Coercive, Normative and Mimetic Isomorphism As Determinants of The

G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Business Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusre v
Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the

voluntary assurance of sustainability reports
Jennifer Martínez-Ferrero*, Isabel-María García-Sánchez
Instituto Multidisciplinar de Empresa (IME), Universidad de Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, FES, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 27 July 2015
Received in revised form 13 May 2016 This study offers an opportunity to understand how country- and industry-specific effects may affect the
Accepted 14 May 2016 decision to assure sustainability reports by identifying institutional pressures. Based on neo-institutional
Available online xxx theory, the aim of this research is to highlight whether assurance derives from the coercive, normative
and mimetic forces related to legal and cultural strength and the industry pressure for assurance,
Keywords: Assurance respectively. The panel data analysis of an international sample of 696 companies for the period
Sustainability report 2007–2014 shows that voluntary assurance acts as a legitimization tool implemented by companies in
Institutional theory response to normative, coercive and mimetic pressures; that is, companies operating in countries that
Isomorphism
have a greater legal system and cultural development, especially in industries that are greatly concerned
about sustainability, are more likely to issue an assurance statement. Moreover, through a two-stage logit
model, we respond to the question of which is the relevant institutional factor that causes voluntary
assurance to be adopted. Specifically, we evidence that the normative factor is the one that exerts the
greatest explanatory power in the assurance demand, followed by coercive pressure.
ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction of sustainability reporting and the need for an assurance process

that ensures such quality aspects are numerous (Adams and Evans,
According to the AA1000AS standard, “sustainability perfor- 2004; Gray, 2010; Simnett, Vanstraelen, & Chua, 2009). These
mance refers to an organization’s total performance, which might concerns have led to calls for the adoption of independent
include its policies, decisions, and actions that create social, assurance of sustainability reports, which is defined by the GRI
environmental and/or economic, including financial outcomes” (2006) as “activities designed to result in published conclusions on
(Accountability, Institute of Social and Ethical, 2003, p. 31). In the quality of the report and the information contained within it”.
response (i) on one hand to the demand from investors, who pay Similarly to auditing for financial information and as a result of
more attention to social and environmental issues in their decision stakeholders’ pressure to enhance the credibility of sustainability
making (Dhaliwal, Radhakrishnan, Tsang, & Yang, 2012), and (ii) on information, assurance is perceived as the key element in the
the other hand to the demand from employees, customers, external scrutiny of the social and/or environmental information
suppliers and other stakeholders, who show greater concern for issued. Regarding this point, assurance may: (i) provide credibility
socially responsible performance, there is an increasing trend to and transparency of such information (Adams & Evans, 2004;
report such performance via the voluntary disclosure (Clarkson, Li, Deegan, Cooper, & Shelly, 2006; O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005; Simnett
Richardson, & Vasvari, 2008) of a sustainability report that assesses et al., 2009; Weber, 2014); (ii) act as a mechanism for increasing
the three main components of environmental protection, eco- the trust of stakeholders not only in the information quality but
nomic growth and social equity (Morimoto, Ash, & Hope, 2005). also in the corporate sustainability commitment (Hodge et al.,
However, despite the upturn in the number of these reports, 2009; Simnett et al., 2009); (iii) act as a monitoring tool of
which has not been accompanied by an increased level of public managers (Wong & Millington, 2014), since sustainability report-
trust (Hodge, Subramaniam, & Stewart, 2009), the voices of ing can address agency relationships; and finally (iv) decrease
concern about the lack of credibility, transparency and consistency information asymmetry and uncertainty (Moroney, Windsor, & Aw,
2012). In sum, within a context in which sustainability information
is certainly questionable or hardly credible, companies can
* Corresponding author. voluntarily initiate a process of verification of this information.
E-mail addresses: jenny_marfe@usal.es (J. Martínez-Ferrero), lajefa@usal.es This check will benefit a variety of agents. The company will
(I.-M. García-Sánchez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.009
0969-5931/ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
J. Martínez-Ferrero,
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
sustainability reports,
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
2 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

legitimize the credibility of the information reported by building Notwithstanding, while neo-institutional ideas are well re-
an effective dialogue with the different stakeholders. To them, hearsed in the literature, an often-forgotten aspect is the criticism
meanwhile, external checking guarantees the reliability of the linked to them. In a recent work, Suddaby (2014) accuses them of
information while reducing the potential information asymmetry
existing between managers, shareholders and stakeholders.
Relative to the assurance demand, the stakeholder theory
defends the need for organizations to interact with a broad set of
stakeholders to ensure their long-term survival through the so-
called “social contract” between firm and society (Deegan et al.,
2006). The “social contract” is the central premise of legitimacy
theory (Deegan, 2002). Considering the more refined concept of
Deephouse and Carter (2005), “a central element of legitimacy
involves meeting and adhering to the expectations of a social
system’s norms, values, rules and meanings”. Thus, according to
legitimacy theory, the management may adopt an assurance
process to legitimatize its sustainability reporting with its key
audiences and society in general (O’Dwyer, Owen, & Unerman,
2011).
The growth of multinational companies in the global market-
place, the importance in the economic and social sphere of
emerging countries and the need for managers, shareholders and
other stakeholders to know and understand the regulations, laws,
norms and social and cultural aspects of different countries have
fostered the application of institutional theory in multiple business
and management studies. According to them, firms are economic
units that operate within contexts formed by a nexus of
institutions that affect their behaviour and impose expectations
on them (Campbell, 2007; Campbell et al., 1991; Roe, 1991). This
institutional environment defines “the rules of the game in a
society or, more formally, the humanly devised constraints that
shape human interaction” (North, 1990). Thus, organizations
operating in countries with similar institutional structures will
adopt homogeneous forms of behaviour (La Porta, López de
Silanes, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1998; Claessens & Fan, 2002; Campbell,
2007). DiMaggio & Powell (1983) name this process “isomor-
phism” and argue that it enhances companies’ stability and
survival, facilitating political power and institutional legitimacy.
Consequently, in the research area of this study, institutional
theory proposes that any company can modify its behaviour
towards sustainability practices, disclosure and subsequent
assurance according to the social environment in which it develops
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977). It is expected that the ensuring of
legitimacy via sustainability assurance may be strongly influenced
by institutional factors (Boiral & Gendron, 2011; Kolk & Perego,
2010; Simnett et al., 2009).
Nowadays, however, this approach is reinforced by neo-
institutional theory, which extends beyond this general notion
and offers a powerful framework for describing isomorphism in
the organization field by incorporating previously ignored
elements, such as cultural values. According to this theory,
legitimacy can be defined as “the degree of cultural support for
an organization” (Meyer & Scott, 1983) by which companies can
gain and enhance support and recognition from their powerful
institutional stakeholders (Fan & Wang, 2010). Companies can gain
or ensure legitimacy as a result of three institutional pressures
related to coercive (such as the law), normative (such as moral
compliance) and mimetic (such as adopting a widely accepted
behaviour in the same industry) isomorphic forces (Kolk & Perego,
2010). Following the neo-institutional approach, ensuring social
legitimacy may represent one of the major reasons for an
organization to adopt an assurance process (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983; Kolk & Perego, 2010), attending to both external and internal
pressures.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
losing their internal coherence as well as disregarding their Sanchez, Cuadrado-Ballesteros, & Frias-Aceituno, 2015; Zhou,
ultimate goal, namely “understanding how and why organizations Simnett, & Green, 2013). Accordingly, in the assurance research
attend, and attach meaning, to some elements of their institutional sphere, one would expect that the weakness or strength of the legal
environments and not others” (Suddaby, 2010). This theory could
lack attention to the process (Suddaby, 2010), individuals and
practices related to the change (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009);
consequently, the development of a logic of those factors that
generate dynamism could be extremely poor. Moreover, research
adopting the neo-institutional approach usually covers extremely
short deadlines, whereby the causal thread is reduced to a series of
relatively discrete and measurable variables (Suddaby & Green-
wood, 2005). In this respect, the use of quantitative methods
focuses on measuring the structures and forms of organization
rather than analysing the significance of the change. Kostova, Roth,
and Dacin (2008) discuss the approach of neo-institutional theory
in the field of multinational companies, arguing that they have
their own intraorganizational field that acts as the institutional
environment for its subsidiaries and that they can exercise agency
to make strategic decisions on organizational practices (Dacin,
Goodstein, & Scott, 2002) without addressing institutional
pressures.
However, despite this controversy, neo-institutional theory is
extensively accepted in the literature (Gürtürk & Hahn, 2015; Ntim
& Soobaroyen, 2013; Smith, Haniffa, & Fairbrass, 2011). The current
study also seeks to extend and apply neo-institutional theory, since
it allows us to explain similarities in the assurance demand across
organizations resulting from isomorphic forces. In practice, it is
necessary to assume certain homogeneity among organizations
and propose a conception that is more dynamic and closer to the
real economy, in which the interdisciplinary approach allows us to
consider legal, political, cultural and socioeconomic arguments
and so on. We adopt the neo-institutional approach, proposing that
compliance with institutional rules creates structural similarities
between organizations and, therefore, isomorphism in sustain-
ability assurance across organizations resulting from coercive,
normative and mimetic factors.
Then, assuming that assurance may be influenced by external
pressures in the search for legitimacy, this study offers an
opportunity to understand how this process may arise from
decisions: (i) to comply with the rules and norms imposed by
external forces coercive isomorphism; (ii) to act in a
professionally correct manner normative isomorphism; and
(iii) to resemble model companies mimetic isomorphism. The
specific research questions that we propose in this research are the
following. Could coercive, normative and mimetic pressures
influence the assurance of sustainability reports? Which is the
relevant institutional force that causes voluntary assurance of
sustainability information to be adopted?
In the following, we break down each of the institutional
isomorphic forces to justify their possible influence on the issue of
assured sustainability information.
1.1. Coercive isomorphism
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define “coercive isomorphism” as

