Greenwashing and sustainability assurance: a review and call for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to synthesize insights from the emerging work in accounting on greenwashing and sustainability assurance and propose an agenda for future research in this area. Design/methodology/approach This article offers an original analysis of papers published on greenwashing and sustainability assurance research in the field of accounting. It adopts a systematic literature review and a narrative approach to analyse the dominant themes and key findings in this new and rapidly evolving field. From this overview, specific avenues for future research are identified. Findings In the past few years there has been a substantial spike in concern relating to greenwashing among academics, practitioners, regulators and society. This growing concern has only partly been reflected in the research literature. To date, research has primarily focused on: (1) the characteristics of firms adopting sustainability assurance, (2) the challenges facing sustainability auditors, (3) the development of appropriate assurance standards and regulations, and (4) capital market responses to greenwashing and sustainability auditing/assurance. Three key future research issues with respect to greenwashing are identified: (1) the future of standard-setter attempts to regulate greenwashing, (2) professional jockeying in sustainability reporting assurance, and (3) capital market opportunities and challenges relating to greenwashing and assurance. Originality/value Despite the profound economic and reputational impact of greenwashing and the rapid development of sustainability assurance services, research in accounting remains fragmented and emergent. This review identifies avenues offering considerable scope for inter-disciplinarity and bridging the divide between academia and practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".