IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v33y2016i2p551-575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Auditors' Materiality Assessments When Auditing Financial Statements and Sustainability Reports

Author

Listed:
  • Robyn Moroney
  • Ken T. Trotman

Abstract

With increased interest in voluntary sustainability reports from investors and other stakeholders, more companies are having these reports assured. The issue of what is considered material in these assurance engagements is important, and yet research on materiality has focused only on financial statement audits. This article reports the results of an experiment where auditors assess the materiality of audit differences in the same magnitude for both a financial audit and a sustainability (water) assurance engagement. Two factors, the risk of breaching a contract and community impact, are manipulated between†subjects. We find that auditors assess the materiality of an audit difference significantly higher for a financial case than for a water case. This difference is significantly greater when there is no risk of breaching a contract than when there is a risk of breaching a contract. The risk of breaching a contract has a stronger effect on the difference in auditors' materiality assessments when there is no community impact than when there is a community impact. Overall our findings suggest that qualitative factors have a greater impact on sustainability (water) materiality assessments than on financial statement materiality assessments when an audit difference is between 5 percent and 10 percent of a relevant base. Understanding the factors that impact material judgments in sustainability reports is important as these factors affect the reliability of the reported disclosures.

Suggested Citation

  • Robyn Moroney & Ken T. Trotman, 2016. "Differences in Auditors' Materiality Assessments When Auditing Financial Statements and Sustainability Reports," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 551-575, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:33:y:2016:i:2:p:551-575
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12162
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12162?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tsang, Albert & Frost, Tracie & Cao, Huijuan, 2023. "Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosure: A literature review," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(1).
    2. Habiba Al‐Shaer & Mahbub Zaman, 2018. "Credibility of sustainability reports: The contribution of audit committees," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 973-986, November.
    3. Roberto Aprile & David Alexander & Federica Doni, 2023. "Enhancing the materiality principle in integrated reporting by adopting the General Systems Theory," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2219-2233, September.
    4. Flasher, R. & Luchs, C.K. & Souza, J.L., 2018. "Sustainability assurance provider participation in standard setting," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 20-25.
    5. Binh Bui & Muhammad Nurul Houqe & Mahbub Zaman, 2021. "Climate change mitigation: Carbon assurance and reporting integrity," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3839-3853, December.
    6. Veronica Grosu & Dorel Mateș & Monica-Laura Zlati & Svetlana Mihaila & Marian Socoliuc & Marius-Sorin Ciubotariu & Simona-Maria Tanasă, 2020. "Econometric Model for Readjusting Significance Threshold Levels through Quick Audit Tests Used on Sustainable Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-32, October.
    7. Hien Hoang & Robyn Moroney & Soon‐Yeow Phang & Xinning Xiao, 2023. "Investor reactions to key audit matters: Financial and non‐financial contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3325-3349, September.
    8. Patrick Velte & Martin Stawinoga, 2017. "Empirical research on corporate social responsibility assurance (CSRA): A literature review," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1017-1066, November.
    9. Jane Andrew & Max Baker, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: The Last 40 Years and a Path to Sharing Future Insights," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(1), pages 35-65, March.
    10. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    11. Camille Gaudy & Christophe Godowski & Jonathan Maurice, 2022. "CSR auditing at a crossroads. What the auditors' daily experience teaches us [L'audit RSE à la croisée des chemins. Ce que nous enseigne le vécu quotidien des auditeurs]," Post-Print hal-03842902, HAL.
    12. Chiara Mio & Marco Fasan & Antonio Costantini, 2020. "Materiality in integrated and sustainability reporting: A paradigm shift?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 306-320, January.
    13. Green, Wendy J. & Cheng, Mandy M., 2019. "Materiality judgments in an integrated reporting setting: The effect of strategic relevance and strategy map," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-14.
    14. Kerry A. Humphreys & Ken T. Trotman, 2022. "Judgment and decision making research on CSR reporting in the COVID‐19 pandemic environment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 739-765, March.
    15. Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, 2020. "Drivers of the CSR report assurance quality: Credibility and consistency for stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 2530-2547, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:33:y:2016:i:2:p:551-575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.