resulting from both formal and informal pressures exerted on
organizations by other organizations upon which they are
dependent, such as the legal regulatory system within which
organizations function, while Peng (2002) defines it as a result of
the informal rules of the game.
In relation to this isomorphism, several studies highlight the
importance of the legal environment in the disclosure and auditing
of information (Francis, Khurana, Martin, & Pereira, 2011; García-
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3
system acts as an influential institutional factor in the demand for from 2008 to 2011 – and Herda, Taylor, and Winterbotham (2014) –
sustainability assurance. Although literature about this topic is for an international sample studied between 2005 and 2009 –
scarce, Perego (2009) in an international study about assurance
providers and the quality of assurance statements and, two years
later, Boiral and Gendron (2011) in their theoretical research
defend the idea that the variability of sustainability assurance
between countries reflects the fact that the legal environment at
the country level acts as a key determinant of coercive isomor-
phism.
Relative to the legal regulatory system, previous studies about
international management, voluntary information or integrated
reporting (Hillier, Pindado, De Queiroz, & De La Torre, 2011; Frías-
Aceituno, Rodríguez-Ariza, & García-Sánchez, 2013; García-Sán-
chez, Rodríguez-Ariza, & Frías-Aceituno, 2013) compare common
versus civil law countries and the strength of the enforcement
mechanism following La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and
Vishny (1997) breakdown as a proxy for the strength of the legal
system. We expand this literature towards the sustainability
assurance area by examining the common–civil law differences
and the efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement mecha-
nisms.
At this stage, some issues arise. Are companies operating in civil
law countries or perhaps companies operating in common law
countries more oriented towards verifying their sustainability
reports? Does the strength of the enforcement mechanism
influence the assurance demand positively or negatively? While
the literature on voluntary disclosure and legal systems is quite
extensive, the results regarding these questions are not unani-
mous. The previous literature related to sustainability assurance is
scarce and limited to the studies cited below.
The classical research question concerning common law and
civil law countries finds a basis for its propositions in La Porta et al.
(1998). According to these authors, investors often enjoy greater
protection of their interests in countries with a common law
system in which a company is considered as an instrument to
create and maximize shareholder value. The literature about
voluntary disclosure agrees by documenting that countries based
on the civil law system show greater commitment to and
orientation towards a coalition of several participants (Ball,
Kothari, & Robin, 2000; Simnett et al., 2009) and thus a greater
preference for economic, social and environmental disclosures
(Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013; García-Sanchez et al., 2015): disclo-
sures containing a higher quality of information (Smith et al.,
2011). Simnett et al. (2009) – for an international sample studied
between 2002 and 2004 – expand the previous studies to
assurance, evidencing that companies domiciled in countries that
are more stakeholder-orientated (the civil law tradition) are more
likely to demand assurance of sustainability reports than compa-
nies domiciled in countries that are more shareholder-orientated
(the common law tradition).
Regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement
control mechanisms, they ensure compliance with regulation and
decrease the information advantage of insiders and shareholders
versus stakeholders (Deffains & Guigou, 2002). Relative to this, we
undertake a comparison between a weak and a strong enforcement
mechanism and the influence on assurance, whereas the previous
literature about voluntary reporting offers mixed results and
distinguishes between the so-called substitution effect and the
complementary effect.
On the one side, Durnev and Kim (2005) established that
companies adopt corporate governance practices as a mechanism
for adapting to poor legal environments, overcoming the effect of
ineffective legal regulation (Choi & Wong, 2007). In the assurance
research, Zhou et al. (2013) – in their study about GHG emissions
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
support the substitutive effect of the assurance process, showing Smith, Adhikari, and Tondkar (2005) argue in their study of
that there is a greater demand to enhance the credibility and Norwegian, Danish and US sustainability reports from 1998 and
transparency of the social and environmental information issued 1999 and Blasco and Zølner (2010) for a sample of Mexican and
in countries where the legal enforcement system is weaker. French firms, management assumptions, organizational structures
Similarly, Perego (2009) – in research based on 2005 as the period
of time analysed – and Kolk and Perego (2010) – in their study of
1999, 2002 and 2005 – confirm that sustainability assurance
services replace poor investor protection.
In contrast, as Doidge, Karolyi, and Stulz (2007) evidence for
corporate governance and transparency practices, the comple-
mentary effect claims that there is a positive association between
strong legal enforcement and social and environmental activities.
Chih, Chih, and Chen (2010) and Frías-Aceituno et al. (2013)
document this complementary role in research about corporate
social performance from 2003 to 2005 and integrated reporting
from 2008 to 2010, respectively. Again, Simnett et al. (2009) extend
this evidence to voluntary assurance. They prove that assurance is
not used as a mechanism to increase credibility in weaker legal
systems using the “rule of law” measure developed by the World
Bank (Kaufmann, 2007). Under a complementary association, it is
expected that companies operating in an institutional setting with
strong legal enforcement aimed at the protection of stakeholders
are more likely to report assured sustainability information.
From the above, showing that the evidence concerning
assurance is scarce, following Simnett et al. (2009), we investigate
the following question: assuming the strength of the legal
regulatory system as the civil law legal tradition and strong
enforcement mechanisms, does coercive force influence sustain-
ability assurance?
1.2. Normative isomorphism
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) relate this force to mandatory

compliance demands and assert that it stems basically from
professionalization, noting that professions are influenced by
coercive and mimetic forces, as are organizations. Accordingly,
organizations could adopt the strategies needed to comply that are
promoted by professionals (Beddewela & Fairbrass, 2015), which
vary according to the company’s culture, norms and values derived
from the national environment (Oliver, 1991).
In this respect, countries at different stages of social and
economic development show different concerns and priorities
(Mueller, 1968). On this point, Xiao, Gao, Heravi, and Cheung
(2005) – for a sample of Hong Kong and US social and
environmental reports from 1993 to 1997 – link the national
environment with the stage of economic and social development,
reflecting its influence on the sustainability reporting policy.
Differentiating between developed and undeveloped countries,
companies from countries with greater social development prefer
to use sustainability information with the aim of avoiding political
costs, ensuring their legitimacy and meeting the needs of the more
powerful stakeholders.
Beyond a comparison between developed and undeveloped
countries, the national culture is related to normative forces, which
contain the prescriptive, evaluative and obligatory dimensions of
social life (Scott, 2008). The moral values that culture imposes on
the business world (Su, 2006) may influence the organizational
strategies, among which is sustainability reporting. Therefore, in
the field of sustainability reporting, the previous literature agrees
in pointing out the influence of the national culture on voluntary
disclosure (Perera & Mathews, 1990; Williams, 1998), since any
organization operates within a cultural system. As Van der Laan
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
and activities are influenced by the national culture, which is credibility. Fernandez-Feijoo, Romero, Ruiz (2014) – for an
reflected in the different orientations towards sustainability international sample of 11 countries from the period 2008–2010
disclosure. Empirically, García-Sanchez et al. (2015) – in an
international comparison of CSR reporting – identify cultural
dimensions as normative pressures and observe that firms from
normative societies are more sensitive to reporting their sustain-
ability performance based on Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural
values.
Nevertheless, what influence does normative force have as
cultural values on sustainability assurance? In the absence of
theoretical or practical references about our research scope, we
might adopt the above arguments for voluntary reporting. Then,
we would expect that the sustainability assurance demand is
positively associated with normative pressures based on the
cultural development of the country where the company operates.
In other words, companies show a greater likelihood of issuing
assured sustainability reports in societies that are more culturally
developed and have a greater sustainability commitment than in
those that are at a less developed cultural stage. Therefore, similar
to the suggestion regarding the prior force, the following research
question is proposed: does normative force influence sustainabili-
ty assurance?
1.3. Mimetic isomorphism
The last institutional force illustrated by DiMaggio and Powell

(1983) references uncertainty as a powerful tool that demands
imitation. This pressure takes places in situations of uncertainty in
which companies may adopt referenced behaviours of other
organizations, industries or countries, modelling themselves on
such behaviours.
Relative to mimetic pressure, the assurance demand may be
influenced by the type of industry as a firm factor. The question
that arises from this pressure is the following: can companies
engage in sustainability assurance strategy as a means of
resembling or mimicking the behaviour of competitors, especially
the leaders in their industry? Extending the arguments of
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) to the assurance demand, companies
would become similar in their reporting assurance through the
process of mimetic isomorphism, thus mitigating the pressures
stemming from the most powerful stakeholders (Patten, 1991).
However, at this stage, the question has not been extensively
examined in the literature. Even so, some references to sustain-
ability reporting and assurance may provide arguments for
proposing our research question.
In the field of voluntary reporting, Cormier, Magnan, and Van
Velthoven (2005) – in their German study from 1992 to 1998 –
show that the level of environmental performance quality is
positively linked to the industry imitation tendencies. That is, a
company may seek to legitimize its strategies by imitating the
social practice carried out by another company that is accepted as a
leader or model in its activity sector. In a study undertaken three
years later, Clarkson et al. (2008) – for a sample of US firms for 2003
– document that companies belonging to industries that are more
sensitive to environmental concerns show a greater preference for
sustainability disclosure than companies operating with less
scrutiny and criticism from stakeholders (Cho & Patten, 2007),
thus legitimizing their operations.
These studies offer us a first approximation of the assurance
research, which has been reinforced and expanded by recent
studies. Simnett et al. (2009) evidence that companies operating in
industries that face greater social and environmental risk show a
greater level of assured sustainability information, using their
assurance statement as a tool for enhancing their reputation and
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
2
Thomson One Analytics delivers a broad range of financial content. This
– conceive the industry as a usual factor that affects sustainability database of finance data integrates Datastream, Worldscope, Extel, IBES, Compustat,
reporting and the transparency measured by the assurance. In a IDC Pricing and A-T Financial News. It is provided by Thomson Reuters.
more recent work, Peters and Romi (2014) examine the impact of
sustainability governance characteristics on the assurance demand
from 2002 to 2010 and confirm that firms exhibit mimetic
isomorphism behaviour. That is, firms become similar in their
assurance practices when faced with greater industry pressure to
adopt this audit statement. However, this research is biased to a
sample of US firms, hence restricting its scope and the
generalizability of the results.
Despite the scarce previous arguments, one would expect that,
whether or not sustainability assurance is assumed as a legitimi-
zation tool (Beddewela & Fairbrass, 2015), companies operating
under strong industry pressure regarding sustainability issues
could be encouraged to disseminate more assured sustainability
information. By doing so, they resemble model companies,
demonstrating that the information that they issue is credible
and transparent (like that issued by the industry leader), moreover
mitigating the reputational risk of bad press.
Finally, the last research question is proposed as follows: does
mimetic force influence sustainability assurance?
In sum, considering isomorphism behaviour as the central
argument of neo-institutional theory, we expect that the assurance
demand of sustainability reports responds to normative, coercive
and mimetic pressures and specifically to the strength of the legal
regulatory system and to the cultural development stage – as
country factors – and to the industry pressure for sustainability –
as a firm factor. Accordingly, the aim of this research is to obtain
results that can support the prediction that companies adopt
sustainability assurance as a pattern of behaviour in response to
external and internal institutional forces, confirming the isomor-
phism developed by the neo-institutional theory.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In
Section 2, the sample, variables, model and analytical technique
are described. The empirical results are presented in Section 3 and
discussed in Section 4. Section 5 concludes.
2. Method
In this section, we describe the data set and present the variables
that we use to capture separately sustainability assurance and the
coercive, normative and mimetic institutional factors, as well as the
control variables. Finally, the methodology and model of analysis
with which we test our predictions are described.
2.1. Data source and sample
The data source was formed based on an initial selection of the

