MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989831432 · doi:10.1108/aaaj-03-2018-3424

Causes and consequences of voluntary assurance of CSR reports

2019· article· en· W2989831432 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityAccountingBusinessScope (computer science)ReputationQuality assuranceSustainabilitySustainability reportingValuation (finance)MarketingPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the authors investigate a firm’s decision to provide a CSR report, and if so, whether to have the report assured and to seek higher quality assurance as reflected through the choices of the scope of the assurance and type of assurer, Big 4 accounting firm vs specialist consultant. Second, the authors investigate the impact of voluntary assurance of CSR reports, assurance scope and type of assurer on the likelihood of inclusion in the DJSI and on market valuation. Design/methodology/approach The study’s sample consists of 17,050 firm-year observations from 40 countries with CSR reports available from Corporate Register and ESG metrics available from ASSET4 over the period 2009–2015. The study first empirically examines the associations between CSR commitment and each of CSR report provision, CSR report assurance, assurance scope and type of assurer. It then examines that association between both inclusion in the DJSI and market valuation with each of CSR report assurance, assurance scope and type of assurer, using inclusion in the DJSI as an objective measure of a firm’s reputation for sustainability given its recognition as a leading indicator for corporate sustainability and market valuation as a reflection of the broader set of capital market participants. Findings The authors establish two key findings consistent with the predictions of signaling theory. First, we show that high CSR commitment firms are more likely to: provide standalone CSR reports; obtain assurance; obtain assurance from a Big 4 accounting firm; and, adopt higher assurance scope. Second, the authors find that both CSR report assurance and assurance scope increase the likelihood of inclusion in the DJSI, but that the type of assurance provider does not. Alternatively, the authors find that capital market participants appear to value the provision of a CSR report only when it is assured by a Big 4 accounting firm. Originality/value The results in the existing literature exploring the capital market benefits to CSR Assurance have been mixed. Firms that voluntarily obtain CSR Assurance incur a cost in doing so and must perceive a net benefit from obtaining such assurance. Despite the limited guidance currently provided by existing CSR standards, we establish the existence of benefits to obtaining CSR Assurance in terms of enhanced likelihood of DJSI inclusion and, more generally, enhanced market valuation. The discussions with DJSI analysts indicate that CSR assurance does enhance the perceived reliability of CSR data, thus improving user confidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it