Because of the variety of heterogeneous assurance reports, such a distinction was not possible. Even the subgroups of assurance reports with reasonable assurance as well as a combination of limited assurance and reasonable assurance in comparison to the group of assurance reports with limited assurance are too small for a proper statistical evaluation.

  20. See Clausen/Loew 2005, p. 70ff. with confirming empirical evidence based on interviews with various stakeholders. Even in the annual audit there are problems in the interpretation of auditor’s reports, although the report is issued in accordance with firmly established accounting and auditing standards. On the existing problems in this regard, see most recently, Gold/Gronewold/Pott 2012.

  21. However, the study by Hodge et al. 2009 is subject to numerous limitations; especially the involvement of MBA students as proxy for non-professional investors limits the validity of the study; see ibid., p. 190.

  22. The goal is the improvement of the structure of the assurance standard. A corresponding discussion draft was published in April, 2011. See http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/isae-3000-revised-assuranceengagements-other-audits-or-reviews-historical-fi (available as of the 15th January 2013).

References

  • A4S (Accounting for Sustainability), GRI (eds) (2012) The value of extra-financial disclosure. What investors and analysts said, London

  • Abdel-Khalik AR (1993) Why do private companies demand auditing? A case for organizational loss of control. J Account Auditing Finance 8:31–52

    Google Scholar 

  • AccountAbility (2007) (eds) The state of responsible competitiveness, London. http://www.accountability.org/images/content/0/7/075/The%20State%20of%20Responsible%20Competitiveness.pdf. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • AccountAbility (2008) (eds) AA1000 Assurance standard, London http://www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000as/index.html. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • Adams CA (2002) Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting. Account Auditing Account J 15:223–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams CA, Hill W-Y, Roberts C (1998) Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? British Account Rev 30:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artiach T, Lee D, Nelson D, Walker J (2010) The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Account Finance 50:31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R (2011) Multivariate Analysemethoden-Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 13th edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17:99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baur N (2011) Das Ordinalskalenproblem. In: Akremi L, Baur N, Fromm S (eds) Datenanalyse mit SPSS für Fortgeschrittene, 3rd edn. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 211–222

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer S, Millington A, Rayton B (2007) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag 18:1701–1719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey P, Simnett R, Tanewski G (2000) Voluntary demand for internal and external auditing by family businesses. Auditing: J Pract Theory 19(Supplement):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J-H, Wong TJ (2007) Auditors’ governance functions and legal environments: an international investigation. Contemp Account Rev 24:13–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow CW (1982) The demand for external auditing: size, debt and ownership influences. Account Rev 57:272–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen J, Loew T (2005) Mehr Glaubwürdigkeit durch Testate?–Internationale Analyse des Nutzens von Testaten in der Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung. Endbericht des IÖW an das BMU, Hannover

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier D, Magnan M, Velthoven BV (2005) Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? Eur Account Rev 14:3–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen SS, Ferreri LB, Parker LD (1987) The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency based analysis. Acc Organ Soc 12:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DAI, SBI (2011) (eds) Nachhaltigkeit und Shareholder Value aus Sicht börsennotierter Unternehmen, Frankfurt/M. http://www.cfi21.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/2011-09-13_DAI-SBI-Studie_Nachhaltigkeit_und_Shareholder_Value.pdf. Available as of the 18th June 2013

  • Dhaliwal DS, Li OZ, Tsang A, Yang YG (2011) Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Rev 86:59–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durnev A, Kim H (2005) To steal or not to steal: firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. J Finance 60:1461–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgley CR, Jones MJ, Solomon JF (2010) Stakeholder inclusivity in social and environmental report assurance. Account Auditing Account J 23:532–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettredge M, Simon D, Smith D, Stone M (1994) Why do companies purchase timely quarterly reviews? J Account Econ 18:131–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU (eds) (2003) Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings. Off J Eur Union No. L 178: 16–22