world’s largest 2000 listed firms provided by Forbes,1 a selection that
is widely employed in prior research. We based the composition of
our sample on the information that is available in two databases: (i)
Thomson One Analytics2 for the accounting and financial informa-
1
The FORBES Global 2000 is a comprehensive list of the world’s largest, most
powerful public companies, as measured by revenues, profits, assets and market
value.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
tion provided in consolidated financial statements; and (ii) the 2.2.2. Institutional factors
Ethical Investment Research Services (EIRIS)3 for data on sustain- To represent the institutional forces for explaining the
ability reports. Moreover, we complemented the latter database by voluntary assurance of sustainability reports, we define three
reviewing the reports published by each company on its website. numerical variables, “Legal”, “Culture” and “Industry_Pressure”,
For the initial largest 2000 firms, we included their economic, related to coercive, normative and mimetic aspects, respectively.
financial and accounting data obtained from Thomson One Regarding the coercive force, based on recent papers, such as
Analytics, excluding financial firms due to the different character- those by Hillier et al. (2011), García-Sánchez et al. (2013), and
istics of their equity and because they are not comparable with García-Sanchez et al. (2015), we measure it with a numerical
non-financial firms (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, & Shleifer, 2002). variable, “Legal”. This is the result of the interaction between two
This exclusion meant that our sample was composed, at this stage, sub-indices derived from the country-level governance indices of
of 1560 international non-financial listed companies. Then, we La Porta et al. (1998): (i) “Civil”, which takes the value one if the
combined these firms with their corresponding data on sustain- company is located in a civil law country and zero otherwise; and
ability reports from the EIRIS or from their websites (when they (ii) “Enforcement”, which is the mean value of “EJ” as an index of
were not available from the EIRIS), which finally produced a law and order and “LO” as an index of the efficiency of the judicial
sample composed of 696 companies. Note that all the companies in system, as used by Durnev and Kim (2005) and Doidge et al. (2007),
the sample have published reports related to environmental and/ among others. The law and order index is related to the general
or social performance. applicability and non-arbitrariness of the rules, their understand-
Overall, to test the hypotheses, we use a sample composed of ability, their fairness and so on. The index of judicial efficiency
696 international non-financial companies for the period 2007– identifies the independence and professionalism of the judiciary in
2014–2014 being the last year for which financial and sustainabili- all types of proceedings. Both enforcement mechanisms are
ty information are available. The sample is unbalanced, since full determinants of the protection of the rights of shareholders and
data are not available for all the companies and for all the years, stakeholders. In summary, “Legal” is a numerical variable that only
and it consists of a total of 2752 observations. The companies of the takes values for firms from civil law countries reflecting the
sample are from 16 different countries and an administrative enforcement index derived from the country-level governance
region: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, indices of La Porta et al. (1998).
Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Regarding the normative force, we base our measure on the
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2011), who developed
In addition, these companies operate in different activity sectors, them to explain the general similarities and dissimilarities in
according to the classification provided by the Compustat cultures around the world.
economic activity code. Concretely, it comprises companies Despite Hofstede’s cultural dimensions not being without
engaged in the industrial, materials, services, construction, retail, limitations,4 they are widely used in studies about cultural
transportation, financial, utilities and telecommunications sectors parameters, exerting a significant influence on management and
and, finally, another group of activities not included in the previous business research (García-Sanchez et al., 2015; Ringov & Zollo,
categories. 2007; Van der Laan Smith et al., 2005; Vitell, Paolillo, & Thomas,
The use of companies located in different countries and 2003); moreover, attempts to replicate the cultural indices offer
industries incorporates different degrees of coercive, mimetic inconclusive results (Smith et al., 1996). In addition, in accordance
and normative forces, facilitating the analysis of the institutional with our aim, the use of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions allows us
effects on companies’ decisions and behaviour (García-Sanchez to develop an international comparison of sustainable patterns of
et al., 2015). This approach has been in general use since the behaviour and identify which differences among them can be
pioneering papers of La Porta et al. (1997, 1998, 2002) The final attributed to culture and which differences can be attributed to
country and industry sample is a consequence of the population other institutional causes (Baskerville, 2003).
selection based on the initial group of the largest 2000 firms and At this stage, following the dimensions proposed by Hofstede
the available data, but the countries, industries and companies (2011), the cultural indices adopted refer to power distance,
represent the more active players on the international scene and in individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term
CSR development. orientation and indulgence. Power distance expresses the degree
to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect
2.2. Variables for analysis that power is distributed unequally. Individualism expresses the
preference for a loosely knit social framework in which individuals
2.2.1. Assurance are expected to take care only of themselves and their immediate
For the basic analysis, the dependent variable is “Assurance”, families. Meanwhile, masculinity expresses a preference in society
which is measured as one if the company discloses a sustainability for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for
report with some type of assurance provided by professional success. Uncertainty avoidance expresses the degree to which the
accounts, third-party consultants or environmental engineers, and members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and
internal auditors. This is a common measure in management and ambiguity. Long-term orientation describes the link of every
accounting research (Dhaliwal et al., 2012; Fernandez-Feijoo, society with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the
Romero, Ruiz, 2014; Herda et al., 2014; Peters and Romi, 2014; present and future. Finally, indulgence expresses the extent to
Simnett et al., 2009; Weber, 2014; Wong & Millington, 2014). which people try to control their desires and impulses. Indulgent
3
The EIRIS is a leading global provider of independent research on the
environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of companies. It is an
independent research organization serving investors that provides non-financial
information on companies’ environmental, social and ethical policy and practice. It
provides comprehensive research on over 3000 companies globally and offers
consistent, comparable data on over 110 different ESG areas, including board
practice, bribery and corruption, managing environmental and climate change
impacts, human rights and supply chain labour standards.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
4
The major criticisms of Hofstede’s dimensions arise from: (i) the cultural
homogeneity across nations, which is expected to be low (Baskerville, 2005); (ii) the
treatment of culture as implicit, core, systematically causal, unique and shared
(McSweeney, 2002); (iii) the claim of immutability of cultures (Baskerville, 2003;
Beugelsdijk, Maseland, & Hoorn, 2015; House et al., 2004; McSweeney, 2002;); (iv)
inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology (Ailon, 2008); and (v)
the data, which are focused on a single firm, IBM (Avloniti and Filippaios, 2014).
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17

countries and societies possess a positive attitude and have a in this respect (Dhaliwal et al., 2012; Perego, 2009; Weber, 2014):
tendency towards optimism. corporate size and leverage, growth opportunities and industry.
In line with the above, the cultural dimension variables are the Company size (Size) is measured by the logarithm of the total
following (the data are available on the Geert HofstedeTM Cultural assets. The level of firm leverage (Leverage) represents the debt or
Dimensions website): (i) “Power_distance”, which is a numerical non-compliance risk, measured as the ratio of total debt to total
variable that represents the level of hierarchy within a society; (ii) equity. Growth opportunities (Growth) are measured as the
“Individualism”, which is a numerical variable that reflects the market to book value ratio. In addition, the results should be
prevalence of individual values compared with group values; (iii) controlled by industry effects (Industryj), regional effects (Coun-
“Masculinity”, which is a numerical variable that represents the tryk) and temporal effects (Yearn). In the three cases, we use
level of male orientation; (iv) “Uncertainty_avoidance”, which is a dummy variables to represent the different activity sectors,
numerical variable that identifies the level of uncertainty countries and years.
avoidance; (v) “Long_term_orientation”, which is a numerical
variable that represents the orientation of a society towards the 2.3. Methodology
future; and (vi) “Indulgence”, which is a numerical variable that
expresses the extent to which a society is socialized. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of coercive,
Table 1 summarizes the bivariate correlations between the normative and mimetic isomorphic factors on the likelihood that a
variables intended for analysis. The coefficients obtained are highly firm will report assured sustainability information. To this end, we
correlated among the six variables. choose a quantitative research method that aims to collect and
To correct the multicollinearity problems, we follow the analyse quantitative data on variables while studying the
previous approach of García-Sanchez et al. (2015) and group all association or relationship between quantified variables. The
the dimensions into a global variable, “Culture”. This is created by choice of the quantitative research method arises from its
calculating the mean value of these six dimensions by country. We advantages. It is confirmatory, inferential and deductive; uses
use the regional score of each of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions statistical methods to analyse the data; uses statistical inference
because the country scores are relative owing to societies being procedures to generalize the findings from a sample to a defined
compared with each other (Akman, 2011). Note that the aim of this population; generates numerical data to represent situations;
variable is to represent the cultural system development as the generalizes facts or data because it makes inferences beyond the
normative force. Accordingly, we consider the value of the data; performs pervasive and controlled measurement; is objec-
dimensions related to power distance and indulgence but the tive; observes causal relationships; and tests theories or hypothe-
inverse value of the dimensions related to power distance, ses, among others (Bryman, Becker, & Sempik, 2008; Creswell,
individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Thus, the 2002). Thus, by using a quantitative research method, the findings
higher the level of the “Culture” variable, the higher the level of of this study can allow us to test the hypotheses proposed and
cultural system development and therefore the greater the confirm the neo-institutional theory adopted in this paper, at the
pressure of the normative force. same time that they can be generalized to an international sample.
Regarding the mimetic force, we follow the approach of Peters In quantitative research, mathematical models predict relation-
and Romi (2014) in their study of sustainability assurance ships that can establish, develop, strengthen and review the
determinants for US firms. To analyse the impact of mimetic existing theory. Accordingly, to analyse the relationships proposed
isomorphism as a determinant of the voluntary assurance of CSR in this study, regression and prediction techniques may offer new
reports, we measure “Industry_Pressure” as a cumulative measure visions to managers to discover patterns and relationships that
– over time – that represents the number of companies that have they have not previously considered in their decision to verify
provided assurance of their corporate sustainability reports within sustainability reports. Specifically, the regression analysis involves
each activity sector by year. Therefore, it is considered the pressure studying the relationship between a set of independent variables
of a company to adopt a voluntary assurance process to mimic and or predictors (X) and a dependent variable or response variable (Y).
resemble the behaviour of other competitors. This allows us to investigate whether there is an association
between the variables by testing the hypothesis of statistical
2.2.3. Control variables independence; to study the strength of the association by the
In addition, to eliminate bias from the results, we consider a set correlation coefficient; and to examine the form of the relationship
of control variables that have previously been shown to be effective having predicted the value of a variable from another. As such, we
propose models that relate a dependent variable (Y) to indepen-
dent variables (X).
Table 1
The econometric models used are based on dependence
Bivariate correlations between culture variables.
“Power_distance” is a numerical variable that represents the level of hierarchy
techniques for panel data, that is, repeated observations of the
within a society; “Individualism” is a numerical variable that reflects the prevalence cross-section of companies over time. As noted, our sample is
of individual values compared with group values; “Masculinity” is a numerical composed of 696 international firms from 8 periods of time (from
variable that represents the level of male orientation; “Uncertainty_avoidance” is a 2007 to 2014). The use of a panel data set allows us to overcome the
numerical variable that identifies the level of uncertainty avoidance; “Long_-
limitations of cross-sectional (several companies in a period of
term_orientation” is a numerical variable that represents the orientation of a
society towards the future; “Indulgence” is a numerical variable that expresses the time) and time-series analysis (one company for several periods),
extent to which a society is socialized. especially those related to their low explanatory capacity, which is
closely related to the period of analysis considered. Panel data
1 2 3 4 5 6
models provide greater consistency and explanatory power by
1. Power_distance
considering several time periods (Petersen, 2009). In addition, this
2. Individualism 0.5557
3. Masculinity 0.172 0.1253
technique allows us to control for unobservable heterogeneity,
4. 0.4815 0.4465 0.1988 which refers to the particular behaviour and characteristics of each
Uncertainty_avoidance company included in the sample. These characteristics differ
5. 0.3167 0.535 0.2101 0.5561 among companies but are invariant over time, making it difficult to
Long_term_orientation
measure them because they are unobservable to the researchers.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
6. Indulgence 0.6665 0.7913 0.1603 0.4922 0.5336

However, if we do not take them into account, the results could be
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
biased. Thus, unobservable heterogeneity is controlled for by Xi

