Corporate social responsibility assurance and reporting quality: Evidence from restatements

Previous research has shown that obtaining independent assurance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting has capital market benefits and that these benefits are amplified when accountants provide the assurance. Yet, little is known about whether and the manner in which CSR assurance improves the quality of CSR reporting, and whether accounting providers improve reporting quality to a greater extent than non-accounting providers. This study uses the unique setting of CSR restatements to examine these issues. We present theoretical and empirical evidence supporting a competitive advantage of using accounting firms as assurance providers as they not only identify inaccuracies in previous reports earlier than non-accounting providers, but also prevent future reporting inaccuracies. CSR assurance, from either type of provider, also leads to improved reporting definitions, scopes, and methodologies that require restatements for comparability. Results also indicate that CSR reporting frameworks (e.g., GRI) are not a substitute for obtaining CSR assurance as the latter has incremental benefits over GRI usage in terms of identifying errors and reporting improvements. These results have implications for public policy makers considering the merits of mandating CSR assurance and for organizations assessing the relative benefits and costs of preparing GRI-based CSR reports, obtaining CSR assurance, and choosing between accounting vs. non-accounting CSR assurance providers.