Purpose

This paper aims to examine the processes of sustainability reporting assurance (SRA) and the influence they have on shaping perception from disclosures. Given the evidence of inconsistencies and ambiguities in assurance processes, this paper examines how legitimacy is attained and maintained at different stages of SRA.

Design/methodology/approach

Evidence collected from 23 semi-structured interviews with assurance providers (APs), consultants, professionals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (non-APs) was used to conduct a thematic analysis from the perspectives of interviewees.

Findings

APs and non-APs are united in recognising the value of SRA, although, perspectives on transparency between the two groups differ. Experience and industry knowledge are essential to SRA delivery with non-APs preferring accounting APs. Nevertheless, non-APs are concerned about the role of companies in deciding assurance scope, as it can affect scrutiny. APs favour data accuracy (as opposed to data relevance) assurance due to team dynamics and internal review influences, with the latter also restricting assurance innovation. APs are interested in accessing better evidence and stakeholder engagement evaluations. Providing advisory services was not rejected by all APs. The perspectives of APs and non-APs demonstrate how progress in SRA has gained pragmatic legitimacy with noticeable gaps that serve to undermine attainment of moral legitimacy.

Research limitations/implications

SRA is a developing practice that will adopt changes as it continues to mature; some of these changes could impact findings in this research. General perspectives on SRA were sought from interviewees, this affected the ability for an in-depth focus on any of the range of interesting SRA issues that arose over the course of the research. Interviews were conducted with relevant parties in the SRA space that operate in the UK. Perspectives from parties outside the UK were not solicited.

Practical implications

Companies make an important decision to commission SRA. Findings in this research have highlighted specific non-APs issues of concern that can be useful in structuring operations and reporting regimes to facilitate assurance procedures. The findings will also be helpful to APs as they can direct more emphasis on stakeholder concerns towards demonstrating greater stakeholder accountability. Regulatory and standard setters can enact appropriate policies that can potentially drive the practice forward for assessment of cognitive legitimacy.

Social implications

The findings provide relevant account of stakeholder voices on the quality of corporate disclosures that has a direct effect on the wellbeing of communities and sustainability of societies. Collective stakeholder input on expectations can shape sustainability discourse.

Originality/value

This research demonstrates the applicability of financial audit quality indicators in SRA processes, extends the debate around the effectiveness of new audit fields and highlights the challenges of maintaining legitimacy with different audiences.

中文翻译：

---

可持续发展报告保证中的问题：访谈证据

目的

本文旨在研究可持续发展报告保证（SRA）的流程及其对塑造披露认知的影响。鉴于保证流程中存在不一致和模糊性的证据，本文研究了如何在 SRA 的不同阶段获得和维持合法性。

设计/方法论/途径

使用从对保证提供者 (AP)、顾问、专业人员和非政府组织 (NGO)（非 AP）进行的 23 次半结构化访谈中收集的证据，从受访者的角度进行主题分析。

发现

受影响者和非受影响者一致认识到 SRA 的价值，尽管这两个群体对透明度的看法不同。经验和行业知识对于非 AP 更喜欢会计 AP 的 SRA 交付至关重要。然而，非受影响人对公司在决定保证范围方面的作用感到担忧，因为它可能会影响审查。由于团队动态和内部审查的影响，AP 倾向于数据准确性（而不是数据相关性）保证，而后者也限制了保证创新。受影响人有兴趣获得更好的证据和利益相关者参与评估。并非所有受影响人都拒绝提供咨询服务。 AP 和非 AP 的观点表明，SRA 的进展如何获得了务实的合法性，但存在明显的差距，从而破坏了道德合法性的实现。

研究局限性/影响

SRA 是一种正在发展的实践，随着它的不断成熟，它将会做出改变；其中一些变化可能会影响本研究的结果。从受访者那里寻求对 SRA 的总体看法，这影响了深入关注研究过程中出现的任何一系列有趣的 SRA 问题的能力。我们对在英国运营的 SRA 领域的相关方进行了采访。没有征求英国以外各方的观点。

实际影响

公司做出委托 SRA 的重要决定。这项研究的结果强调了非受影响人所关注的具体问题，这些问题对于构建业务和报告制度以促进保证程序很有用。研究结果也将对受影响人有所帮助，因为他们可以更加重视利益相关者的担忧，以展示更大的利益相关者责任。监管和标准制定者可以制定适当的政策，有可能推动认知合法性评估实践的发展。

社会影响

研究结果提供了利益相关者对企业披露质量的相关看法，这对社区福祉和社会可持续发展有直接影响。利益相关者集体对期望的投入可以塑造可持续发展的话语。

原创性/价值

这项研究证明了财务审计质量指标在 SRA 流程中的适用性，扩展了围绕新审计领域有效性的争论，并强调了在不同受众中保持合法性的挑战。