  • Ewert R, Stefani U (2001) Wirtschaftsprüfung. In: Jost P-J (ed) Die Prinzipal-Agenten-Theorie in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 147–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26:301–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEE (eds) (2006) Key issues in sustainability assurance an overview–Discussion Paper, Brüssel. http://www.fee.be/currentissues/default.asp?library_ref=4&category_ref=139&wp=2&archive=yes&content_ref=n. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • Francis JR, Khurana IK, Martin X, Pereira R (2011) The relative importance of firm incentives versus country factors in the demand for assurance services by private entities. Contemp Account Res 28:487–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost G, Martinov-Bennie N (2010) Sustainability reporting assurance: market trends and information content, Southbank Australia. http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/cpa-site/Sustainability-reporting-assurance.PDF. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • Gamerschlag R, Möller K, Verbeeten F (2011) Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. Rev Managerial Sci 5:233–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillet C, Martinez I (2011) Decision of sustainability assurance: impact of governance and consequences on the financial market in the French context, working paper. EAA, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold A, Gronewold U, Pott C (2012) The ISA 700 auditor’s report and the audit expectation gap–do explanations matter? Int J Auditing 16:286–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI (eds) (2011a) GRI Application Levels, Amsterdam. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Application-Levels.pdf. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • GRI (eds) (2011b) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Version 3.1, Amsterdam. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • Grossman SJ (1981) The informational role of warranties and private disclosure about product quality. J Law Econ 24:461–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasan M, Maijoor S, Mock TJ, Roebuck P, Simnett R, Vanstraelen A (2005) The different types of assurance services and levels of assurance provided. Int J Auditing 9:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzig C, Schaltegger S (2006) Corporate sustainability reporting–an overview. In: Schaltegger S, Bennett M, Burritt R (eds) Sustainability accounting and reporting. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, pp 301–324

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hill CW, Jones TM (1992) Stakeholder-agency theory. J Manage Stud 29:131–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge K, Subramaniam N, Stewart J (2009) Assurance of sustainability reports: impact on report users’ confidence and perceptions of information credibility. Aust Account Rev 50:178–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann T (2011) Unternehmerische Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung-Eine Analyse des GRI G3.1 Berichtsrahmens. Gabler Verlag, Lohmar-Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Höschen N, Vu A (2008) Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen der Prüfung von Nachhaltigkeitsberichten. Die Wirtschaftsprüfung 61:378–387

    Google Scholar 

  • House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Gupta V (2004) Culture, leadership and organizations–the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • IDW (eds) (2006) IDW Auditing Standard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit (IDW AS 821), Düsseldorf

  • IFAC (eds) (2002) The determination and communication of levels of assurance other than high, New York. http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources?SID=1049409099385551&Cart=10746358261922258. Available as of the 18th June 2013

  • IFAC (eds) (2010) Handbook of international quality control, auditing, review, other assurance and related services, 2010 edition, part 2, New York. http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/2010-handbook-international-quality-control-auditing-review-other-assurance-a/. Available as of the 18th June 2013

  • IFAC (eds) (2011) Sustainability Framework 2.0, New York. http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/ifac-sustainability-framework-20. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • IIRC (eds) (2011) Towards integrated reporting - communicating value in the 21st century, Amsterdam. http://theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IR-Discussion-Paper-2011_spreads.pdf. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. J Finance Econ 3:305–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk A, Perego P (2010) Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: an international investigation. Bus Strategy Environ 19:182–198

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (eds) (2009) KPMG-Handbuch zur Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung 2008/09–Deutschlands 100 umsatzstärkste Unternehmen im internationalen Vergleich, Frankfurt

  • KPMG (eds) (2011) International survey of corporate responsibility reporting, Amsterdam. http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/2011-survey.pdf. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • Lackmann J (2010) Die Auswirkungen der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung auf den Kapitalmarkt-Eine empirische Analyse. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lennox CS, Pittman JA (2011) Voluntary audits versus mandatory audits. Account Rev 86:1655–1678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenz H, Verleysdonk J (1998) Eine empirische Analyse der Wahl des Abschlussprüfers bei der kleinen Aktiengesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 68:851–869