modelling it as an individual effect, hi, which is then eliminated by
pi
taking the first differences of the variables. logit ðpi Þ ¼ ln ¼ b 0 þ b 1 x1;i þ . . . : þ b k x k;i :
1 pi
Moreover, panel data allow us to study the dynamics of cross-
sectional firms as well as to eliminate the bias of aggregation that Note that a particular element of X i may be set to one for all i
arises when time-series analyses are used to characterize the obtained in a constant independent model. The unknown
behaviour of individuals. The panel data methodology has parameters bj are usually estimated by maximum likelihood. A
additional advantages that enhance the possible econometric positive sign for the coefficient implies that the variable increases
specifications as well as the parameter estimation, for example the likelihood that the dependent variables codes as one.
more informative data, greater variability, less collinearity among Practically, the idea is that logistic regression approximates the
variables, more degrees of freedom and greater efficiency than probability of “zero” (no assurance of sustainability reports) or
cross-section or time-period methods (Pindado & Requejo, 2015). “one” (assurance of sustainability reports) with the value of the
Therefore, we apply different regression models to the panel explanatory variable x (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000). Under these
data, for which the decision regarding which analysis technique to conditions, the approximate probability of the event will be
use depends on the nature of the dependent variable and the type determined using the logistic function of the type:
of function that is proposed to relate X and Y. In this case, because
the dependent variable proposed for this study, “Assurance”, is eðb0 þb1 xÞ 1
pðxÞ ¼ ðb0 þb1 xÞ ¼
coded one if a firm’s sustainability report is assurance and zero e þ 1 e ðb0 þb1 xÞ þ 10
otherwise, it is necessary to use a panel data methodology that is
which can be reduced to the calculation of a linear regression
appropriate for variables presenting zero and one values, that is,
for the logit probability function:
for dummy variables. Thus, the analytical technique is based on a
logistic (logit) regression model, a binary probability model widely p ðx Þ
adopted in sustainability assurance (Fernandez-Feijoo, Romero, & gðxÞ ¼ ln ¼ b0 þ b1 x:
1 pðxÞ
Ruiz, 2015; Herda et al., 2014; Peters & Romi, 2014; Simnett et al.,
2009) and business researches (Cho, Huang, & Padmanabhan,
2014; Cowan, Huang, Padmanabhan, & Wang, 2013). Specifically, 2.4. Two-stage logit model using indices to measure coercive,
the binomial or binary logistic regression deals with situations in normative and mimetic forces
which the observed outcome for a dependent variable can have
only two possible types, like the dependent variable in this study. Having described the methodology and particular character-
Then, this technique is well suitable for this case, where the istics of logit regression which make it suitable for this paper, we
phenomenon to be explained can only be measured as zero and follow the two-stage logit model employed by Francis et al. (2011)
one alternatives (Cowan et al., 2013). That is, a first possibility is to analyse the effects of firm incentives and country factors on the
that the firm assures its sustainability report (our dependent explanation of voluntary assurance services. By adopting this
variable codes as one), while a second possibility is that the firm approach, we can identify the most relevant institutional force due
does not externally verified its sustainability report (our depen- to which an assurance statement is reported. As Francis et al.
dent variable so codes as zero). (2011) defend, the advantage of this research design is that we can
Logistic regression measures the relationship between the test directly whether the explanatory variables are weighted
categorical dependent variable and one or more independent differently in the prediction of the dependent variable. Thus, this
variables, which are usually (but not necessarily) continuous, using technique is suitable in the case in hands for two main reasons: (i)
probability scores as the predicted values of the dependent first, because of it employs logistic regressions that consider the
variable. Thus, it treats the same set of problems as probit dichotomous phenomenon of our dependent variable: sustain-
regression using similar techniques; the first assumes a logistic ability assurance; and (ii) second, because of it allows us to
function and the second a standard normal distribution function. formally test if the set of coercive, normative and mimetic factors
Specifically, logistic regression is used to predict the odds of are equally weighted in explaining a firm’s decision to assure its
being a case based on the values of the independent variables sustainability report.
(predictors). The odds are defined as the probability that a By employing this technique, the following two steps are
particular outcome is a case divided by the probability that it is a required: (i) first, we measure the effect of coercive, normative and
non-case. Thus, logistic regression analyses binomially distributed mimetic forces in explaining the voluntary assurance of sustain-
data of the following form: ability reports; and (ii) second, we determine which force has the
most explanatory power in explaining assurance through the
Yi Bðpi ; ni Þ; f or i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; predictive values of each force rather than individual variables.
where the number of Bernoulli trials ðni Þ is known and the Overall, the process of analysis is divided into two stages to
probability of success ðpi Þ is unknown. examine the relative weighting of the institutional forces (based on
The model is then calculated based on what each trial (the value legal and cultural system development at the country level and
of i) and the set of explanatory/independent variables can inform industry pressure for assurance) in the choice of a firm regarding
us about the final probability. These explanatory variables can be the verification of its sustainability reports.
thought of as a k-dimensional vector X i, and the model then takes
the following form: 2.4.1. First-stage logit model
The aim of the first stage is to develop the indices from the first
pi ¼ E
Yi
jX : logit model estimation that use coercive force (the “Legal”
ni i variable), normative force (the “Culture” variable) and mimetic
force (the “Industry_Pressure” variable) as instruments to deter-
The logits of the unknown binomial probabilities (i.e., the
mine the predicted values of assurance based on the coercive
logarithms of the odds ratios) are modelled as a linear function of
aspect alone in (1), the normative aspect alone in (2) and the
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
mimetic aspect alone in (3): behaves in the same way, but in the case that these coefficients are
not equal, some of the aspects can behave differently and can
ProbðAssurance1Þ ¼ g0 þ g1 Legalit þ mit þ hi ð1Þ
explain assurance in a greater or lesser extent than the rest.
2.4.3. Robust logit model

ProbðAssurance1Þ ¼ a0 þ a1 Cultureit þ mit þ hi ð2Þ
The subsequent model incorporates a robust logistic regression
to test coercive, normative and mimetic forces jointly with a firm’s
decision to use voluntary assurance services. The aim of this robust
ProbðAssurance1Þ ¼ d0 þ d1 IndustryPressureit þ mit þ hi ð3Þ model is to test the association of different institutional forces with
where i ranges from company 1 to company 696; t takes the values the probability of having assured sustainability reports without
of the years from 2007 to 2014; g; aandd represent the estimating considering predictive values:
parameters; hi, represents the unobservable heterogeneity; and ProbðAssurance1Þ ¼ #0 þ #1 Legalit þ #2 Cultureit
mit represents the classical error term.
þ#3 IndustryPressureit þ #4 Sizeit þ #5 Leverageit
X 15
2.4.2. Second-stage logit model þ #6 Growthit þ # Industryi
j¼7 j
X32 X40
The predicted value for each observation in the logit model þ # Countryi þ #n Yeart þ mit þ hi ð5Þ
k¼16 k n¼33
estimation of (1) is based on coercive forces and is denoted as
L_Score; the predicted value for each observation in the logit model where # represents the estimating parameters.
estimation of (2) is based on normative forces and is denoted as
C_Score; and, finally, the predicted value for each observation in 3. Results
the logit model estimation of (3) is based on mimetic forces and is
denoted as I_Score. In more detail, the indices calculated (L_Score, 3.1. Descriptive statistics
C_Score and I_Score) take values between zero and one represent-
ing the probability that a company assures its sustainability reports Table 2 shows the sample distribution by year and country. As
as a result of instruments from coercive, normative and mimetic may be noted, the higher percentages refer to the years from 2013
forces, respectively. and 2014, making up 35.56% of the observations. In relation to
These predicted scores are now used in the second-stage logit geographic diversity, 32.70% of the observations belong to firms
model to determine which of the forces analysed shows the located in the US, followed by 13.63% related to UK firms. The
greatest predictive power in the choice of assurance. Thus, the remaining observations are evenly distributed among the other
second logit model employs L_Score, C_Score and I_Score and the countries and years analysed.
control variables as follows: Table 3 reports for each country and year the frequency of
“Assurance”, which captures whether a firm’s sustainability
ProbðAssurance1Þ ¼ b0 þ b1 LScoreit þ b2 CScoreit þ b3 IScoreit
reports are verified by an assurance process. First of all, a total
þb4 Sizeit þ Probb5 Leverageit þ b6 Growthit of 2752 environmental, social and/or sustainability reports were
X15 X32 X40 published in the period examined, increasing from 178 to 523 in
þ b Industryi þ k¼16 b k Countryi þ n¼33 b nYeart
j¼7 j our panel. Of these 2752 observations in our sample belonging to
þmit þ hi ð4Þ 696 international companies, 1064 sustainability reports are
accompanied by assurance, accounting for 38.67%.
where L_Score is the prediction of having assured sustainability As displayed in Table 3, there is substantial variation across
reports as a result of coercive forces (legal system); C_Score is the countries. Our descriptive data show that the assurance of
prediction of having assured sustainability reports as a result of sustainability remains limited in US firms. There is a low rate of
normative forces (cultural system); I_Score is the prediction of assurance adoption in US firms, in which there is a greater
having assured sustainability reports as a result of mimetic forces shareholder orientation and less of a tendency to make voluntary
(industry pressure); and b represents the estimating parameters. disclosures (Simnett et al., 2009; KPMG, 2013; Zhou et al., 2013).
As was noted, the advantage of this research design is that it can Many countries (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the
directly test if coercive, normative and mimetic forces are Netherlands and Norway) fall into the range of 30% to 40% of
weighted differently; that is, it test if legal forces, cultural values assured sustainability reports. The countries where the rate of
and industry pressures are equally weighted in the assurance assurance to total observations is higher than 50% include
demand. If b1 ; b2 and b3 are equal, each institutional aspect Switzerland, Italy, Spain and the UK, on the one hand, and Hong
Table 2
Sample distribution.
Distribution of observations by year
Total 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2752 178 252 287 334 274 445 459 523

100% 6.44% 9.12% 10.39% 12.09% 9.92% 16.17% 16.62% 18.94%
Distribution of observations by country
Total Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Hong Kong Italy
2752 29 240 45 96 115 156 33 192

100% 1.05% 8.72% 1.64% 3.49% 4.18% 5.67% 1.20% 6.98%
Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland UK USA
147 85 31 215 70 23 375 900
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
5. 34% 3.09% 1.136% 7.81% 2.54% 0.84% 13.63% 32.70%
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
Table 3
Assurance of CSR reports by country and by year.
Country Year
Not assurance Assurance Total Not assurance Assurance Total
Belgium 20 9 29 2007 108 70 178

Canada 152 88 240 2008 159 93 252
Denmark 28 17 45 2009 188 99 287
Finland 59 37 96 2010 236 98 334
France 76 39 115 2011 185 89 274
Germany 79 77 156 2012 139 306 445
Hong Kong 11 22 33 2013 184 275 459
Italy 91 101 192 2014 196 327 523
Japan 79 68 147 Total 1688 1064 2752
Netherlands 57 28 85
Norway 21 10 31
Spain 100 115 215
Sweden 53 17 70
Switzerland 4 19 23
UK 183 192 375
USA 675 225 900
Total 1688 1064 2752
Kong, on the other hand. Given the strong demand for more USA 0 0 9.54 15.68 37.25
transparent and credible information on sustainable performance,

these results confirm the greater proportion of reports with an
assurance system in the case of firms located in European and
Asian countries and a lower level of adoption for US firms (Kolk &
Perego, 2010).
On the other hand, regarding the yearly frequency, the results
show an increase from 39% of sustainability reports in 2007 to 62%
in 2014. This supports the previous data of the KPMG (2013) report,
which analyses the increase in the amount of sustainability reports
that are certified by an assurance provider. Companies are adopting
an assurance process to clarify their sustainability reports and to
increase their transparency and credibility despite their non-
mandatory aspect.
Table 4 reports the country-level means of the institutional
variables for each of the 17 countries of the sample. With respect to
the breakdown of common law versus civil law countries, Canada,
Hong Kong, the UK and the US are the countries characterized by a
Table 4
Institutional factors by country.
“Legal” is a numerical variable that only takes values for firms from civil law
countries reflecting the enforcement index derived from the country-level
governance indices of La Porta et al. (1998); “Culture” is a numerical variable
indicative of the level of cultural system development as normative isomorphism–
as the mean value of long term orientation and indulgence and the inverse of
individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance and power distance-.
“Industry_Pressure” is a numerical variable indicative of the level of industry
pressure as mimetic isomorphism proxies by a cumulative variable indicating the
number of companies that have provided assurance of their corporate sustainability
reports within each activity sector by year .
Country Legal Civil Enforcement Culture Industry_Pressure
Belgium 9.75 1 9.44 23.18 48.86

