Welcome to the forum StewyM!
You raise some interesting points. It is correct that discussion on managerial capture in sustainability accounting and assurance has been around among the academic community for a while.
Might be worth reading
for you also some newer academic articles addressing sustainability assurance:
O’Dwyer B and Owen D (2007): Seeking Stakeholder-Cenric Sustainability Assurance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship Spring 2007, p.77-94; or
Deegan, Cooper, Shelly (2006): An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence. Managerial Auditing Journal Vol. 21 No 4.
It is also interesting to see that the focus in this area more and more shifts on sustainability assurance. Witness to this are also latest publictations like
CorporateRegister (2008): 'Assure View';
Ernst&Young (2008): Transparency in Assurance Reports on Corporate Responsibility Reporting;
or with a focus on Germany
Clausen and Loew (2005): Mehr Glaubwuerdigkeit durch Testate?
Quote:
|
One thing we all need to be asking ourseleves though is what are we assuring - are we assuring that what a company says is true or are we assuring that a company is acting in a sustainable manner
|
True! This question also came up during the current revision process of the AA1000AS (2008); as it looks at the moment, the new standard will address this by remaining a "principles-based" assurance standard. An assurance engagement using the AA1000AS (2008) will require assurance providers to assess Inclusivity, Materiality, Completeness and Responsiveness not only against disclosure, but also underlying systems, processes and politics that deliver the relevant information and underpin the organisation’s performance.
Is this feature useful? - what do you think?