    Google Scholar 

  • Low K-Y, Boo E (2012) Do contrasting statements improve users′ understanding of different assurance levels conveyed in assurance reports. Int J Auditing 16:19–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti G, Becatti L (2009) Assurance services for sustainability reports: standards and empirical evidence. J Bus Ethics 87:289–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti G, Toccafondi S (2012) The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. J Bus Ethics 107:363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marten K, Quick R, Ruhnke K (2011) Wirtschaftsprüfung, 4th edn. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Mock TJ, Strohm C, Swartz KM (2007) An examination of worldwide assured sustainability reporting. Aust Account Rev 17:67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller D (2009) Moderatoren und Mediatoren in Regressionen. In: Albers S, Klapper D, Konradt U, Walter A, Wolf J (eds) Methodik der empirischen Forschung, 3rd edn. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 237–252

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nolden P, Richter N (2012) Schließt Integrated Reporting die Erwartungslücken der herkömmlichen Unternehmensberichterstattung und -prüfung?–Vorschläge des IIRC zur Weiterentwicklung der Unternehmensberichterstattung. Die Wirtschaftsprüfung 18:978–987

    Google Scholar 

  • O`Brien R (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41:673–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O`Dwyer B (2011) The case of sustainability assurance: constructing a new assurance service. Contemp Account Res 28:1230–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pflugrath G, Roebuck P, Simnett R (2011) Impact of assurance and assurer’s professional affiliation on financial analyst’s assessment of credibility of corporate social responsibility information. Auditing: J Pract Theory 30:239–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poddig T, Dichtl H, Petersmeier K (2008) Statistik, Ökonometrie, Optimierung, 4th edn. Ulenbruch Verlag, Bad Soden

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40:879–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quick R, Knocinski M (2006) Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung-Empirische Befunde zur Berichterstattungspraxis von HDAX-Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 76:615–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson A, Welker M (2001) Social disclosure, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Acc Organ Soc 26:597–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts P, Dowling G (2002) Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategy Manage J 23:1077–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal NIVRA (eds) (2007) Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports 3410N, Amsterdam. https://besloten.accountweb.nl/Sites/Files/0000026143_COS_3410N_English_pdf0709.pdf. Available as of the 18th June 2013

  • Ruhnke K, Lubitzsch K (2010) Determinants of the maximum level of assurance for various assurance services. Int J Auditing 14:233–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreck P (2011) Ökonomische Corporate Social Responsibility Forschung – Konzeptionalisierung und kritische Analyse ihrer Bedeutung für die Unternehmensethik. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 81:745–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout PE, Bolger N (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 7:422–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simnett R, Vanstraelen A, Chua W (2009) Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison. Account Rev 84:937–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Quart J Econ 87:355–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tauringana V, Clarke S (2000) The demand for external auditing: managerial share ownership, size, gearing and liquidity influences. Manage Auditing J 15:160–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann A (1985) Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Acad Manage Rev 10:540–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrecchia R (1983) Discretionary disclosure. J Account Econ 5:179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenhofer A, Ewert R (2007) Externe Unternehmensrechnung, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts RL, Zimmermann JL (1978) Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. Account Rev 53:112–134

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm. Available as of the 15th January 2013

  • von Wysocki K (2002) Prüfungstheorie, messtheoretischer Ansatz. In: Ballwieser W, Coenenberg AG, von Wysocki K (eds) Handwörterbuch der Rechnungslegung und Prüfung, 3rd edn. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 1886–1899

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Finance, Accounting and Taxation (FACTS), Unternehmensrechnung und Wirtschaftsprüfung, Freie Universität Berlin, Boltzmannstr. 20, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Klaus Ruhnke & Alexander Gabriel

Authors
  1. Klaus Ruhnke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Gabriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Ruhnke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruhnke, K., Gabriel, A. Determinants of voluntary assurance on sustainability reports: an empirical analysis. J Bus Econ 83, 1063–1091 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0686-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0686-0

Keywords

  • Voluntary assurance
  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
  • Sustainability report
  • Principal-agent theory
  • Signalling

JEL classification

  • M42
  • M48
  • L84