Las consecuencias de la demora del diagnóstico

There seemed to be a close relationship between the reasons for stopping the assurance engagement or replacing assurers and the characteristics of the preferred assurers. Hence, the managers engaged

87 in assurance, and the assurers were questioned about their experience (if applicable). While the managers did not identify any major issues for stopping assurance engagement or even changing assurers, the assurers explained a rich list of reasons as discussed below, including:

· Cost Cutting

· Efficiency

· No value or more value elsewhere

· No driver and,

· New and fresh perspectives

5.5.1

Cost Cutting

From the assurers’ points of view, cost cutting was the most important factor (interestingly, this was not mentioned by any of the managers in this research, probably because they had not experienced that situation) in making decision about engaging in the assurance process or replacing the assurer as organisations mostly have budget constraints:

Probably one of the main factors of losing jobs is not because of the relationship and the quality of what we’ve done, is mostly because the competitors are offering to do it cheaper ... (AS4)

However, cost cutting was identified by the managers interviewed in an earlier study in New Zealand (Eweje, 2011). That manager claimed that they used to have assurance but considering they have been given a limited budget they stopped engaging in that activity after questioning the value of assurance.

5.5.2

Efficiency

In several cases, cost saving did not result in a disengagement, but led reporting organisations to work with their financial auditor as it was more ‘efficient’ (NAS1) due to a pre-existing relationship. All the non-accounting participants believed that having a strong pre-existing relationship with the financial auditor affected an organisation’s decision making in selecting the same assurer in both areas. The financial audit organisation already understood the structure and the nature of the business, evaluated the financial performance and built a relationship within the reporting organisation. Hence, the sustainability assurance process will be less time consuming and more reasonable by saving time and money since the basic information has already been gathered during the financial audit. One of the assurers explained this factor using a client story:

… our client changed provider because probably they rationalised it, they had six different assurance providers across the organisation, providing assurance in different areas mostly kind of management system based audit and they just rationalised that. One organisation was working quite closely with them so they knew the client, they could add value rather than having six people who never really got to know them that well … (NAS4)

Efficiency was also considered by managers, MA5 commented that they started assurance engagement with their financial auditor in order to ‘get wrapped into one’. MA2 believed that this combination helped them to ‘move towards integration’. Besides, MA4 asserted that assurer’s ‘reputation’ was a key factor in giving them a level of confidence and that is only achievable through working with financial auditors:

… XXX is really high regarded in NZ in terms of the quality of the audit and specially sustainability... it gives us more confidence and the assurance that they are providing is more detailed… I remember that after the audit we came out knowing what we were actually presenting was definitely accurate but with YYY for example may be it is right may be its not! (MA4)

5.5.3

No Value or More Value Elsewhere

Most assurers noticed that the ‘value’ received from the assurance played an important role, they either did not see any value in the whole process at all or saw the value in following assurance with another assurer:

… we [assurers] have done it for five years and it wasn’t giving them [organisations] sufficient value to encourage them doing it every year... there wasn’t much changes year on year for them, the materiality is changing though. I mean they are improving their processes but they see that we don’t need to be looking at it every year ... (AS2)

… there is nothing to do with the relationship with them, you know when we were their external auditor we had a strong relationship with them but they clearly saw more value in the XXX accreditation in terms of I guess it is a stronger brand in the market place … (AS1)

Managers also confirmed this fact based on their experience. As mentioned earlier, in section 5.3, MA5 started sustainability assurance with their financial auditor but they changed their direction and moved to a non-accounting specialist as, first, they believed, sustainability consultants are more specialist in the ‘subject matter’ and, secondly, an accounting specialist assurance statement did not help them increase the accreditation score.

5.5.4

No Driver

The voluntary nature of sustainability reporting and its assurance (unlike the financial audit) in New Zealand turned it into an ‘optional annual decision’ (AS3). Some elements, such as having a new management team or new board members, lack of significant changes in the organisations’ sustainability system, or even not receiving extensive value from the sustainability assurance can easily influence that annual decision.

89 Although none of the managers outlined the voluntary nature of assurance directly, two managers pointed out that they had no specific preferences, either in choosing assurers or continuing to work with them. These managers just relied on the ‘tender’ results:

… we put the things out to tender for a limited period… and at the end of that when we go up and look at what our internal needs are and where we are in our sustainability journey and put that out and see who can provide what we are looking for from the assurance process – there is no specific or personal preference in advance … (MA2)

5.5.5

New and Fresh Perspectives

Regardless of all the other factors discussed earlier, the assurers stressed that sustainability assurers might be replaced frequently in order to get ‘a fresh set of eyes’ (AS5). Although there were no rules and regulations related to changing sustainability assurers in New Zealand yet, working with an assurer for a long time might reduce the expected benefits in terms of credibility and transparency because it might turn into a repetitive process:

… I think that would be natural in terms of having someone new coming every few years. It’s perfectly to me reasonable and I would expect that, you know just to get different perspectives … (NAS1)