AN EXAMINATION OF ASSURANCE PRACTICES ON TURKISH COMPANIES’ GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DISCLOSURES

Abstract

Purpose- The aim of this study is to examine the status of assuring practices of GHG disclosures of Turkish companies, using the data available from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Turkey surveys for the period of 2015-2017. More specifically, it is aimed to determine the number of companies that assured their GHG emission disclosures, the scope of assurance, the types of assurance providers, the assurance level and the standards employed for the assurance of GHG disclosures. Methodology- The sample of the study is obtained from the CDP Database. In this study, we selected Turkish companies that answered the CDP questionnaire between the years of 2015 and 2017. Findings- The number of the total submitted CDP reports and the assured reports have an upward trend during the sample period. Nevertheless, it is observed that the number of reports having assurance services increased rapidly in those years. This shows that verified information has been more demanded by stakeholders. Conclusion- The increasing trend in the number of companies assuring their GHG disclosures presents opportunities for audit firms and other assurance service providers.

Keywords

• GHG,assurance,carbon disclosure,climate change,verification

References

1. Bastianoni, S., Marchi, M., Caro, D., Casprini, P., & Pulselli, F. M. (2014). The connection between 2006 IPCC GHG inventory methodology and ISO 14064-1 certification standard–A reference point for the environmental policies at sub-national scale. Environmental Science & Policy, 44, 97-107.
2. Beattie, V., & Fearnley, S. (1995). The importance of audit firm characteristics and the drivers of auditor change in UK listed companies. Accounting and business research, 25(100), 227-239.
3. Bewley, K., & Li, Y. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: a voluntary disclosure perspective. Advances in environmental accounting and management, 1(1), 201-226.
4. Birnbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 48.
5. Brink, A. G., Tang, F., & Yang, L. (2016). The impact of estimate source and social pressure on auditors' fair value estimate choices. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(2), 29-40.
6. Chatterjee, A. (2012). Assurance of corporate greenhouse gas disclosures in the mining and crude oil production sector: a comparative inter-national Study. Journal of the Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, 18(2), 75-102.
7. Cohen, J. R., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59-74.
8. Cohen, J. R., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59-74.

9. Cotter, J., Lokman, N., & Najah, M. M. (2011). Voluntary disclosure research: which theory is relevant ?. Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 6(2) 1-25.
10. Datt, R., Luo, L., Tang, Q., & Mallik, G. (2018). An international study of determinants of voluntary carbon assurance. Journal of International Accounting Research, 17(3), 1-20.
11. DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of accounting and economics, 3(3), 183-199.
12. Feng, Y. & Ramanathan, V. (2009). Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 37-50.
13. Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2005). Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries. The International Journal of Accounting, 40(3), 215-232.
14. Gokten, P. O., Marşap, B., & Gokten, S. (2018). Sera Gazı Emisyon Raporlaması Bir Tercih Mi Yoksa Zorunluluk Mu? Kuramsal Bir Değerlendirme. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 20, 911-922.
15. Green, W. & Li, Q. (2011). Evidence of an expectation gap for greenhouse gas emissions assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 146-173.
16. Green, W., & Li, Q. (2012). Evidence of an expectation gap for greenhouse gas emissions assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
17. Green, W., & Taylor, S. (2013). Factors that influence perceptions of greenhouse gas assurance provider quality. International Journal of Auditing, 17(3), 288-307.
18. Green, W., & Zhou, S. (2013). An international examination of assurance practices on carbon emissions disclosures. Australian Accounting Review, 23(1), 54-66.
19. Green, W., Taylor, S., & Wu, J. (2017). Determinants of greenhouse gas assurance provider choice. Meditari Accountancy Research.
20. Guthrie, J., & Abeysekera, I. (2006). Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: what is new?. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting.
21. Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D. & Scheimann, F. (2015). Organizations, Climate Change, And Transparency: Reviewing The Literature On Carbon Disclosure. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 80-102.
22. Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97-124.
23. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive psychology, 24(1), 1-55.
24. Holt, T. P. (2012). The effects of internal audit role and reporting relationships on investor perceptions of disclosure credibility. Managerial Auditing Journal.
25. Houghton, J. (2004). Global warming: the complete briefing. 3rd Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. IAASB.(2019).https://www.iaasb.org/news-events/2012-06/iaasb-releases-new-global-standard-assurance-greenhouse-gas-statements [11.02.2020].
26. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2015). International standard on assurance engagements 3410: Assurance engagements on greenhouse gas statements. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from http://www.ifac.org/publicationsresources/2015-handbook-international-quality-control-auditing-review-other-assurance.
27. IUCN, (2011). Terminologies used in climate change. Retrieved October 05, 2020, from https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2011-118.pdf.
28. Kilgore, A., Harrison, G., & Radich, R. (2014). Audit quality: what’s important to users of audit services. Managerial Auditing Journal.
29. Kim, S., Green, W. J., & Johnstone, K. M. (2015). Biased evidence processing by multidisciplinary greenhouse gas assurance teams. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(3), 119-139.
30. Koonce, L., Walker, N. R., & Wright, W. F. (1993). A cognitive characterization of audit analytical review; Discussion. Auditing, 12, 57.
31. KPMG, (2017). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2017/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf.
32. Li, H., Fu, S., Chen, Z., Shi, J., Yang, Z., & Li, Z. (2019). The motivations of Chinese firms in response to the Carbon Disclosure Project. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(27), 27792-27807.
33. Omur, G. A., Tunc, A. O., & Caliskan, E. N. (2012). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in the service sector: A case study from Turkey. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 4(1), 11-20.
34. Pinsker, R. (2007). Long series of information and nonprofessional investors' belief revision. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1), 197-214.
35. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of applied social psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
36. Shum, P., Burritt, R. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Sustainability reporting and assurance in developing countries. In 1 st South American Congress on Social and Environmental Accounting Research–CSEAR 2009. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro–Brasil.
37. Simnett, R., & Nugent, M. (2007). Developing an assurance standard for carbon emissions disclosures. Australian Accounting Review, 17(42), 37-47.
38. Zhou, S. H. A. N., Simnett, R. O. G. E. R., & Green, W. E. N. D. Y. (2013). The effect of legal environment and corporate governance on the decision to assure and assurance provider choice: Evidence from the GHG assurance market. UNSW Australian School of Business Research Paper. A, 5.
39. Zhou, S., Simnett, R., & Green, W. J. (2016). Assuring a new market: The interplay between country-level and company-level factors on the demand for greenhouse gas (GHG) information assurance and the choice of assurance provider. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(3), 141-168