Statutory auditors’ readiness for mandatory sustainability reporting assurance: an institutional logics perspective

To effectively support capital providers and other stakeholders in evaluating social and environmental performance and the associated risks, sustainability reporting must be reliable (Simnett et al., 2009; Perego and Kolk, 2012; Venturelli and Pizzi, 2020; Krasodomska et al., 2021). Research indicates that obtaining external, independent assurance of sustainability reports enhances their credibility, fostering trust in the accuracy and dependability of the information disclosed (Gillet-Monjarret, 2018; Venter and Krasodomska, 2024). While sustainability reporting assurance is voluntary in most countries worldwide, the European Union (EU) has taken the lead in mandating limited assurance under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (EU, 2022). Accordingly, before their publication in 2025, the sustainability statements of large public interest entities became subject to mandatory assurance.

The decision whether the assurance service would be provided by statutory auditors or independent assurance service providers (i.e. a nonaccounting firms) was left to the individual EU member states. Statutory auditors may have an advantage as sustainability reporting assurance providers because they are perceived as reliable due to their established credibility and adherence to international standards (e.g. Farooq and De Villiers, 2017, 2019; Krasodomska and Zarzycka, 2025a). Moreover, it may be reasonable for organizations to employ the incumbent statutory auditor as the assurance service provider because of the connectivity between financial and sustainability reporting, the organization’s familiarity with the auditor and lower assurance service costs (Lu et al., 2024). However, in the voluntary setting, relatively few companies were found to choose this option (Ruiz-Barbadillo and Martínez-Ferrero, 2020, 2022).

Member states also retain a degree of discretion with respect to providers’ professional backgrounds and training pathways (Sabbatucci et al., 2026). In accordance with the general requirements established by the CSRD, statutory auditors seeking to qualify for sustainability reporting assurance must meet several requirements, including possessing relevant theoretical knowledge and practical application skills. They are also required to complete at least eight months of practical training in sustainability reporting assurance or related services, a period that may vary for those already recognized as providers of such assurance. In addition, according to the CSRD, statutory auditors must demonstrate a high level of technical and specialized expertise in sustainability while adhering to professional ethics, independence, objectivity, confidentiality and professional secrecy similar to those required for statutory audits (EU, 2022). These stringent requirements position statutory auditors uniquely within the sustainability reporting landscape, potentially enabling them to drive progress in the field if they choose to embrace this new challenge.

Prior research suggests that professional knowledge of sustainability and its organizational benefits can positively influence statutory auditors’ attitudes towards mandatory sustainability reporting under the CSRD (Krasodomska et al., 2024). Nevertheless, in regard to sustainability reporting assurance, several obstacles may hinder the effective engagement of such auditors, including limited expertise in sustainability topics, discomfort with qualitative data, resource constraints for smaller firms and a need for enhanced training in sustainability (e.g. Farooq and de Villiers, 2017; Ruiz-Barbadillo and Martínez-Ferrero, 2022).

Although a significant number of studies have examined the determinants and consequences of companies’ decisions to obtain assurance (for a literature review, see Venter and van Eck, 2021; Venter and Krasodomska, 2024), far less is known about statutory auditors themselves – specifically, what motivates them to provide sustainability assurance and what challenges they anticipate in delivering such services. Moreover, prior studies have focused on sustainability reporting assurance in mostly unregulated environments (Conradie and Barac, 2025). This paucity of attention paid to regulated environments is especially relevant because mandatory sustainability assurance creates an entirely new regulatory and professional environment, an unfamiliar domain into which statutory auditors are forced to enter. Since the current emerging setting has not been systematically investigated, research is needed to understand how statutory auditors perceive and will respond to their new role, particularly in countries where they are the only professionals able to provide sustainability assurance services.

This study aims to identify and evaluate statutory auditors’ readiness to provide sustainability reporting assurance, differences in the motivations of such auditors and challenges they may face and perceived benefits for companies. We examine whether the motivations behind these decisions vary by gender and employer type and whether perceptions of benefits and challenges differ between auditors who are ready to provide assurance services and those who are not. The empirical data for this study come from a survey of 283 Poland-based statutory auditors conducted in 2024. Descriptive statistics and selected statistical tests (Mann–Whitney U test) were used to explore the auditors’ motivations for providing assurance services as well as their opinions on the challenges and benefits associated with these services.

