The influence of sustainability assurance report format and level on nonprofessional investors’ judgments

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
William N. Dilla, Diane J. Janvrin, Jon D. Perkins, Robyn L. Raschke
{"title":"The influence of sustainability assurance report format and level on nonprofessional investors’ judgments","authors":"William N. Dilla, Diane J. Janvrin, Jon D. Perkins, Robyn L. Raschke","doi":"10.1108/sampj-09-2022-0473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to examine the influence of sustainability assurance report format (separate versus combined with financial information assurance) and level (limited versus reasonable) on nonprofessional investors’ judgments.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study uses a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment with 436 US nonprofessional investors. The authors manipulate sustainability assurance report format and level to identify differences in judgments of information credibility, investment desirability and investment amount.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study finds that sustainability assurance level influences participants’ judgments only when the financial and sustainability assurance reports are presented separately. Specifically, participants assess sustainability performance information as more credible and make higher investment judgments when presented with a separate limited, as opposed to reasonable, assurance sustainability report.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board expressed concerns regarding whether assurance reports accompanying emerging forms of extended external reporting (EER) effectively communicate the level of assurance provided by the independent practitioner. The result that assurance level does not influence investor judgments in the combined reporting format appears contrary to the idea that integrated reporting should provide connectivity between financial and sustainability information. The finding that investors make higher investment and credibility judgments with limited assurance is inconsistent with the intent of sustainability assurance professional guidance and recent research results. Together, the findings suggest that investors may not be able to distinguish between differing levels of sustainability assurance when this information is presented in a combined report format.\n\n\nSocial implications\nStandard setters should consider how sustainability assurance report format and assurance level impact nonprofessional investor judgments.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nResearch on the effects of EER assurance report format is sparse. The results indicate that even slight changes in assurance report wording may cause investors to perceive that a limited assurance report conveys a higher assurance level than a reasonable assurance report.\n","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-09-2022-0473","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the influence of sustainability assurance report format (separate versus combined with financial information assurance) and level (limited versus reasonable) on nonprofessional investors’ judgments. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment with 436 US nonprofessional investors. The authors manipulate sustainability assurance report format and level to identify differences in judgments of information credibility, investment desirability and investment amount. Findings This study finds that sustainability assurance level influences participants’ judgments only when the financial and sustainability assurance reports are presented separately. Specifically, participants assess sustainability performance information as more credible and make higher investment judgments when presented with a separate limited, as opposed to reasonable, assurance sustainability report. Practical implications The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board expressed concerns regarding whether assurance reports accompanying emerging forms of extended external reporting (EER) effectively communicate the level of assurance provided by the independent practitioner. The result that assurance level does not influence investor judgments in the combined reporting format appears contrary to the idea that integrated reporting should provide connectivity between financial and sustainability information. The finding that investors make higher investment and credibility judgments with limited assurance is inconsistent with the intent of sustainability assurance professional guidance and recent research results. Together, the findings suggest that investors may not be able to distinguish between differing levels of sustainability assurance when this information is presented in a combined report format. Social implications Standard setters should consider how sustainability assurance report format and assurance level impact nonprofessional investor judgments. Originality/value Research on the effects of EER assurance report format is sparse. The results indicate that even slight changes in assurance report wording may cause investors to perceive that a limited assurance report conveys a higher assurance level than a reasonable assurance report.
可持续性保证报告格式和水平对非专业投资者判断的影响
本文旨在考察可持续保证报告格式(独立与合并财务信息保证)和水平(有限与合理)对非专业投资者判断的影响。本研究对436名美国非专业投资者进行了2 × 2的参与者实验。作者通过对可持续保证报告格式和水平的操纵来识别信息可信度、投资可取性和投资金额判断的差异。本研究发现,只有当财务报告和可持续保证报告分开列报时,可持续保证水平才会影响参与者的判断。具体地说,与合理的、保证的可持续发展报告相比,当提供一份单独的有限的可持续发展报告时,参与者认为可持续发展绩效信息更可信,并做出更高的投资判断。实际影响国际审计与鉴证准则委员会对伴随新形式的扩展外部报告(EER)的鉴证报告是否有效地传达了独立执业者提供的鉴证水平表示关注。在合并报告格式中,保证水平不影响投资者判断的结果似乎与综合报告应提供财务信息和可持续性信息之间的连通性的观点相反。投资者在有限保证的情况下做出更高的投资和可信度判断,这一发现与可持续保证专业指导的意图和近期的研究成果不一致。总之,调查结果表明,当这些信息以合并报告格式列报时,投资者可能无法区分可持续性保证的不同水平。社会影响准则制定者应考虑可持续保证报告格式和保证水平如何影响非专业投资者的判断。独创性/价值对EER鉴证报告格式影响的研究较少。结果表明,即使保证报告措辞的微小变化也可能使投资者认为有限的保证报告比合理的保证报告传达了更高的保证水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信