Standardization of companies’ sustainability reporting audit
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.02.05Keywords:
audit, assurance, sustainability reporting, stakeholders, verification.Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to justify the use of sustainability reporting assurance standards to streamline the process of verification of such reporting in the interests of stakeholders.
Methodology / approach. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative and content analysis of internationally recognized standards for the audit of sustainability reporting, including the AA1000 (AA1000AS, AccountAbility) and the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (International Standard on ISAE 3000) «Non-Audit Assurance or Review of Historical Financial Information» IBAA. Use of these analytical tools highlighted the benefits and limitations of these standards.
Results. Authors defined that the provision of independent audit confirmation of sustainability reporting is characterized by a growing trend among the world’s largest companies. Assurance is one of the conditions for ensuring confidence in sustainability reporting for stakeholders, and accordingly, standardization of audit is a guarantee of the quality of its conduct and the reliability of the auditor’s conclusions. The analysis of volumes of verified sustainability reporting submission and comparative analysis of the two primary standards in the field of its audit by the main criteria was conducted. These criteria cover standards status, purpose, verifiers, processes, requirements, volumes, and principles of conduct, results in preparation and features of publication of the auditor’s opinion.
Originality / scientific novelty. The importance and feasibility of applying the internationally recognized standards AA1000 and ISAE 3000 as benchmarks for standardizing sustainability reporting based on their identified advantages and disadvantages are substantiated. A comparative description and assessment of the frequency of practical application of these standards for auditing reporting on sustainable development was further developed.
Practical value / implications. Taking into account the benefits and limitations of the analyzed standards at the regulatory level, in particular in Ukraine, national approaches to standardizing the audit of sustainability reporting can be developed. At the level of individual companies, in particular large agricultural holdings, these standards can be used in parallel in the communication field of their interaction with stakeholders, depending on the categories of those stakeholders.
References
Голубева Н. А. Аудит: система верификации корпоративной социальной отчетности: автореф. дис. ... канд. экон. наук. Москва, 2012. 30 с.
Баришнікова О. М. Особливості організації системи верифікації звітності сталого розвитку. Економіка та держава. 2016. № 8. С. 131–140.
Мазурик О. В. Соціальний аудит як сучасна діагностична технологія: теоретико-методологічні засади дослідження, західний досвід, вітчизняні перспективи. Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна. Серія: Соціологічні дослідження сучасного суспільства: методологія, теорія, методи. 2015. № 1148. Вип. 34. С. 107–113.
Waddock S., Smith N. Corporate Responsibility Audits: Doing Well by Doing Good. Sloan Management Review. 2000. Vol. 41. Is. 2. Pp. 75–83.
Gray R. Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: a review and comment. International Journal of Auditing. Vol. 4. Is. 3. Pp. 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00316.
Каптерев А. И. Англосаксонская модель социального аудита Глобальные экономические, социальные и информационные проблемы современности. URL: http://www.globecsi.ru/Articles/2007/Anglosaks.pdf.
Карагод В. С. Реалии аудиторского контроля социальной ответственности российского бизнеса. Вестник Московской государственной академии делового администрирования. 2012. № 2. С. 103–110.
Kok P., van der Wiele, T., McKenna R., Brown A. A Corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework. Journal of Business Ethics. 2001. No. 31. Pp. 285–297.
Morimoto R., Ash J., Hope C. Corporate social responsibility audit: from theory to practice. Journal of Business Ethics. 2005. Vol. 62. Рр. 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0274-5.
Boiral O., Heras-Saizarbitoria I., Brotherton M. Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019. Vol. 155. Pр. 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4.
Al‐Shaer H., Zaman M. Credibility of sustainability reports: the contribution of audit committees. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018. Vol. 27. Is. 7. Pр. 973– 986. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2046.
Al-Shaer H., Zaman M. CEO compensation and sustainability reporting assurance: evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019. Vol. 158. Pр. 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3735-8.
Michelon G., Patten D. M., Romi A. N. Creating legitimacy for sustainability assurance practices: evidence from sustainability restatements. European Accounting Review. 2019. Vol. 28. Is. 2. Pр. 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1469424.
Kaya I. Sustainability reporting assurance: a literature survey. Regional Studies on Economic Growth, Financial Economics and Management. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics. M. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, U. Can eds. Vol. 7. Cham: Springer, 2017. Pp. 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54112-9_3.
Vasilieva T., Lieonov S., Makarenko I., Sirkovska N. Sustainability information disclosure as an instrument of marketing communication with stakeholders: markets, social and economic aspects. Marketing and management of innovation. 2017. No. 4. Pp. 350–357. http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.4-31.
Corporate register. URL: https://www.corporateregister.com/livecharts.
KPMG. The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. URL: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2017/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf.
