Sustainability assurance and provider choice: a meta-regression analysis

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
D. Hay, Michael Kend, Laura Sierra‐García, N. Subramaniam
{"title":"Sustainability assurance and provider choice: a meta-regression analysis","authors":"D. Hay, Michael Kend, Laura Sierra‐García, N. Subramaniam","doi":"10.1108/sampj-08-2022-0405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to assess the cumulative evidence on the determinants of sustainability assurance (SA) reports and the choice of assurance provider quality. It addresses the contradictory and inconsistent findings of past studies conducted over the past two decades.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors undertake a meta-regression analysis that enables systematic, comparative assessment of the variables associated with the choice of SA and the type of assurance provider. The authors undertake a chronological analysis with the aim of identifying systematic differences in the empirical evidence across distinct time periods.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results indicate that there is very little evidence to support many of the expected associations between commonly studied predictor variables (namely, measures based on agency and corporate governance conceptions) and the choice of SA and the assurance provider type. As a result, research on this topic does not make as effective a contribution as might be expected. There is, however, a time period difference. The authors find results from studies using company data prior to 2010 are significantly different from those using post-2010 data. The results indicate the decision to publish SA to be significantly associated with companies in the oil industry and utilities, and larger organisations where agency costs tend to be higher. Obtaining assurance from a higher-quality provider is found to be associated with companies in environmentally sensitive industries and in stakeholder-oriented countries.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe study shows that as yet there is not sufficient evidence to support expected results. Users of the research should be aware of this, and researchers should know that more work is needed. The authors suggest researchers take greater care in the choice and comparability of variable measurement and expand the conceptual base when selecting predictor variables.\n\n\nSocial implications\nCompanies need to be more transparent and accountable to critical stakeholders such as report users and regulators, and the latter should be more aware that the organisational practice of SA and choice of service provider have changed over time and are increasingly open to agency and other cultural biases.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply meta-regression techniques for understanding the body of literature on SA and provider choice.\n","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","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-08-2022-0405","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 assess the cumulative evidence on the determinants of sustainability assurance (SA) reports and the choice of assurance provider quality. It addresses the contradictory and inconsistent findings of past studies conducted over the past two decades. Design/methodology/approach The authors undertake a meta-regression analysis that enables systematic, comparative assessment of the variables associated with the choice of SA and the type of assurance provider. The authors undertake a chronological analysis with the aim of identifying systematic differences in the empirical evidence across distinct time periods. Findings The results indicate that there is very little evidence to support many of the expected associations between commonly studied predictor variables (namely, measures based on agency and corporate governance conceptions) and the choice of SA and the assurance provider type. As a result, research on this topic does not make as effective a contribution as might be expected. There is, however, a time period difference. The authors find results from studies using company data prior to 2010 are significantly different from those using post-2010 data. The results indicate the decision to publish SA to be significantly associated with companies in the oil industry and utilities, and larger organisations where agency costs tend to be higher. Obtaining assurance from a higher-quality provider is found to be associated with companies in environmentally sensitive industries and in stakeholder-oriented countries. Practical implications The study shows that as yet there is not sufficient evidence to support expected results. Users of the research should be aware of this, and researchers should know that more work is needed. The authors suggest researchers take greater care in the choice and comparability of variable measurement and expand the conceptual base when selecting predictor variables. Social implications Companies need to be more transparent and accountable to critical stakeholders such as report users and regulators, and the latter should be more aware that the organisational practice of SA and choice of service provider have changed over time and are increasingly open to agency and other cultural biases. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply meta-regression techniques for understanding the body of literature on SA and provider choice.
可持续性保证与供应商选择:元回归分析
目的本文旨在评估关于可持续性保证(SA)报告的决定因素和保证提供者质量选择的累积证据。它解决了过去二十年来进行的研究中相互矛盾和不一致的发现。设计/方法论/方法作者进行了元回归分析,能够对与SA选择和担保提供者类型相关的变量进行系统的比较评估。作者进行了时间分析,目的是确定不同时间段经验证据的系统差异。结果表明,很少有证据支持通常研究的预测变量(即基于代理和公司治理概念的指标)与SA和担保提供者类型的选择之间的许多预期关联。因此,对这一主题的研究并没有像预期的那样做出有效的贡献。然而,存在时间段差异。作者发现,使用2010年之前的公司数据进行的研究结果与使用2010年之后数据的研究结果有很大不同。结果表明,发布SA的决定与石油行业和公用事业公司以及代理成本往往更高的大型组织有很大关联。人们发现,从更高质量的供应商那里获得保证与环境敏感行业和以利益相关者为导向的国家的公司有关。实际含义研究表明,到目前为止,还没有足够的证据支持预期的结果。研究的使用者应该意识到这一点,研究人员应该知道还需要做更多的工作。作者建议研究人员在选择预测变量时,要更加注意变量测量的选择和可比性,并扩大概念基础。社会影响公司需要对报告用户和监管机构等关键利益相关者更加透明和负责,后者应该更加意识到SA的组织实践和服务提供商的选择随着时间的推移而发生了变化,并且越来越容易受到机构和其他文化偏见的影响。原创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一项应用元回归技术来理解SA和提供者选择文献的研究。
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