To further interpret our findings, we draw on institutional logics as a theoretical framework. Institutional logics is a theoretical framework and analytical method for examining how societal-level culture influences the cognition and behavior of both individual and organizational actors (DiMaggio, 1997; Thornton et al., 2005); the concept has been applied to studies on professional service firms offering accountancy-related services (e.g. Lander et al., 2013; Suddaby et al., 2015; Thornton et al., 2005). According to Tyson and Adams (2020), statutory auditors, traditionally guided by a financial logic that emphasizes independence and accuracy in auditing, are increasingly influenced by a sustainability logic that positions them as collaborators with multidisciplinary experts to integrate sustainability considerations into their practices. Moreover, the accounting profession is influenced by two primary logics – fiduciary logic, focused on professional identity and public responsibility and commercial logic, which emphasizes income generation and entrepreneurial success, with recent research showing a shift toward the latter (Thornton et al., 2005; Duff et al., 2020).

Our results indicate that only approximately half of the respondents expressed interest in offering assurance services, suggesting that the traditional and the new, sustainability-related logics are still competing with one another within the profession. There are no statistically significant differences in motives based on gender or the type of company for which the auditors work. However, auditors who declare their readiness to provide assurance services and those who do not perceive various aspects related to the new assurance practice differently. Furthermore, the findings suggest that compared with commercial logic, fiduciary logic plays a more significant role in shaping auditors’ motivations. Statutory auditors are primarily motivated by professional development and personal interest in sustainability, while client demand and financial incentives are less influential. They also face challenges, such as a lack of experience and limited regulatory knowledge. Assurance is viewed as valuable for increasing stakeholder trust and reputation rather than delivering financial gains.

We add to the prior literature in the following ways. First, this paper contributes by its novel application of institutional logics theory to the literature on sustainability assurance, demonstrating the dominance of fiduciary logic among statutory auditors seeking to increase their legitimacy in the sustainability reporting assurance function. Second, using a relatively unexplored sample of respondents in a new regulatory context, we provide new insight into how statutory auditors approach the highly important recent change in the EU regulatory environment. We also draw attention to the drivers of statutory auditors’ opinions that may affect the smooth transformation of the profession towards supporting sustainable development.

The study findings could be of interest to regulators, standard setters, companies and educators. Our findings highlight key areas where statutory auditors may need support to effectively assume the role of sustainability reporting assurance providers. Training programs are essential for enhancing auditors’ confidence and competence. A key practical implication is that the results provide regulatory bodies overseeing the audit profession with valuable insights into auditors’ views on mandatory sustainability assurance and related qualification requirements. In addition, the study raises awareness about how the profession is approaching the new regulations, which could be useful for companies seeking such services, educators and statutory auditors themselves.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section (Section 2) reviews the literature on the role of statutory auditors in sustainability reporting assurance and formulates the research questions. Section 3 describes the theoretical framework. Section 4 presents the research design and Section 5 describes the results. Section 6 discusses the findings and Section 7 concludes the paper by addressing the study’s limitations and suggesting directions for future research.

Audit and assurance support corporations and financial markets in operating efficiently, strengthening relationships and unlocking new opportunities (Aliyu, 2024). Traditionally, external audits have been framed as a trust-enhancing mechanism designed to assure stakeholders that financial statements present a true and fair view of an organization’s performance and financial position. In this context, statutory auditors are regarded as independent professionals responsible for examining financial statements to ensure their accuracy, completeness and compliance with applicable accounting standards. Through risk assessment and substantive testing, they provide credible financial information that reinforces stakeholder confidence and contributes to sound corporate governance (Tyson and Adams, 2020).

Auditing is expected to function as an independent and objective check within corporate governance systems, reducing uncertainty and enabling investors, regulators and the public to manage economic risks. However, the legitimacy of this role has been repeatedly questioned, particularly in the aftermath of major corporate collapses and financial crises (Sikka, 2009). Such events raise serious concerns regarding the value of audits, auditor independence and audit quality.

