Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as

d eterminants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability

reports
1. Introduction
According to the AA1000AS standard, “sustainability performance refers to an
organization’s total performance, which might include its policies, decisions, and
actions that create social, environmental and/or economic, including financial
outcomes” (Accountability, Institute of Social and Ethical, 2003, p. 31). In response
(i) on one hand to the demand from investors, who pay more attention to social and
environmental issues in their decision making (Dhaliwal, Radhakrishnan, Tsang, &
Yang, 2012), and (ii) on the other hand to the demand from employees, customers,
suppliers and other stakeholders, who show greater concern for socially
responsible performance, there is an increasing trend to report such performance
via the voluntary disclosure (Clarkson, Li, Richardson, & Vasvari, 2008) of a
sustainability report that assesses the three main components of
environmental protection, economic growth and social equity (Morimoto,
Ash, & Hope, 2005).
However, despite the upturn in the number of these reports, which has not
been accompanied by an increased level of public trust (Hodge,
Subramaniam, & Stewart, 2009), the voices of concern about the lack of
credibility, transparency and consistency of sustainability reporting and
the need for an assurance process that ensures such quality aspects are
numerous (Adams and Evans, 2004; Gray, 2010; Simnett, Vanstraelen, &
Chua, 2009). These concerns have led to calls for the adoption of
independent assurance of sustainability reports, which is defined by the
GRI (2006) as “activities designed to result in published conclusions on the
quality of the report and the information contained within it”.
Similarly to auditing for financial information and as a result of
stakeholders’ pressure to enhance the credibility of sustainability
information, assurance is perceived as the key element in the external
scrutiny of the social and/or environmental information issued. Regarding
this point, assurance may: (i) provide credibility and transparency of such
information (Adams & Evans, 2004; Deegan, Cooper, & Shelly, 2006;
O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005; Simnett et al., 2009; Weber, 2014); (ii) act as a
mechanism for increasing the trust of stakeholders not only in the
information quality but also in the corporate sustainability commitment
(Hodge et al., 2009; Simnett et al., 2009); (iii) act as a monitoring tool of
managers (Wong & Millington, 2014), since sustainability reporting can
address agency relationships; and finally (iv) decrease information
asymmetry and uncertainty (Moroney, Windsor, & Aw, 2012). In sum, within
a context in which sustainability information is certainly questionable or
hardly credible, companies can voluntarily initiate a process of verification
of this information. This check will benefit a variety of agents. The company
will