Determinants of sustainability assurance levels: The case of French firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work is to analyse the determinants of the level of sustainability assurance for the CAC 40 French firms from the time period preceding and following the implementation of the Grenelle 2 law that made sustainability assurance compulsory. The objective of the paper is twofold: 1) provide a better understanding of the factors influencing the professional judgement provided by assurance providers, 2) verify whether the content of the disclosed sustainability reports has evolved as a result of the introduction of the Grenelle 2 law or not. A sample of 257 firm-year observations is collected for the period 2008-2017 and an ordinal regression model is used in this study. The findings highlight a change in the content of assurance reports after the promulgation of the Grenelle 2 law. The sector’s sensitivity, the type of assurance provider, and the leverage level have an impact on the level of assurance for the period 2013-2017 which was not the case for the period 2008-2012. Based on the institutional theory, these correlations may be explained by the promulgation of the Grenelle 2 law in 2012.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".