Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multinationals’ Accountability on Sustainability: The Evolution of Third-party Assurance of Sustainability Reports

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

Abstract

In this article we explore how multinational corporations (MNCs) adopt assurance practices to develop and sustain organizational accountability for sustainability. Using a panel of Fortune Global 250 firms over a period of 10 years, we document the diffusion patterns of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. We specifically investigate how evolving auditing practices, namely diversity of assurance standards and type of assurance providers, shape the quality of sustainability assurance statements. The results illustrate great variability in the adoption of assurance practices in the formative stages of this novel market. Our descriptive analysis indicates the relevance of external institutional pressures as well as internal resources and capabilities as underlying factors driving the adoption of assurance. Our evidence also suggests that several MNCs project a decoupled or symbolic image of accountability through assurance, thereby undermining the credibility of these verification practices. The paper contributes to the emerging literature on international accountability standards and emphasizes the need to enhance theory-based, cross-disciplinary knowledge related to auditing and accountability processes for sustainability.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AccountAbility. (2003a). AA1000 Assurance Standard. London: AccountAbility.

  • AccountAbility. (2003b). AA1000 Assurance Standard Practitioners Note. London: AccountAbility.

  • Adams, C., Frost, G., & Webber, W. (2004). Triple bottom line: A review of the literature. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom Line: Does it all add up? (pp. 17–33). London: Earthscan.

    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 

  • Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Aragón-Correa, J., Hurtado-Torres, N., & Rugman, A. (2012). The effects of institutional distance and headquarters’ financial performance on the generation of environmental standards in multinational companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 461–474.

    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 

  • Ballou, B., Casey, R. J., Grenier, J. H., & Heitger, D. L. (2011). Exploring the strategic integration of sustainability initiatives: Opportunities for accounting research. Accounting Horizons 26(2).

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beets, S. D., & Souther, C. C. (1999). Corporate environmental reports: The need for standards and an environmental assurance service. Accounting Horizons, 13(2), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, A., Cohen, D. A., Lys, T. Z., & Walther, B. R. (2010). The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2–3), 296–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M., Williams, C., & Lin, L. (2008). The roles of standardization, certification, and assurance services in global commerce. Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy, 4 (3), 1–44.

    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 

  • Brock, D. M. (2012). Building global capabilities: a study of globalizing professional service firms. Service Industries Journal, 32(10), 1593–1607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, P., Simnett, R., & Tanewski, G. (2000). Voluntary demand for internal and external auditing by family businesses. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2004). Environmental self-regulation in the global economy: The role of firm capabilities. Research in Global Strategic Management, 9, 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CorporateRegister. (2008). The CSR Assurance Statement Report. London: CorporateRegister.

  • Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Delmas, M. (2002). The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and in the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35, 91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2011). An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international management system standards: The case of the environmental management standard ISO 14001. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 103–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2011). Institutional pressures and organizational characteristics: Implications for environmental strategy. In P. Bansal & A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp. 231–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, M., & Stettler, A. (2011). Estimating firm-level and country-level effects in cross-sectional analyses: An application of hierarchical modeling in corporate disclosure studies. The International Journal of Accounting, 46(3), 271–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgley, C. R., Jones, M. J., & Solomon, J. F. (2010). Stakeholder inclusivity in social and environmental report assurance. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(4), 532–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everaert, P., Sarens, G., & Rommel, J. (2007). Sourcing strategy of Belgian SMEs: Empirical evidence for the accounting services. Production Planning & Control, 18(8), 716–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEE. (2002). FEE discussion paper: Providing assurance on sustainability reports. Brussels: Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEE. (2004). FEE call for action: Assurance for sustainability. Brussels: Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEE. (2006). Key issues in sustainability assurance: An overview. Brussels: Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting MNEs and global CSR standards. Management International Review, 51(5), 665–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen, L., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (2000). Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting? In M. Freedman, and B. Jaggi (Eds.) Advances in environmental accounting & management (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: JAI Press.

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2006). 2006 Sustainability reporting guidelines (G3). Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 984–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Saizarbitoira, I., & Boiral, O. (2012). ISO9001 and ISO14001: Towards a research agenda on management systems standards. International Journal of Management Reviews. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00334.x.

  • IAASB. (2003). International standard on assurance engagements 3000: Assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical information. New York: International Federation of Accountants IFAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansen-Rogers, J., & Oelschlaegel, A. (2005). Assurance standards briefing. AA1000 Assurance Standards & ISAE3000. Amsterdam: AccountaAbility & KPMG Sustainability.

  • Jamali, D. (2010). MNCs and International Accountability Standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 617–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Lenox, M. (2001). Who adopts management standards early? An examination of ISO 14001 certifications. Academy of Management Proceedings (pp. A1–A6). Washington, DC: Academy of Management.

  • Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental reporting by multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or divergence? Management International Review, 45(1), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2010). Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 367–374.

    Article  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 

  • KPMG/UvA. (2002). KPMG International survey of corporate sustainability reporting 2002. Amsterdam: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.

  • KPMG/UvA. (2008). KPMG International survey of corporate sustainability reporting 2008. Amsterdam: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mock, T. J., Strohm, C., & Swartz, K. M. (2007). An examination of worldwide assured sustainability reporting. Australian Accounting Review, 17(1), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neron, P. Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). Content analysis guidebook. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions or corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557.

    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 

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

    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 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflugrath, G., Roebuck, P. J., & Simnett, R. (2011). Impact of assurance and assurer’s professional affiliation on financial analysts? Assessment of credibility of Corporate Social Responsibility information. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 30(3), 239–254. doi:10.2308/ajpt-10047.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Foundations for organizational science series. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y. Q., Magnan, M., & Kim, J. B. (2012). Do countries matter for voluntary disclosure? Evidence from cross-listed firms in the US. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. 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 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffel, M. W., & Marquis, C. (2011). The globalization of corporate environmental disclosure: Accountability or greenwashing? Working paper Harvard University 11–115.

  • Viehöver, M. G., Türk, V., & Vaseghi, S. (2010). CSR assurance in practice: Measuring and auditing sustainability. In M. Pohl & N. Tolhurst (Eds.), Responsible business, How to manage a CSR strategy successfully. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., & Schmeidler, P. J. (2009). Why do standardized ISO 14001 environmental management systems lead to heterogeneous environmental outcomes? Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S., & Raynard, P. (2004). The future of sustainability assurance. London: ACCA and AccountAbility.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RSM Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Paolo Perego

  2. University of Amsterdam Business School, Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ans Kolk

Authors
  1. Paolo Perego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ans Kolk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Perego.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 13.

Table 13 Coding rules for the content analysis
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perego, P., Kolk, A. Multinationals’ Accountability on Sustainability: The Evolution of Third-party Assurance of Sustainability Reports. J Bus Ethics 110, 173–190 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1420-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1420-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation