The Influence of Assurer Type, Standard Assurance, and Level Assurance on the Extent of Assurance Statements in Sustainability Reports: A Conceptual Study
Ni Komang Ayu Devi, Putu Agus Ardiana
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は概念的枠組みに基づき、サステナビリティ報告における保証提供者の種類、保証基準、保証水準が保証声明の開示範囲に与える影響を分析。正当性理論と制度理論を用い、技術的構成要素が保証の質と組織的正当性獲得に影響すると論じる。実務的には、透明性と包括性の重要性を強調し、形式的保証を防止するための規制を示唆する。
English
This conceptual study examines how assurer type, assurance standards (ISAE 3000, AA1000AS), and assurance level (limited vs. reasonable) affect the breadth of assurance statements in sustainability reports. Using legitimacy and institutional theory, it argues that technical assurance configurations influence the quality of organizational legitimacy. The paper suggests that regulators should promote transparency and comprehensiveness to discourage symbolic assurance practices.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
SSBJ基準や有報でのサステナビリティ情報開示が進む日本において、保証声明の質と開示範囲は実務上の重要な論点。本稿は概念的フレームワークを提供し、日本の保証実務の改善に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
In the global GX context, where ISSB, CSRD, and SEC climate rules increasingly require assurance, this paper adds nuance by focusing on disclosure breadth rather than binary presence of assurance. It deepens understanding of how technical assurance choices affect credibility, relevant to regulators and standard-setters.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a theoretical extension of legitimacy theory to the technical dimensions of assurance, offering a framework for empirical testing.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the importance of choosing reputable assurers and higher assurance levels to signal substantive sustainability reporting.
🏛政策担当者:Suggests that regulators should encourage detailed and transparent assurance statements to reduce symbolic compliance.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study conceptually examines the influence of assurer type, assurance standards, and assurance level on the breadth of assurance statements in sustainability reports. Moving beyond prior literature that treats assurance as a binary variable (presence versus absence), this paper highlights disclosure breadth as a critical dimension of assurance quality and substance. Drawing on legitimacy theory and complemented by institutional theory, the study argues that the technical configuration of assurance shapes the quality of organizational legitimacy obtained by firms. Specifically, the type of assurer (public accounting firms versus non-accounting providers), the standards adopted (e.g., ISAE 3000 and/or AA1000AS), and the level of assurance (limited versus reasonable) influence the structure, systematic presentation, and comprehensiveness of assurance statements. Firms that engage reputable providers, apply globally institutionalized standards, and select reasonable assurance are more likely to issue broader and more detailed statements. In contrast, weaker institutional pressures may encourage symbolic assurance practices characterized by minimal disclosure. The study contributes theoretically by extending legitimacy theory to the technical dimensions of assurance and positioning disclosure breadth as a proxy for substantive legitimacy. Practically, it suggests that regulators and companies should emphasize transparency and comprehensiveness in assurance statements to enhance credibility and discourage symbolic sustainability reporting practices.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.61132/epaperbisnis.v3i1.683first seen 2026-05-15 18:21:58
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。