Against this backdrop, the audit profession has gradually evolved from a narrowly defined verification function towards a broader role that may influence organizational behavior and accountability. Moreover, in response to new regulatory requirements in sustainability reporting, an evolving perspective has emerged in which statutory auditors are increasingly expected to act as sustainability experts, working alongside professionals from various disciplines to incorporate sustainability considerations into their audit practices (Tyson and Adams, 2020). For many statutory auditors, this represents a new professional responsibility.

The results of Channuntapipat’s (2021) study indicate that assurance providers have a potential to transcend their role as data verifiers to instead act as change agents, fostering shifts in organizational culture and prompting organizations to reassess certain aspects of their operations, thus steering them towards more sustainable practices. However, as Farooq and De Villiers (2017) argue, statutory auditors often differ from other assurance service providers in that they tend to perceive sustainability assurance as an extension of the financial statement audit. This contrasts with the attitude of assurance service providers other than accounting firms, who view sustainability reporting as a tool that can drive sustainability in organizations and thus promote accountability and positive societal and planetary outcomes. These providers have also been found to seek to “make a difference” and follow a “larger agenda of positive change” (Boele and Kemp, 2005, p. 115).

While perceptions of the assurance role differ, professional organizations increasingly advocate a more expansive and strategic contribution of the accounting profession and accounting firms to sustainable business practices. ACCA (2021) views assurance service providers as key professionals in sustainable business and finance who are capable of fostering organizational values, enhancing governance and mitigating greenwashing concerns. Since value creation involves forwards-looking innovation and addressing expectations for sustainability and social impact, assurance providers may assist organizations in rethinking the information used in decision-making, as well as in managing, measuring and communicating value creation from a longer-term, multistakeholder perspective (IFAC, 2021). They could also play a leading role in helping companies understand the impacts, risks and opportunities related to sustainability issues, thus increasing accountability and trust in business performance and reporting. In addition, as trusted advisors bound by professional conduct principles – including integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, competence and respect for the public interest – they can provide an independent perspective on sustainability issues critical to a company’s performance and societal value.

Recent evidence also highlights the influence auditors may have on clients’ sustainability practices beyond formal assurance. Liu et al. (2023) show that auditors with a stronger sustainability focus tend to work with clients who provide more extensive sustainability disclosures and exhibit greater social and governance sustainability activities. Their findings suggest a form of auditor–client alignment, where auditors can act as information intermediaries that help organizations interpret and implement sustainability-related expectations. This evidence reinforces the notion that auditors play an increasingly important role in shaping sustainability reporting practices. Consequently, their role is essential in demonstrating to investors and other stakeholders that organizations are sustainable, ethical, transparent and attractive for investment.

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that, as Farooq and De Villiers (2017, p. 86) conclude, “the accounting profession needs to change its image from financial accountants and financial auditors to a broader conceptualization in which accountants perform a broader role in the society,” a view that raises questions about statutory auditors’ readiness to change, assume this broader societal role and respond to expanding sustainability-related expectations.

Discussions on the role of statutory auditors in sustainability reporting assurance often focus on whether professional accountants hold a distinct advantage as assurance providers (Farooq and De Villiers, 2017, 2019; Krasodomska and Zarzycka, 2025b; Krasodomska et al., 2025). Findings by Pflugrath et al. (2011) indicate that sustainability reports are perceived as more credible and trustworthy when assured by statutory auditors. This may stem from the statutory auditors’ reputation, which is bolstered by comprehensive international standards, ethical codes and quality control systems at both the firm and engagement levels. In addition, Hodge et al. (2009) reported that users place greater trust in sustainability reports when assurance is provided by a top-tier accountancy firm.

However, the provision of assurance services by statutory auditors is also viewed as controversial (Velte, 2025). While accounting professionals may have expertise in environmental, social and governance risk management, control and reporting, they are still in the process of clearly defining their role in this emerging area (Asante-Appiah and Lambert, 2023). Statutory auditors are seen as lacking subject matter expertise and being less comfortable providing assurance regarding soft qualitative data than other assurance service providers are. Studies (O’Dwyer and Owen, 2005; Mock et al., 2007, 2013; Perego and Kolk, 2012) indicate that nonaccounting firms may apply an evaluative approach and provide higher levels of assurance, whereas statutory auditors adopt a more cautious approach, focusing on verifying the information in the sustainability report and restricting their assurance opinion to limited assurance. Statutory auditors are also less innovative (Farooq and De Villiers, 2017), and it is not clear whether they are capable of providing superior assurance services (Velte, 2025). This raises doubts about whether statutory auditors are able to deliver higher-quality sustainability assurance and adapt to the broader expectations associated with this emerging field.

