The motivation of O’Dwyer, Owen and Unerman (2011) is that there is a lack of research seeking beyond documentary analysis (in-depth research), examining the processes by which sustainability assurance statements are generated. Thus, their study used a case study method to investigate the processes of SAT, one of the Big 4 professional services firm. Their findings respond to the call of Power (2003a) for empirical work in a new audit type practice area.
The aim of O’Dwyer, Owen and Unerman (2011) is to develop a thermotical and empirical understanding of the processes which sustainability assurance practitioners can and do with key audiences. In another word, to examine and analyze the co-evolution of sustainability assurance practice with …show more content…
Firstly, the thermotical contribution on refining the conception of legitimacy into three categories: pragmatic, moral and cognitive. Secondly, this is the first in-depth case-based empirical work with detailed evidence provided in its study area. Lastly, the findings challenge the recent sustainability assurance statement research infers that accountability to stakeholders is of minimal concern to …show more content…
It initially focused on a pragmatic legitimacy with client audience and persuaded them the benefit of improvements in information system and thereby reporting practice. This often results in a co-production of sustainability information systems, reports and assurance by assurors and clients. Once this improvement has been achieved, there would require the existence of external shareholder demand in order to maintain the durability of pragmatic legitimacy. To further ensure long durability of sustainability assurance, assuror need to seek to develop moral legitimacy for practices which focused on the non-client external world. However, the outside world does not know enough about what assurance is and assurors have not told the outside world enough neither. The wording of assurance statements can be a barrier to moral legitimacy if used “double negative” opinions (limited assurance) when there is a lack of acceptable structure and content of assurance statements. The legitimacy strategy, pursued with the non-client external world, appeared to be ineffective due to the strong resistance from SAT’s Risk Department to the expansion of assurance statement content and moving towards providing higher level of assurance. Risk Department initially considered sustainability assurance as high risk given its greater non-financial disclosure and the absence of agreed assurance standards and framework. Later on, one of the former
The aim of O’Dwyer, Owen and Unerman (2011) is to develop a thermotical and empirical understanding of the processes which sustainability assurance practitioners can and do with key audiences. In another word, to examine and analyze the co-evolution of sustainability assurance practice with …show more content…
Firstly, the thermotical contribution on refining the conception of legitimacy into three categories: pragmatic, moral and cognitive. Secondly, this is the first in-depth case-based empirical work with detailed evidence provided in its study area. Lastly, the findings challenge the recent sustainability assurance statement research infers that accountability to stakeholders is of minimal concern to …show more content…
It initially focused on a pragmatic legitimacy with client audience and persuaded them the benefit of improvements in information system and thereby reporting practice. This often results in a co-production of sustainability information systems, reports and assurance by assurors and clients. Once this improvement has been achieved, there would require the existence of external shareholder demand in order to maintain the durability of pragmatic legitimacy. To further ensure long durability of sustainability assurance, assuror need to seek to develop moral legitimacy for practices which focused on the non-client external world. However, the outside world does not know enough about what assurance is and assurors have not told the outside world enough neither. The wording of assurance statements can be a barrier to moral legitimacy if used “double negative” opinions (limited assurance) when there is a lack of acceptable structure and content of assurance statements. The legitimacy strategy, pursued with the non-client external world, appeared to be ineffective due to the strong resistance from SAT’s Risk Department to the expansion of assurance statement content and moving towards providing higher level of assurance. Risk Department initially considered sustainability assurance as high risk given its greater non-financial disclosure and the absence of agreed assurance standards and framework. Later on, one of the former