Canada 0 0 9.75 17.35 39.83
Denmark 9.94 1 9.94 17.53 39.09
Finland 10.00 1 10.00 15.85 49.82
France 8.68 1 8.68 18.51 41.62
Germany 9.05 1 9.05 20.51 46.24
Hong Kong 0 0 8.91 13.02 22.42
Italy 7.07 1 7.07 15.18 39.32
Japan 9.17 1 9.17 21.68 51.52
Netherlands 9.98 1 9.98 22.52 28.92
Norway 10.00 1 10.00 15.03 62.55
Spain 7.14 1 7.14 15.35 22.16
Sweden 10.00 1 10.00 21.88 32.31
Switzerland 10.00 1 10.00 23.35 66.69
UK 0 0 9.22 20.01 30.33
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
shareholder perspective (common law), and Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden and Switzerland have a more stakeholder-oriented,
communitarian approach (civil law). Regarding the level of
enforcement control mechanisms as a measure of the quality of
the national legal environment, Finland, Norway, Sweden and
Switzerland are the countries with strong protection of share-
holders’ and stakeholders’ rights, while Spain and Italy have a
weaker legal system.
With regard to the cultural dimension measured through the
country-level cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (related
to power distance, collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoid-
ance, long-term orientation and indulgence aspects), Belgium and
Switzerland are the countries that reflect greater cultural
development according to Hofstede’s cultural values. Meanwhile,
the results highlight the lower national culture values of Hong
Kong and the US.
Finally, regarding the assurance pressure for sustainability
reports at the industry level, in countries like Switzerland, Norway
and Belgium, the pressure for ensuring the legitimacy of
organizational actions may be strongly justified by resembling
the behaviour of companies that are accepted as a leader or model
in their industry. Meanwhile, in countries like Hong Kong and
Spain, this pressure is lower, also derivative of the low rate of
assurance reports.
Table 5 shows the bivariate correlations between the variables
used in the model. In no case are high values obtained for the
coefficients between dependent and independent variables or
between independent variables.
Table 6 provides descriptive statistics for the variables included
in the analysis for the full sample and separately for assured and
not-assured sustainability reports. Regarding institutional factors,
these descriptive statistics show that companies with assurance
reports have higher mean values of “Legal” (3.144 for no assurance
versus 4.015 for assurance), “Culture” (17.431 for no assurance
versus 17.806 for assurance) and “Industry_Pressure” (36.230 for
no assurance versus 39.553 for assurance). Based on these
preliminary data, companies that operate in countries with a
stronger legal system and cultural development, and moreover
that belong to an activity sector with greater pressure to achieve
sustainability and its verification, have a higher likelihood of
reporting assured sustainability information. With respect to the
control variables, for example, our sample of companies that
assure their sustainability reports is larger, with a mean logarithm
of assets value of 15.810, than those firms that do not assure them,
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
Table 5
Bivariate correlations.
“Assurance” is coded one if the company discloses its sustainability report with some type of assurance provided by professional accounts, third-party consultants or
environmental engineers, and internal auditors zero otherwise;“Legal” is a numerical variable that only takes values for firms from civil law countries reflecting the
enforcement index derived from the country-level governance indices of La Porta et al. (1998); “Culture” is a numerical variable indicative of the level of cultural system
development as normative isomorphism– as the mean value of long term orientation and indulgence and the inverse of individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
and power distance-. “Industry_Pressure” is a numerical variable indicative of the level of industry pressure as mimetic isomorphism proxies by a cumulative variable
indicating the number of companies that have provided assurance of their corporate sustainability reports within each activity sector by year . Controls include corporate
size as the natural logarithm of assets- and leverage the ratio of total debt to total equity-, growth opportunities proxies as the ratio market to book-, and industry as a
multinomial variable that represents the sector of activity-.
Assurance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Legal 0.1431
2. Culture 0.1045 0.2542
3. Industry_Pressure 0.0672 0.0837 0.0285
4. Size 0.1816 0.0197 0.0998 0.0607
5. Leverage 0.0269 0.0504 0.0051 0.0114 0.0878
6. Growth 0.0365 0.0007 0.0136 0.0262 0.0095 0.0715
7. Industry 0.0448 0.0008 0.0466 0.4884 0.0259 0.0209 0.0458
with a mean value of 15.331. Thus, larger companies that tend to be Model 1 introduces “Legal” as an explanatory variable of the
more visible and therefore more susceptible to public scrutiny and likelihood of assured sustainability reports. The results show that
institutional pressures adopt assurance systems (Simnett et al., the legal environment, as a coercive force, exerts a positive impact
2009). The level of total debt to total equity, as a leverage measure, (coef. 0.122), which is significant at the 99% level in the adoption of
is also higher for companies with assurance (1.681 for no assurance assurance of social and/or environmental information. From the
versus 2.366 for assurance). This may show a preference for results of the first predictive model, it appears, as expected, that
increased credibility of sustainability reports under pressure from companies operating in more stakeholder-oriented countries are
debt creditors for more credible, transparent and reliable more likely to assure their sustainability reports. In other words,
information (Herda et al., 2014). companies located in civil law countries with a strong legal
enforcement system react positively by providing an assurance
3.2. Results of the dependency logit models statement in their voluntary reports as a means of: (i) satisfying
stakeholders’ demands; (ii) providing more credible information;
Table 7 presents the results of estimating models 1–4 using the and (iii) decreasing the information asymmetry that arises from
full sample of 696 international companies. The first 3 models the agency conflict between managers, shareholders and stake-
incorporate the coercive, normative and mimetic pressures – holders.
without control variables – to develop the predicted values of Model 2 focuses on normative pressure. In this case, “Culture”,
assurance, which will then be used in the second-stage logit model as a proxy for the cultural development at the country level, also
to determine the explanatory power of each one. The fourth model has a positive impact on the assurance process (coef. 0.130,
tests these predicted values, which represent the probability of significant at 95%). This result also provides evidence that the
assurance between 0 and 1 as explanatory variables, to show which voluntary demand of assurance is significantly influenced by the
have a greater predictive power regarding the assurance demand cultural development stage of the country in which the company
together with the control variables. operates. That is, based on Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural
values, companies are more likely to have an assured sustainability
Table 6
report if they are domiciled in societies that have a greater
Descriptive statistics. orientation towards the future, are more socialized, less individu-
“Assurance” is coded one if the company discloses its sustainability report with alized and male-oriented and have lower levels of uncertainty
some type of assurance provided by professional accounts, third-party consultants avoidance and hierarchy, that is, in societies that are more
or environmental engineers, and internal auditors zero otherwise;“Legal” is a
concerned about stakeholders’ demands and thus about sustain-
numerical variable that only takes values for firms from civil law countries
reflecting the enforcement index derived from the country-level governance ability issues.
indices of La Porta et al. (1998); “Culture” is a numerical variable indicative of the Finally, Model 3 considers the positive influence of mimetic
level of cultural system development as normative isomorphism– as the mean isomorphism, showing the adoption of assurance as a result of an
value of long term orientation and indulgence and the inverse of individualism, imitating behaviour of the “model or leader” competitor (coef.
masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance and power distance-. “Industry_Pressure” is
a numerical variable indicative of the level of industry pressure as mimetic
0.005, significant at 90%). Thus, it appears that the decision to
isomorphism proxies by a cumulative variable indicating the number of assure sustainability reports also depends on the level of social and
companies that have provided assurance of their corporate sustainability reports environmental orientation present in the specific industry in
within each activity sector by year . Controls include corporate size as the natural which companies operate. Companies are more predisposed to
logarithm of assets- and leverage the ratio of total debt to total equity-, growth
issue an assurance statement with their sustainability report under
opportunities proxies as the ratio market to book-, and industry as a
multinomial variable that represents the sector of activity-. greater industry pressure regarding social and environmental
concerns. This behaviour appears to respond to the aim of
Full Sample Assurance = 0 Assurance = 1
resembling model competitors as well as avoiding the reputational
Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error risk of bad press. Imagine, for example, a group of energy sector
Legal 3.474 4.290 3.144 4.255 4.015 4.293 companies that are strongly committed to environmental issues:
Culture 17.576 2.543 17.431 2.467 17.806 2.646 how could the media classify a company in this sector that, unlike
Industry_Pressure 37.379 33.836 36.230 33.578 39.553 34.125
its competitors, does not check its sustainability report? These
Size 15.516 2.265 15.331 2.160 15.810 2.393
companies, as well as those that operate under greater scrutiny
Leverage 1.944 14.142 1.681 17.157 2.366 6.933
Growth 0.002 0.018 0.002 0.022 0.003 0.009 from stakeholders, are more predisposed to report assured
Industry 4.292 2.487 4.389 2.523 4.139 2.421 sustainability information as a legitimating tool of their actions
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
Table 7
The impact of coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism on sustainability assurance.
This table shows the results of the logit regressions proposed in models 1–4.
“Assurance” is coded one if the company discloses its sustainability report with some type of assurance provided by professional accounts, third-party consultants or
environmental engineers, and internal auditors zero otherwise;“Legal” is a numerical variable that only takes values for firms from civil law countries reflecting the
enforcement index derived from the country-level governance indices of La Porta et al. (1998); “Culture” is a numerical variable indicative of the level of cultural system
development as normative isomorphism– as the mean value of long term orientation and indulgence and the inverse of individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
and power distance-. “Industry_Pressure” is a numerical variable indicative of the level of industry pressure as mimetic isomorphism proxies by a cumulative variable
indicating the number of companies that have provided assurance of their corporate sustainability reports within each activity sector by year . Controls include corporate
size as the natural logarithm of assets- and leverage the ratio of total debt to total equity-, growth opportunities proxies as the ratio market to book-, and industry as a
multinomial variable that represents the sector of activity-. We also include country and time indicators. ***, ** and * indicate significance at a level of 1%, 5% and 10%
respectively.
“Assurance” Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Coef. Std. Error Coef. Std. Error Coef. Std. Error Coef. Std. Error
Legal 0.122*** 0.032

Culture 0.130** 0.049
Industry_Pressure 0.005* 0.003
L_Score 0.980*** 0.326
C_Score 1.165** 0.567
I_Score 0.898 0.761
Size 0.437*** 0.109
Leverage 0.031* 0.018
Growth 39.119* 22.21
Industry 0.032 0.070
Country Controlled Controlled
Year Controlled Controlled
rho 0.748 0.014 0.736 0.013 0.736 0.013 0.729 0.016
/sigma_e 2.278 0.072 2.216 0.068 2.219 0.068 2.184 0.083
/sigma_u 3.124 0.113 3.028 0.103 3.034 0.103 2.979 0.123
_cons 1.742*** 0.172 3.434*** 0.882 1.355*** 0.182 4.513** 2.088
at the same time as avoiding damaging press for not assuring their
reports.
In sum, our findings support the following: at the country level,
the higher the strength of the legal system and cultural
development, the higher the likelihood of assured sustainability
reports. At the firm level, the higher the level of social and
environmental concern in the industry in which companies
operate, the higher the likelihood of assured sustainability reports.
Regarding Model 4, and taking as a reference the model
developed by Francis et al. (2011), the predicted values from
Models 1, 2 and 3 are considered to determine the institutional
factors that have greater explanatory power regarding the
likelihood of assuring sustainability reports. Moreover, the control
variables as defined in the method section are included to
avoid biased results. As noted, by adopting this two-stage
approach, we can examine in conjunction the relevance of each
institutional force to explaining the assurance demand. Does
coercive force play a more outstanding role in the assurance
decision than mimetic force? Maybe mimetic pressure is the most
relevant institutional force?
From the results of Model 4 considering these predicted values
(L_Score, C_Score and L_Score), the stage of the national culture is
the isomorphic force that exerts the greatest predictive power in
the assurance demand (coef. 1.1165), followed by the stage of the
legal system (coef. 0.980) and contrary to the mimetic force, which
is not significant. The results of this model offer an approximation
of the different prediction powers of the three factors. Specifically,
the country-level factors are those that exert the greatest influence
on the assurance decision, relegating the industry factor to the
second position. Thus, one would expect a Swedish company
operating in a sector with a lower level of social and environmental
commitment to be less likely to report assured sustainability
information. However, the reality is quite different. In fact, this
company will show a greater likelihood of assuring its voluntary
information by attending to the institutional legal and cultural
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
context in which it operates. Why? The answer is because Sweden

has a civil law tradition with a strong legal mechanism as well as a
widely developed culture. Based on our results, it is expected that
coercive and normative aspects exert a greater influence on
assurance adoption than the mimetic aspect, in this case the
industry pressure effect.
To obtain robust results for the previously shown second-stage
logit model, an additional and robust Model 5 is proposed in
Table 8. This considers “Legal” and “Culture” as country-effect
variables and “Industry_Pressure” as an industry-effect variable.
The findings of this model support the previous evidence; the
different country-specific factors exert positive pressure on the
assurance demand. Concretely, the legal system (civil law countries
with strong enforcement control mechanisms) positively influen-
ces the likelihood of assurance of social and/or environmental
information (coef. 0.120, significant at 99%). Meanwhile, the
cultural stage (societies characterized by collectivism, feminism,
indulgence, long-term orientation, a low level of uncertainty
avoidance and power distance values) also has a positive impact on
assurance (coef. 0.152, significant at 95%). However, again, the
institutional factor related to mimetic isomorphism is not
significant in the assurance process, which confirms that country
factors exert a greater influence on the assurance decision. The
coefficients of the first two variables confirm the above results:
national culture as a normative force exerts greater pressure for
assurance. These results are further consistent with the notion that
assurance can act complementarily to strong country-level
institutional mechanisms. Under strong legal systems and cultural
values, the number of sustainability reports assured increases.
As in the previous models, the control variables highlight the
positive and negative association between corporate size and
leverage and assurance demand, respectively. Larger companies
are more visible and therefore more susceptible to public scrutiny
and institutional pressures to adopt assurance systems, while more
indebted companies decrease the likelihood of a voluntary
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17