As Aliyu (2024) notes, the literature on sustainability reporting assurance focuses on the perspectives of the relevant groups in terms of assurance practices, including reporting companies and the consideration of shareholders. Prior research has identified various motives and factors that encourage companies to voluntarily seek sustainability reporting assurance (Farooq and de Villiers, 2017). Commonly cited external drivers include enhancing the (perceived) credibility of the disclosed information (e.g. Farooq and de Villiers, 2017; Hodge et al., 2009) and meeting the expectations of stakeholders (e.g. Maroun, 2019; Farooq and de Villiers, 2017). Internal drivers include value addition (perceived or real) from engagement. Value addition is related to the improvement in the quality of the disclosures and stems from the assurance service providers’ guidance for managers on how to improve systems and processes supporting sustainability reporting (Gray, 2000; Jones et al., 2014; O’Dwyer et al., 2011; Farooq and de Villiers, 2017; Liu et al., 2023). These findings suggest that with the implementation of mandatory assurance under the CSRD, assurance service providers can guide companies and provide help in the reporting process. Studies further suggest that assurance providers may move beyond verification roles and act as change agents supporting organizational transformation (Channuntapipat, 2021). However, this stream of research predominantly reflects the voluntary assurance context and often adopts the perspective of reporting organizations or report users rather than that of statutory auditors.

Consequently, despite extensive debate about the credibility of auditor-provided assurance and comparisons with alternative assurance providers, evidence on how statutory auditors themselves perceive their readiness to operate in the sustainability assurance domain remains limited. This research gap becomes particularly important in light of the CSRD, which introduces mandatory sustainability assurance and creates a fundamentally new institutional environment in which statutory auditors are expected to expand into a field traditionally dominated by other expertise and professional logics. The mandatory nature of assurance may reshape motivations, constraints and professional identities in ways that have not been empirically investigated.

The literature on motivations and challenges related to sustainability reporting assurance has largely developed from the demand-side perspective, specifically a focus on companies seeking assurance and the factors influencing their decisions (Venter and van Eck, 2021; Venter and Krasodomska, 2024; Velte, 2025). In contrast, considerably less attention has been given to the supply side, particularly to statutory auditors as the group that may be required to deliver mandatory sustainability assurance under the CSRD. This omission is notable because mandatory assurance introduces a new setting in which auditors’ perceptions of feasibility, incentives, and professional capability may become decisive for the actual functioning of regulatory reform.

Several factors might influence professionals’ motivations towards sustainability issues, including their gender. Research on accounting and ethics indicates that compared with their male counterparts, female accounting professionals often demonstrate greater ethical sensitivity and a stronger orientation toward social responsibility (Ibrahim and Angelidis, 2009; Ariail et al., 2012; Krasodomska et al., 2020). Similarly, studies on accounting education and sustainability suggest that female students and professionals tend to exhibit more favorable attitudes toward sustainability and environmental responsibility (Stewart, 2024; Lorain et al., 2026).

Another motivation but also a challenge is the lack of sufficient competencies in the sustainability field. Sustainability reporting assurance requires knowledge that transcends traditional financial reporting expertise, and it is unlikely that statutory auditors can achieve the same depth of understanding of sustainability issues as professionals such as physicists, sociologists, ethicists or environmental engineers (Gray, 2000; Farooq and de Villiers, 2017). Therefore, specialized training is essential. Such training was found to shape the perceptions of graduates of accounting-related degrees regarding the implications of companies’ commitment to sustainable development strategies and the benefits associated with sustainable development and related strategies in organizations (Lejárraga-García et al., 2024). Similarly, research conducted in the context of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) (EU, 2014) shows that accountants who had participated in sustainability reporting training were more supportive of mandatory sustainability disclosure requirements and more likely to perceive the benefits of sustainability reporting as exceeding its costs (Krasodomska et al., 2020). Moreover, prior evidence suggests that familiarity with sustainability reporting regulations can positively influence accountants’ attitudes towards the mandatory assurance introduced by the CSRD (Krasodomska et al., 2024). This finding indicates that knowledge and preparedness may not only reduce perceived barriers but also shape how auditors evaluate the value of sustainability reporting and assurance.