International standard on assuarance engagements (ISAE) 3000. URL: https://www.ifac.org/system/files/downloads/b012-2010-iaasb-handbook-isae-3000.pdf.
Exposure draft [proposed] international standard on assuarance engagements 3000 – Assurance Engagements other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information. URL: https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/311785cc-40dd-412b-97b7-50ecc76f83b3/ISAE-3000-Exposure-Draft-March-2020.pdf.
AA1000 AccountAbility Principles Standard. URL: http://www.accountability.org/about-us/publications/aa1000.html.
Guidance for AA1000AS. Assurance Providers. URL: http://www.mas-business.com/docs/Guidance%20for%20AA1000AS%202008%20Assurance%20Providers.pdf.
Assurance Standards Briefing. AA1000 Assurance Standard & ISAE3000. KPMG, Netherlands. URL: https://www.accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Assurance-Standards-Briefing.pdf.
Current state of assurance on sustainability reports. URL: https://www.cpajournal.com/2017/07/26/current-state-assurance-sustainability-reports.
References
Golubeva, N. A. (2012), Audit: system of verification of CSR reporting, Ph.D. Thesis, RUDN University, Moskow, Russia.
Baryshnikova, O. Features of verification of sustainable development report. Ekonomika ta derzhava, no. 8, pp. 131–140.
Mazuryk, O. V. (2015), Social audit as a modern diagnostic technology: theoretical and methodological principles of research, Western experience, domestic prospects. Visnyk V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series «Sociological studies of contemporary society: methodology, theory, methods», no. 1148, 1vol. 34, pp. 107–113.
Waddock, S. and Smith, N. (2000), Corporate responsibility audits: doing well by doing good. Sloan Management Review, vol. 41, is. 2, pp. 75–83.
Gray, R. (2000), Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: a review and comment. International Journal of Auditing, vol. 4, is. 3, pp. 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00316.
Kapterev, A. (2007), Anglo-Saxon model of social audit global economic, social and information problems of the present, available at: http://www.globecsi.ru/Articles/2007/Anglosaks.pdf.
Karagod, V. (2012), The realities of audit control of social responsibility of Russian business. Bulletin of the Moscow State Academy of Business Administration, no. 2, pp. 103–110.
Kok, P., van der Wiele, T., McKenna, R. and Brown, A. (2001), A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework. Journal of Business Ethics, no. 31, pp. 285–297.
Morimoto, R., Ash, J., Hope, C. (2005), Corporate social responsibility audit: from theory to practice. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 62, pp. 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0274-5.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. and Brotherton, M. (2019) Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 155, pp. 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4.
Al‐Shaer, H., Zaman, M. (2018), Credibility of sustainability reports: the contribution of audit committees. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 27, is. 7, pp. 973– 986. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2046.
Al-Shaer, H. and Zaman, M. (2019), CEO compensation and sustainability reporting assurance: evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 158, pp. 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3735-8.
Michelon, G., Patten, D. M. and Romi, A. N. (2019), Creating legitimacy for sustainability assurance practices: evidence from sustainability restatements. European Accounting Review, vol. 28, is. 2, pp. 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1469424.
Kaya, I. (2017), Sustainability reporting assurance: a literature survey. in Regional Studies on Economic Growth, Financial Economics and Management. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, eds. M. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, U. Can, vol. 7. Cham, Springer, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54112-9_3.
Vasilieva, T., Lieonov, S., Makarenko, I. and Sirkovska, N. (2017), Sustainability information disclosure as an instrument of marketing communication with stakeholders: markets, social and economic aspects. Marketing and management of innovation, no. 4, pp. 350–357. http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.4-31.
Corporate register, available at: https://www.corporateregister.com/livecharts.
KPMG (2017), The KPMG Survey of corporate responsibility reporting, available at: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2017/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf.
International standard on assuarance engagements (ISAE) 3000, available at: https://www.ifac.org/system/files/downloads/b012-2010-iaasb-handbook-isae-3000.pdf
Exposure draft [proposed] international standard on assuarance engagements 3000 – Assurance Engagements other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information, (2020), available at: https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/311785cc-40dd-412b-97b7-50ecc76f83b3/ISAE-3000-Exposure-Draft-March-2020.pdf
AA1000 AccountAbility Principles Standard (2019), available at: http://www.accountability.org/about-us/publications/aa1000.html.
Guidance for AA1000AS (2008), Assurance Providers, available at: http://www.mas-business.com/docs/Guidance%20for%20AA1000AS%202008%20 Assurance%20Providers.pdf.
Assurance Standards Briefing (2005), AA1000 Assurance Standard & ISAE3000. KPMG, Netherlands, available at: https://www.accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Assurance-Standards-Briefing.pdf.
Current state of assurance on sustainability reports (2017), URL: https://www.cpajournal.com/2017/07/26/current-state-assurance-sustainability-reports.