Table 8 country factors, than by mimetic pressure, namely by the firm
Robust analysis. The impact of coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism on factor.
sustainability assurance.
This table shows the results of Logit regression proposed in model 5 as robust
analysis.
“Assurance” is coded one if the company discloses its sustainability report with
some type of assurance provided by professional accounts, third-party consultants
or environmental engineers, and internal auditors zero otherwise;“Legal” is a
numerical variable that only takes values for firms from civil law countries
reflecting the enforcement index derived from the country-level governance
indices of La Porta et al. (1998); “Culture” is a numerical variable indicative of the
level of cultural system development as normative isomorphism– as the mean
value of long term orientation and indulgence and the inverse of individualism,
masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance and power distance-. “Industry_Pressure” is
a numerical variable indicative of the level of industry pressure as mimetic
isomorphism proxies by a cumulative variable indicating the number of
companies that have provided assurance of their corporate sustainability reports
within each activity sector by year . Controls include corporate size as the natural
logarithm of assets- and leverage the ratio of total debt to total equity-, growth
opportunities proxies as the ratio market to book-, and industry as a
multinomial variable that represents the sector of activity-. We also include
country and time indicators.
***, ** and * indicate significance at a level of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.
“Assurance” Model 5
Coef. Std. Error
Legal 0.120*** 0.040

Culture 0.152** 0.074
Industry_Pressure 0.005 0.004
Size 0.437*** 0.110
Leverage 0.031* 0.018
Growth 39.119* 22.212
Industry 0.032 0.070
Country Controlled Controlled
Year Controlled
Controlled rho 0.730
0.016
/sigma_e 2.184 0.083
/sigma_u 2.980 0.123
_cons 11.439*** 2.168
assurance demand. Our results are in accordance with those

documented by Simnett et al. (2009) and Moroney et al. (2012),
who evidence the positive impact of size on the assurance of
corporate sustainability reports, and are contrary to evidence
obtained by Herda et al. (2014), who document a positive link
between leverage and external assurance.
4. Discussion of the results and implications
Through the lens of neo-institutional theory, this section now

discusses the analysed determinants of assurance statements
considering our findings and the evidence offered by the previous
literature, as well as our main theoretical and practical implica-
tions.
4.1. Discussion of the results
Based on the explanatory power of the three institutional

aspects, our findings support the prediction that voluntary
assurance of sustainability reports could be a legitimization tool
implemented by companies in response to institutional pressures
(Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Kolk & Perego, 2010; Simnett et al.,
2009). The results suggest that sustainability reports are more
likely to be assured in stronger legal and cultural countries and in
more sustainable industries. Nonetheless, our results further
suggest that sustainability assurance is ultimately more influenced
by normative and coercive isomorphic pressures, that is, by
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
From the above, this study contributes to a better understand- obviously, by examining the three institutional forces not only the
ing of the nature of the sustainability assurance as well as of their coercive pressure; (ii) by increasing the period of analysis until
country and firm determinants, adding evidence to the limited 2014 (Kolk & Perego, 2010, examined 2008, examined 1999, 2000
previous studies in the assurance research field. Despite of and 2005 as period of analysis; while Simnett et al., 2009;
assurance is in a continue growing, limited is the empirical
evidence about this topic (Hasan et al., 2005). Thus, we contribute
to the understanding of sustainability assurance and its institu-
tional determinants.
On the other hand, by analysing the three institutional forces
developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), we expand the previous
research about sustainability, disclosure and assurance (where
research is limited and scarce) and its international variation,
which focuses on a single force without a theoretical framework
based on the neo-institutional approach. For example, for the
assurance research, Kolk and Perego (2010) and Zhou et al. (2013)
only examine coercive factors in assessing the legal enforcement
and the stakeholder orientation from an agency/legitimacy and
stakeholder’s perspectives, respectively; while, Simnett et al.
(2009) identify legal and industry factors associated with the
decision to voluntary purchase assurance form an agency point of
view. For sustainability reporting research, García-Sanchez et al.
(2015) support the coercive and normative pressure for CSR
reporting from an institutional framework but without examining
the mimetic force and the external assurance; or, finally, Faisal,
Tower, and Rusmin (2012) aim to show the industry and legal effect
on social disclosure in 24 countries in 2009 from a legitimacy
perspective but without examining any kind of normative factor.
However, this study examined a comprehensive disclosure index
without analysing to the assurance field. From the above, there is a
need to refine the theoretical framework adopted in previous
papers about country-level factors and assurance under the basis
of the neo-institutional theory. Precisely, the results obtained
allow us to test the arguments of this perspective. Namely, that
companies operating in countries with similar institutions present
similar patterns of behaviour as a results of acting in accordance
with regulatory and cultural pressures, and to a lesser extent, in
order to comply with the rules designed by industry forces.
In addition, while there has been a growing interests and debate
surrounding coercive forces (such as legal or enforcement indexes),
the empirical research about normative aspects or even, about
mimetic pressures is very limited or even null. Some studies have
analysed these aspects on sustainability issues (Blasco & Zølner,
2010; García-Sanchez et al., 2015), but without examining the
assurance service. To address this theoretical gap, we analyse the
three forces related to isomorphism: coercive, normative and
mimetic.
Offering a detailed explanation of the research findings and
discussing them in relation to the prior literature, first, our results
are consistent with the notion that the assurance process may act
complementarily to a strong legal system as coercive pressure.
Similar results are provided by some previous studies considering
the strength of legal systems but different dependent variables, for
example Doidge et al. (2007) for governance and transparency,
Chih et al. (2010) for corporate social performance and Frías-
Aceituno et al. (2013) for integrated reporting, among others. In the
assurance research, nevertheless, the literature is quite scarce and
certainly limited to Simnett et al. (2009), Kolk and Perego (2010)
and Zhou et al. (2013). According to the study by Simnett et al.
(2009) but in opposition to those by Kolk and Perego (2010) and
Zhou et al. (2013), we evidence that the stronger the legal
enforcement system, the greater the likelihood of sustainability
assurance. We contributes to these researches in the following: (i)
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17

examined from 2002 to 2004); (iii) by considering broader
sustainability reporting information (not only GHG emissions,
like Zhou et al., 2013); and (iv) as will be detailed then, by adopting
a neo-institutional perspective as theoretical framework.
Second, having identified cultural norms and values as
normative forces (like Blasco and Zølner, 2010, for their study
about CSR in Mexico and France), our findings document that the
national culture exerts a power role in explaining country
differences in assurance. Thus, similar to García-Sanchez et al.
(2015) in their integrated reporting study, our sample companies
have a greater likelihood of requesting assurance reports in
societies that are more culturally developed than in those at a less
developed cultural stage. The evidence for sustainability reporting
(without assurance) is quite wide. However, although most
business and management studies have adopted Hofstede’s
dimensions for assessing cultural values, we contribute by adding
the six dimensions proposed by this author in 2011 (power
distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long
term and indulgence). For example, we expand some studies such
as those by Vitell et al. (2003) for their study about corporate
ethical values based on a questionnaire for 2000 company
managers and Ringov and Zollo (2007) for their study about
corporate social performance , by including the long-term and
indulgence aspects in the cultural dimensions, and the recent
study by Fernandez-Feijoo, Romero, Ruiz-Blanco (2014) and
García-Sanchez et al. (2015) about sustainability disclosure and
integrated reporting, respectively, by including the indulgence
aspect. Therefore, despite of cultural values have been examined as
determinants of ethical values, performance and/or sustainability
disclosure, as far as we know, this paper is the first attempt to
evaluate the normative pressure based on the cultural dimensions
proposed by Hofstede (2011) as a determinant of sustainability
assurance. And even more, that adopts a neo-institutional theory
as theoretical perspective of analyses.
Finally, as the third isomorphic force, regarding the industry
pressure factor and similarly to Cormier et al. (2005) and Peters
and Romi (2014), we find that companies implement assurance
systems as imitation tendencies, that is, to mimic the sustainable
behaviour of their industry leader to avoid stakeholder pressures
(Patten, 1991). The inclusion of this force responds to the need to
examine the importance of industry membership to voluntary
information reporting and, hence, to the assurance demand, as
proposed by Cormier et al. (2005) in their study about
environmental performance from 1992 to 1998 and Kolk and
Perego (2010). Again, despite the evidence about industry pressure
and assurance being practically limited, we expand the scarce prior
evidence of Faisal et al. (2012) and Peters and Romi (2014). With
respect to Faisal et al. (2012), they examined the impact of the type
of industry on a comprehensive disclosure index for a sample for an
international sample but only in 2009 and from a legitimacy
perspective. Our study expands it to the assurance research,
adopting a neo-institutional argument for the industry effect (as
mimetic isomorphism) and moreover, examining a period of
analyses from 2007 to 2014. With respect to Peters and Romi
(2014), who focus on industry pressure as an institutional mimetic
factor, we expand their sample of US, UK and Australian firms to
the international level with a study of 12 countries. We also
increase the period of analysis until 2014, which allows us to
consider the years of the greatest increase in the assurance
demand. The examination of different countries allows us to
control for the strongly influence of country-level characteristics
beyond the firms-level features that affect the adoption of
sustainability assurance. Moreover, we contributes to this study
in the extent that we adopt the neo-institutional approach to the
legal, cultural and industry factors (not only to the industry effect).
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
In addition, as one of the main contributions of this research, Kolk & Perego, 2010; Peters & Romi, 2014); sustainability assurance
our findings report that country-specific factors exert greater achieves to reduce the information asymmetry between the
pressure for the adoption of sustainability assurance than company and the society/public in general.
industry-level factors. The cultural and legal aspects have a more
influential effect on companies and managers in their assurance
decision, while industry pressure is not the main force towards the
assurance of sustainability reports. The decrease in mimetic force’s
significance in the additional tests suggests that companies’
assurance decision is more influenced by the country aspects –
such as the legal and cultural aspects – than by industry pressures.
While the studies cited above examine the influence of various
institutional factors, as far as we know, our study is the first
research to determine which factor has a greater influence on
decision making on assurance. Although this aspect is discussed in
relation to the auditing of financial information by Francis et al.
(2011), previous studies extending the discussion to voluntary
information reporting are non-existent.
In sum, our study expands the previous research that defends
sustainability assurance as a necessary component to enhance the
credibility and transparency of such voluntary information, adding
value to such reporting. The evidence obtained highlights that
those countries at a strong cultural stage (societies characterized
by collectivism, feminism, indulgence, long-term orientation, low
uncertainty avoidance and power distance values) and strong legal
systems (countries with a strong enforcement mechanism and civil
law) exert greater pressure on companies to adopt sustainability
assurance, which allows them to ensure the legitimization of their
actions. Legitimization through external assurance is also rein-
forced in companies operating in industries that are greatly
concerned about environmental and social issues. Nonetheless, our
evidence also documents the greater explanatory power of country
factors ahead of industry factors; specifically, the institutional
structure that determines similar patterns of behaviour among
organizations is found in countries with strong legal and cultural
development, reflecting coercive and normative isomorphism
among corporations as the principal causes of assurance ahead of
the industry effect.
4.2. Theoretical and practical implications
The results of this research present a number of implications for

