Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Responding to the increasing importance of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reports and the assurance thereof, our study seeks to understand a potential source of biased processing of evidence in multidisciplinary GHG assurance teams. A distinguishing feature of GHG assurance engagements is that the assurors perform their work in multidisciplinary teams in which the educational background of team members varies dramatically, with some members possessing financial audit-related expertise and other members possessing science-related expertise. We add to the limited knowledge relating to the performance of such teams by showing that audit senior-level assurors with a financial background inappropriately rely on an explanation for an unexpected fluctuation (a seeded error showing a decrease in GHG emissions when an increase would logically be expected) provided by a senior-level assuror with science-related expertise irrespective of whether the subject matter requires GHG-specific expertise. We also examine the role of the review process and find that the inappropriate reliance placed on a senior-level assuror with science-related expertise is moderated (exacerbated) by having a manager-level reviewer with financial audit-related (science-related) expertise. To the extent that the inclusion of audit team members with backgrounds other than accounting continues to increase in line with the increase in assurance of sustainability reports, as well as integrated reports, the findings from this study have broader implications for the quality of assurance of non-financial information.
Sarah Kim, University of New South Wales
Wendy Green, University of New South Wales
Karla Johnstone, University of Wisconsin-Madison