ASSURANCE AND AUDIT PRACTICES IN REDUCING GREENWASHING RISK IN CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS: AN INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW AND A TURKEY-CONTEXTUAL ASSESSMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64734/bjss.1-1-06Keywords:
Sustainability reporting, greenwashing, corporate governanceAbstract
This study examines the risks of greenwashing in corporate sustainability reports and analyzes the role of assurance and audit practices in mitigating these risks, based on international literature and complemented by an analytical assessment within the Turkish context. As sustainability reporting becomes increasingly strategic for corporate transparency and accountability, debates on the credibility and reliability of reported information have intensified. Voluntary reporting structures, measurement inconsistencies, standard misalignments, and communication-driven managerial incentives may create conditions that enable greenwashing behavior. Within this framework, the study discusses the influence of factors such as types of assurance, audit scope, independence, and methodological approaches on reporting credibility, emphasizing that assurance is not merely a technical verification process but also a mechanism associated with ethics, corporate governance, and stakeholder trust. Findings from international research are synthesized and classified through a critical perspective, after which practice-oriented implications and policy-focused reflections are developed for the Turkish institutional and regulatory environment. The study contributes a conceptually grounded and integrative framework to the debate on assurance and auditing in sustainability reporting, while also identifying future research avenues such as measurement approaches, audit quality indicators, and cross-context comparative analyses.
Downloads
References
Bramer, W. M., de Jonge, G. B., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., & Kleijnen, J. (2017). A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(1), 84–91.
Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M. (2019). Sustainability reporting assurance: Creating stakeholder accountability? Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 359–377.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015). Understanding and contributing to the enigma of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in the United States. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 97–130.
Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Impression management in sustainability reports: An empirical investigation of the use of graphs. Accounting and the Public Interest, 12(1), 16–37.
Cohen, J. R., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59–74.
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.
European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union. (2022). Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Official Journal of the European Union.
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21.
Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., & Stewart, J. (2009). Assurance of sustainability reports: Impact on report users’ confidence and perceptions of information credibility. Accounting & Finance, 49(4), 697–730.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2023). Proposed International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000, General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements (Exposure Draft). IAASB.
KPMG. (2022). KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2022. KPMG.
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and ends of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223–249.
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78.
O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Perego, P., & Kolk, A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 173–190.
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Yağmur Ateş (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