theory and practice. From the theoretical aspect, our evidence
contributes to different theoretical approaches: the agency,
stakeholder, legitimacy and neo-institutional theories. At this
regard, most of the studies on sustainability disclosure and
assurance at international level have adopted as theoretical
approach the agency, stakeholder or legitimacy theories. This
study also confirms these postulates, but goes further and adopts
as the main theoretical foundation the neo-institutional theory
and the coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism proposed
by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Examining theory by theory, first,
our research advances the literature that associated sustainability
assurance as an effective monitoring mechanism for managers
(Watts & Zimmerman, 1983), which increases the credibility of
corporate information and decreases the information asymmetry
that arises from the agency conflict (Carey, Simnett, & Tanewski,
2000; Coram et al., 2009). In this respect, both assurance and the
voluntary disclosure of information can mitigate the agency
conflict because they increase the amount of information available
to shareholders and stakeholders about corporate strategies at a
time that increases the credibility and confidence in sustainability
information (Simnett et al., 2009). We confirm the argument
defended by previous assurance studies at international level (e.g.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
Moreover, we also confirm the assurance demand as response new practices, such as sustainability assurance, by examining the
to stakeholders’ pressures like Zhou et al. (2013). Our study, like institutional determinants of the demand, particularly in an
Kolk and Perego (2010) and Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2015),
confirms that companies adopt sustainability assurance aim to
legitimize their operations under society’s norms and expectations
on the business (Deegan et al., 2006). From the stakeholder theory
perspective, companies tend to be more proactive in the assurance
decision towards stakeholders who appear to be more powerful
(Magness, 2006). According to this theory, and based on our
findings, companies are more likely to issue sustainability reports
assured under greater industry pressure, as the main stakeholders
(for example environmental organizations in chemical industries)
exert a greater influence on the company. Meanwhile, legitimacy
theory is also adopted and supported in this paper. From this
approach, assurance is considered as a necessary tool for satisfying
the social demands that ensure the survival of the firm in coalition
with the objectives of the community in which it is located.
Nonetheless, the findings of this study – the impact of legal,
cultural and industry factors on the assurance demand – suggest
that previously mentioned theories may have limited application
at international context if we consider that firms can demand an
assurance service in response to institutional factors. At this
regard, by analysing the determinants of sustainability assurance
under a neo-institutional theory approach, we make a relevant
contribution to assurance literature by reducing this theoretical
gap. Thus, and from the central theoretical point of view of this
research, this paper expands the neo-institutional approach on the
basis that the above-mentioned legitimacy varies according to the
institutional environment in which companies operate (DiMaggio
& Powell, 1983; Campbell, 2007). This research provides a solid
base on which to examine how institutional incentives coercive
and normative forces – and firms’ incentives – mimetic force
influence the corporate decision to assure sustainability informa-
tion. Concretely, our evidence supports the idea that firms adopt
homogeneous patterns of behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983)
related to the assurance demand in countries with a strong legal
system and cultural stage and in industries with greater sensitivity
towards sustainability concerns.
Our contributions to this theory are related to the following.
First, we confirm the central idea based on neo-institutional
theory, by which this approach results in a great interest in
understanding the assurance demand in different institutional
environments, such as our case involving seventeen countries.
Second, we focus specifically on two country-level pressures for
the legal system and cultural stage, without ignoring the effect of
industry-level incentives on the assurance demand (contrary to
prior evidence). At this regard: (i) we follow the research proposal
of Kolk and Perego (2010) and consider additional firm and
country-level characteristics (beyond legal and enforcement
aspects) that drive voluntary assurance; and (ii) we provide novel
evidence on why the industry pressure acts as firm-level
characteristic that influences the assurance demand. Third, this
research offers new insights because, while country differences
related to voluntary disclosure are widely analysed (Dhaliwal et al.,
2012; Doidge et al., 2007; Frías-Aceituno et al., 2013; García-
Sanchez et al., 2015), the theoretical or practical references that
exist about country and even more about industry differences in
the assurance literature are scarce and certainly limited (Gürtrück
& Hahn, 2015; Kolk & Perego, 2010; Peters & Romi, 2014; Simnett
et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2013). Fourth, we complement the existing
studies that adopt this theory to examine institutional factors as
determinants of business practices, for example Marano and
Tashman (2012) and Ntim and Soobaroyen (2013). Finally, this
paper expands the traditional use of neo-institutional theory to
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
unregulated and non-standardized setting. Scarce is the literature focus on those industries that are less committed to sustainability
on our topic that adopt a neo-institutional perspective in their issues to increase not only the reporting of their social and
study. We can cite to Blanco and Zalner (2010) – for a CSR study – environmental performance but also the subsequent verification of
and García-Sanchez et al. (2015) – for an integrated reporting such information. Public authorities must be able to provide new
study. But, very little is known about assurance and its country and
industry variation under a neo-institutional theory. As far as we
know, the only reference is the study of Peters and Romi (2014).
However, we improve it by adopting this approach to legal, cultural
and industry aspects and not only to the industry impact.
As its final aspect, this study also contributes theoretically by
employing the cultural indices proposed by Hofstede (2011),
including the new cultural dimensions (long-term orientation and
indulgence aspects). Including them allows us to make a significant
contribution to studies of organizational culture, management and
business (Blasco & Zølner, 2010; García-Sanchez et al., 2015).
The main practical implications of this paper concern the
conclusions that should be drawn by companies, managers,
shareholders, stakeholders and public bodies directly related to
the adoption of assurance. First, understanding the reasons for the
divergence in sustainability assurance at the country and industry
levels is interesting for different information users, like companies.
Our evidence provides useful information regarding the different
institutional pressures by which companies and managers are
influenced not only to report and assure their social and/or
environmental information but also, beyond this, to legitimize
their organizational strategies and actions. For example, at the
country level, our findings may incentivize managers of companies
located in countries with a less strong legal system and cultural
stage not only to provide a voluntary report on sustainability issues
but also to verify it externally. By doing so, in part, they may
legitimize the corporate actions and strategies in the context in
which they operate. At the same time, at the industry level, for
example, managers of companies operating in industries that are
less sensitive to sustainable concerns could engage proactively in
the assurance of voluntary information. This would assist them in
becoming the industry leader or model in their activity sector,
which would lead their competitors to model and mimic such
behaviour to avoid the risk of bad press and a poor reputation
among their customers, suppliers and so on. The data seem to
indicate that the most appropriate way for companies to proceed is
to develop leader sensitivity towards the sustainability concerns in
their industry. Furthermore, our evidence provides useful infor-
mation for investors and stakeholders regarding the evaluation of
how external assurance decreases the information asymmetry
between managers and different stakeholders, especially in civil
law countries with strong legal enforcement and more cultural
development. Moreover, investors should be aware of the use of
assurance to enhance credibility and confidence about sustain-
ability information as a signal for future investment decisions. In
any case, assurance may add value for shareholders and stake-
holders by showing the managerial commitment to reporting
credible sustainability information.
For policy markets and regulatory organisms, our findings may
be informative given the increased assurance demand. Under-
standing the environments that favour and drive assurance to a
lesser extent can help them to determine the areas of deficiencies
in assurance issues. For example, they could collaborate with
companies in the promotion of institutional support programmes
to ensure the assurance of sustainability reports. According to our
findings, this aspect could be especially interesting for public
institutions from less stakeholder-oriented countries and from
societies that are less culturally developed. In addition, they must
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17

national laws and requirements, legislative reforms, institutional time period analysed in previous studies (Faisal et al., 2012; Kolk &
programmes or financial support in influencing increased sustain- Perego, 2010; Simnett et al., 2009). Finally, a more subtle
ability assurance, which adds value to organizations without costly
regulation.
Moreover, in general, the assurance practice is unregulated and
non-standardized given the absence of regulatory laws and the
lack of an auditing standard that must be followed by the assurance
profession. Thus, our findings show that it should be in the
interests of governments, policy makers and public institutions to
provide institutional support for the assurance practice. In this
respect, the Paris Agreement signed recently, in 2015, which
established the accounting method for emission rights, may be
able to act as a determinant for the assurance market. The
combined work of national governments seems necessary for
achieving improvements in the assurance demand, for example the
development of a regulatory law and/or a generalized standard at
the international level.
5. Concluding remarks
Supporting sustainability assurance as a power tool for

legitimizing operational activities and strategies with stakeholders
and based on the neo-institutional theory and isomorphism
developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), this research examines
the effect of coercive, normative and mimetic pressure on the
corporate decision to assure sustainability reports. Specifically,
two country-specific factors (legal and cultural development) and
one industry-specific factor (sector orientation towards assurance)
are considered to explain the differences in assurance between
countries and moreover between industries.
Making use of an international sample of 696 companies for the
period 2007–2014, we propose a two-stage logit model for panel
data previously developed by Francis et al. (2011) to test our
research questions. Our findings show that institutional isomor-
phism (coercive, normative and mimetic) exerts considerable
pressure to provide voluntary assurance of sustainability reports
and, specifically, that normative force exerts greater predictive
power on explaining assurance, followed by coercive force. In other
words, in the reporting and assurance of sustainability informa-
tion, companies and managers fundamentally guide their behav-
iour according to the legal system and enforcement of the country
in which they operate the stakeholder orientation and
according to the degree of cultural development of such a context.
This paper contributes to the growing scholarship by extending
and developing the prior research on the topic of assurance
services for sustainability reports and its institutional aspects (Kolk
& Perego, 2010; Peters & Romi, 2014; Simnett et al., 2009; Weber,
2014) by responding to the call for empirical research about
sustainability made by Hasan et al. (2005). Assurance has not been
widely studied and even less in an international context (for
exceptions see Kolk & Perego, 2010; Simnett et al., 2009; Zhou
et al., 2013), which is surprising given the continue growing of
sustainability reports and their external verification, especially in
develop countries. In this respect, the study also contributes to the
literature by adopting an international approach consisting of
seventeen countries rather than a single-country or two-region
approach (Hodge et al., 2009; Weber, 2014; Xiao et al., 2005). While
previous studies about sustainability assurance undertake a cross-
sectional analysis, our study adopts a panel data approach, which
allows a comparison among countries and years to differentiate
between institutional factors based on country and industry effects
that could determine the adoption of an assurance process. By
examining the period 2007–2014 rather than a single year (Hodge
et al., 2009; Perego, 2009), our study contributes to updating the
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
6–17.
contribution is methodological; unlike previous assurance re- Avloniti, A., & Filippaios, F. (2014). Unbundling the differences between Psychic and
search that conducts a deductive analysis or a survey (Hodge et al., Cultural Distance: an empirical examination of the existing measures.
2009; Gürtürk & Hahn, 2015), we employ econometric models International Business Review, 23(3), 660–674.
based on dependence techniques for panel data, concretely

different logistic regressions. Again, this represents the added
value of this research.
Nonetheless, this research is subject to some limitations.
Although it is one of the remarkable contributions of the study, the
use of an international database generates divergence of informa-
tion especially considering different legal environments,
corporate governance systems and so on. Due to the limited
information available in the different databases used, the sample is
restricted to specific countries. Methodologically, we cannot forget
the self-reporting bias in the sample selection because our sample
is restricted to those companies that choose to report their
sustainability practices via a voluntary report. Another limitation is
the assurance measure, which is based on a dummy variable (yes/
no), although it is the most generalized measure of it (Kolk &
Perego, 2010; Peters & Romi, 2014; Simnett et al., 2009). In this
respect, we only examine whether legal systems, the cultural stage
and industry pressure can influence the assurance demand,
without examining other assurance aspects, like the type of
assurance provider or the assurance scope.
As our final point, future studies could try to overcome these
limitations. From a theoretical point of view, understanding the
conditions under which companies adopt sustainable behaviour
could be the first approximation of future research. On this line, our
study could be reinforced by combining neo-institutional theory
with the strategy-as-practice approach, which solves some of the
limitations of the former, as Suddaby, Seidl, and Lê (2013)
recommend. It would also be interesting to replicate the study
by using more information, increasing the sample in years and
companies by countries, as well as including other corporate
characteristics, such as the existence of CSR committees, board
aspects or ownership, among others, which could moderate or
mediate the relation analysed here. Maybe it should consider the
role of management control over the decisions of assurance and
over the scope. Moreover, our findings could be refined by future
studies that could include other assurance factors that may be
affected by coercive, normative and mimetic forces, such as the
level of assurance provided or the type of assurance provider
(accounting, engineering or consultancy firms). Furthermore,
future studies could determine how these assurance factors
influence some firm aspects such as performance, the cost of
capital, the corporate reputation or perhaps shareholder confi-
dence and users’ perception about assurance statements.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the

Ministry of Science and Innovation for the research project
ECO2013-43838-P and from the Multidisciplinary Institute of
Enterprise (MIE) of the University of Salamanca.
References
Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness: credibility and the
audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14, 97–115.
Accountability, Institute of Social and Ethical (2003). AA1000 Assurance Standard.
Practitioners Note.
Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: culture’s consequences in a value test of
its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33, 885–904.
Akman, N. H. (2011). The effect of IFRS adoption on financial disclosure: does culture
still play A role? American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(1),
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17

Ball, R., Kothari, S. P., & Robin, A. (2000). The effect of international institutional Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2015). Multilevel approach to
factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting and sustainability report assurance decisions. Australian Accounting Review, 25(4),
Economics, 29(1), 1–51. 346–358.
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture Accounting. Organizations Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on
and Society, 28(1), 1–14. transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of
Baskerville, R. F. (2005). A research note: the unfinished business of culture. Business Ethics, 122(1), 53–63.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Band, 30, 389–391. Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014). Women on boards: do
Beddewela, E., & Fairbrass, J. (2015). Seeking legitimacy through CSR: institutional they affect sustainability reporting? Corporate Social Responsibility and
pressures and corporate responses of multinationals in Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management, 21(6), 351–364.
Business Ethics1–20. Frías-Aceituno, J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2013). Is integrated
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores on hofstede's reporting determined by a country’s legal system? An exploratory study. Journal
dimensions of national culture stable over time? a cohort analysis. Global of Cleaner Production, 44, 45–55.
Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223–240. Francis, J. R., Khurana, I. K., Martin, X., & Pereira, R. (2011). The relative importance of
Blasco, M., & Zølner, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Mexico and France firm incentives versus country factors in the demand for assurance services by
exploring the role of normative institutions. Business & Society, 49(2), 216–251. private entities. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(2), 487–516.
Boiral, O., & Gendron, Y. (2011). Sustainable development and certification Gürtürk, A., & Hahn, R. (2015). An empirical assessment of assurance statements in
practices: lessons learned and prospects. Business Strategy and the Environment, sustainability reports: smoke screens or enlightening information? Journal of
20(5), 331–347. Cleaner Production.
Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). The cultural
qualitative and mixed methods research: a view from social policy. International system and integrated reporting. International Business Review, 22(5), 828–838.
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261–276. García-Sanchez, I., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Frias-Aceituno, J. (2015). Impact of
Campbell, J. L., Hollingsworth, J. R., & Lindberg, L. N. (Eds.). (1991). Cambridge the institutional macro context on the voluntary disclosure of CSR information.
University Press. Long Range Planning.
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for
An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of sustainability . . . and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of
Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. organisations and the planet. Accounting. Organizations and Society, 35(1),
Carey, P., Simnett, R., & Tanewski, G. (2000). Voluntary demand for internal and 47–62.
external auditing by family business. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Hasan, M., Maijoor, S., Mock, T. J., Roebuck, P., Simnett, R., & Vanstraelen, A. (2005).
19, 37–51. The different types of assurance services and levels of assurance provided.
Chih, H. L., Chih, H. H., & Chen, T. Y. (2010). On the determinants of corporate social International Journal of Auditing, 9(2), 91–102.
responsibility: international evidence on the financial industry. Journal of Herda, D. N., Taylor, M. E., & Winterbotham, G. (2014). The effect of country-level
Business Ethics, 93(1), 115–135. investor protection on the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. Journal
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of of International Financial Management & Accounting, 25(2), 209–236.
legitimacy: a research note Accounting. Organizations and Society, 32(7), Hillier, D., Pindado, J., De Queiroz, V., & De La Torre, C. (2011). The impact of country-
639–647. level corporate governance on research and development. Journal of
Cho, K. R., Huang, C. H., & Padmanabhan, P. (2014). Foreign ownership mode, International Business Studies, 42(1), 76–98.
executive compensation structure, and corporate governance: has the literature Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., & Stewart, J. (2009). Assurance of sustainability
missed an important link? Evidence from Taiwanese firms. International reports: impact on report users' confidence and perceptions of information
Business Review, 23(2), 371–380. credibility. Australian Accounting Review, 19(3), 178–194.
Choi, J. H., & Wong, T. J. (2007). Auditors’ governance functions and legal Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context.
environments: an international investigation. Contemporary Accounting Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
Research, 24(1), 13–46. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Introduction to the logistic regression model,
Claessens, S., & Fan, J. P. (2002). Corporate governance in Asia: a survey. International 2nd ed. Applied Logistic Regression1–30.
Review of Finance, 3(2), 71–103. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation leadership and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,
between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 303–327. Kaufmann, D. (2007). The worldwide governance indicators project: answering the
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure critics, Vol. 4149, World Bank Publications.
quality in large German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or KPMG (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting. KPMG.
institutional conditions? European Accounting Review, 14(1), 3–39. Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability
Coram, P. J., Monroe, G. S., & Woodliff, D. R. (2009). The value of assurance on assurance statements: an international investigation. Business Strategy and the
voluntary nonfinancial disclosure: an experimental evaluation. Auditing: A Environment, 19(3), 182–198.
Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(1), 137–151. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of
Cowan, A., Huang, C. H., Padmanabhan, P., & Wang, C. H. (2013). The determinants of multinational corporations: a critique and new directions. Academy of
foreign giving: an exploratory empirical investigation of US manufacturing Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.
firms. International Business Review, 22(2), 407–420. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance1131–1150.
quantitative. Prentice Hall. La Porta, R., López de Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113–1155.
change: introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). Government ownership of
Journal, 45(1), 45–56. banks. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 265–301.
Deegan, C., Cooper, B. J., & Shelly, M. (2006). An investigation of TBL report assurance Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: theorizing and studying
statements: UK and European evidence. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(4), institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional
329–371. work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 1–27).
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
disclosures-a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Magness, V. (2006). Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental
Journal, 15(3), 282–311. disclosure: an empirical test of legitimacy theory Accounting. Auditing &
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between Accountability Journal, 19(4), 540–563.
organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Marano, V., & Tashman, P. (2012). MNE/NGO partnerships and the legitimacy of the
Studies, 42(2), 329–360. firm. Intenational Business Review, 21(6), 1122–1130.
Deffains, B., & Guigou, J. D. (2002). Droit, gouvernement d'entreprise et marchés de McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
capitaux. Revue d’économie politique, 112(6), 791–821. consequences: a triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),
Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial 89–118.
disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: international evidence on corporate Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as
social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759. myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology340–363.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revised: institutional Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American local government. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality199–215.
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Morimoto, R., Ash, J., & Hope, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility audit: from
Doidge, C., Karolyi, G. A., & Stulz, R. M. (2007). Why do countries matter so much for theory to practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 315–325.
corporate governance? Journal of Financial Economics, 86(1), 1–39. Moroney, R., Windsor, C., & Aw, Y. T. (2012). Evidence of assurance enhancing the
Durnev, A., & Kim, E. (2005). To steal or not to steal: firm attributes, legal quality of voluntary environmental disclosures: an empirical analysis.
environment, and valuation. The Journal of Finance, 60(3), 1461–1493. Accounting & Finance, 52(3), 903–939.
Faisal, F., Tower, G., & Rusmin, R. (2012). Legitimising corporate sustainability Mueller, G.G. (1968). Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
reporting throughout the world Australasian accounting. Business and Finance versus those generally accepted elsewhere.
Journal, 6(2), 19–34. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17
Cambridge University Press.
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),
G Model
G Model
IBRIBR
1323
1323
No.No.
of Pages
of Pages
17 17

Ntim, C. G., & Soobaroyen, T. (2013). Corporate governance and performance in Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of
socially responsible corporations: new empirical insights from a neo- organizational employees a dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of
institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231–264.
468–494. Smith, J., Haniffa, R., & Fairbrass, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for investigating
O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, ‘capture’in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business
social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Ethics, 99(3), 425–439.
Review, 37(2), 205–229. Su, S. H. (2006). Cultural differences in determining the ethical perception and
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance decision-making of future accounting professionals: a comparison between
forms: the case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting. accounting students from Taiwan and the United States. Journal of American
Organizations and Society, 36(1), 31–52. Academy of Business, 9(1), 147–158.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.
Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.
Patten, D. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Lê, J. K. (2013). Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional
and Public Policy297–308. theory. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 329–344.
Peng, M. W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management
Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3), 251–267. Inquiry, 19(1), 14–20.
Perego, P. (2009). Causes and consequences of choosing different assurance Suddaby, R. (2014). Can institutional theory Be critical? Journal of Management
providers: an international study of sustainability reporting. International Inquiry [1056492614545304].
Journal of Management, 26(3), 412–425. Van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005). Exploring differences in
Perera, M. H. B., & Mathews, M. R. (1990). The cultural relativity of accounting and social disclosures internationally: a stakeholder perspective. Journal of
international patterns of social accounting. Advances in International Accounting, Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 123–151.
3(3), 215–251. Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). The perceived role of ethics and social
Peters, G. F., & Romi, A. M. (2014). The association between sustainability responsibility: a study of marketing professionals. Business Ethics Quarterly63–86.
governance characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. (1983). Agency problems, auditing and the theory of
reports. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 163–198. the firm: some evidence. The Journal of Law & Economics, 26(3), 613–633. Weber, J.
Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: (2014). Corporate social responsibility disclosure level, external assurance and
comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480. cost of equity capital. External Assurance and Cost of Equity Capital Accessed
Pindado, J., & Requejo, I. (2015). Panel data: a methodology for model specification and 16.12.14.
testing. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. Williams, S. L. M. (1998). Voluntary environmental and social accounting disclosure
Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). The impact of national culture on corporate social practices in the Asia-Pacific region (Doctoral dissertation). Murdoch University.
performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Wong, R., & Millington, A. (2014). Corporate social disclosures: a user perspective on
Society, 7(4), 476–485. assurance Accounting. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(5), 863–8887.
Roe, M. J. (1991). A political theory of American corporate finance. Columbia Law Xiao, J. Z., Gao, S. S., Heravi, S., & Cheung, Y. C. (2005). The impact of social and
Review10–67. economic development on corporate social and environmental disclosure in
Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Hong Kong and the UK. Advances in International Accounting, 18, 219–243.
Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442. Zhou, S., Simnett, R., & Green, W. (2013). The effect of legal environment and corporate
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability governance on the decision to assure and assurance provider choice: evidence from
reports: an international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), the GHG assurance market. UNSW Australian School of Business Research Paper,
937–967. (2012).
Please
Please
citecite
this
this
article
article
in press
in press
as: as:
I.-M.
I.-M.
García-Sánchez,
García-Sánchez,
Coercive,
Coercive,
normative
normative
andand
mimetic
mimeticisomorphism
isomorphismas as
determinants
determinants
of of
thethe
voluntary
voluntary assurance
assurance of of
sustainability
reports,
International
International
Business
Business
Review
Review
(2016),
(2016),

Coercive, Normative and Mimetic Isomorphism As Determinants of The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coercive, Normative and Mimetic Isomorphism As Determinants of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Business Review

Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the

1. Introduction of sustainability reporting and the need for an assurance process

2 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

1.1. Coercive isomorphism

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) deﬁne “coercive isomorphism” as

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

1.2. Normative isomorphism

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) relate this force to mandatory

4 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

1.3. Mimetic isomorphism

The last institutional force illustrated by DiMaggio and Powell

2.1. Data source and sample

The data source was formed based on an initial selection of the

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

6 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

6. Indulgence 0.6665 0.7913 0.1603 0.4922 0.5336

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

biased. Thus, unobservable heterogeneity is controlled for by Xi

8 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

2.4.3. Robust logit model

Distribution of observations by year

Total 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2752 178 252 287 334 274 445 459 523

Distribution of observations by country

2752 29 240 45 96 115 156 33 192

5. 34% 3.09% 1.136% 7.81% 2.54% 0.84% 13.63% 32.70%

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9

Not assurance Assurance Total Not assurance Assurance Total

Belgium 20 9 29 2007 108 70 178

transparent and credible information on sustainable performance,

Country Legal Civil Enforcement Culture Industry_Pressure

Belgium 9.75 1 9.44 23.18 48.86

shareholder perspective (common law), and Belgium, Denmark,

10 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 11

“Assurance” Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Legal 0.122*** 0.032

context in which it operates. Why? The answer is because Sweden

12 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Coef. Std. Error

Legal 0.120*** 0.040

assurance demand. Our results are in accordance with those

4. Discussion of the results and implications

Through the lens of neo-institutional theory, this section now

4.1. Discussion of the results

Based on the explanatory power of the three institutional

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 13

4.2. Theoretical and practical implications

The results of this research present a number of implications for

14 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 15

Supporting sustainability assurance as a power tool for

based on dependence techniques for panel data, concretely

The authors wish to acknowledge the ﬁnancial support from the

16 J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Cambridge University Press.

J. Martínez-Ferrero, I.-M. García-Sánchez / International Business Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 17

You might also like