In addition to the lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, limited resources pose a significant challenge, and this challenge is closely related to the employment type and organizational context of auditors. Prior research suggests that the ability to engage in sustainability assurance depends on firms’ access to specialized expertise, methodological support and resources (Mock et al., 2013; Krasodomska et al., 2021). Smaller and mid-tier local firms often face greater constraints in developing these capabilities, whereas larger international accounting firms benefit from extensive networks (Farooq and de Villiers, 2017; Aliyu, 2024; Lander et al., 2013), which enable them to spread costs over a larger client base and reduce per-client expenses. In addition, these larger firms’ extensive networks enable them to draw on a wealth of global knowledge and experience. As a result, firms with broader access to specialized expertise, established methodologies and professional networks may be better positioned to respond to the complex demands of sustainability assurance. These structural differences may influence not only auditors’ readiness to provide sustainability assurance but also their evaluation of its potential benefits for companies, as access to expertise, resources and prior experience shapes perceptions of both the feasibility and value of such engagements.

Taken together, the literature identifies several potential value drivers and important challenges related to sustainability assurance. However, it remains unclear whether these factors are perceived uniformly among statutory auditors or whether perceptions systematically differ depending on auditors’ characteristics and readiness to engage in sustainability assurance. This distinction is particularly important because the introduction of mandatory assurance may deepen divisions within the profession, with some auditors perceiving sustainability assurance as an opportunity for professional expansion and value creation, while others view it primarily as a burden requiring resources and expertise they do not possess. Understanding these differences is essential for assessing the practical feasibility of CSRD implementation and the future capacity of the audit profession. Given the above, we pose the following research questions:

Institutional theory examines how the structures of organizations – such as schemes, rules, norms and routines – become recognized as authoritative guidelines for social behavior and reporting practices. It suggests that an organization’s survival hinges on its ability to acknowledge and adhere to these structures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Scholars utilizing institutional theory often focus on an organization’s dominant logic, stakeholder relationships and managerial motivations to explain varying responses to external pressures (Tyson and Adams, 2020). However, organizational fields typically do not adhere to a single dominant logic. Instead, organizations often navigate multiple, sometimes conflicting logics that influence both institutional stability and change (cf. Albu et al., 2025; Lounsbury, 2007; Marquis and Lounsbury, 2007; Purdy and Gray, 2009; Reay and Hinings, 2005; Thornton et al., 2005). Based on the research of Thornton and Ocasio (1999) and Thornton et al. (2012), scholars have explored how organizational practices evolve (or fail to evolve) when new logics conflict with established ones (Tyson and Adams, 2020). Although institutional theory and institutional logics are frequently used in sustainability research, their application to sustainability assurance research was found to be limited but also useful (Tyson and Adams, 2020). We follow this reasoning by using institutional logics as a theoretical background in this study to explain the approach of the statutory auditors’ profession to sustainability reporting assurance.

Institutional logics theory is particularly suited to our research because it explains how professionals navigate competing value systems when facing new expectations, such as sustainability assurance under the CSRD. Other theories widely used in sustainability reporting research, e.g. legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory, agency theory or signaling theory, mainly explain how organizations respond to external pressures. They focus on how to obtain or maintain a license to operate, respond to stakeholder expectations, manage conflicts between owners and managers or send positive signals to the market. While these theories help explain why companies adopt sustainability reporting or assurance, they say little about how auditors think and act in practice. In particular, they do not sufficiently address how auditors reconcile fiduciary duties, commercial pressures and public-interest responsibilities. Therefore, the institutional logics perspective provides a more precise and comprehensive explanation of why auditors differ in their readiness to provide sustainability assurance and how regulatory change influences professional identity.

In this paper, we follow Thornton and Ocasio (1999) and assume that institutional logics reflect the socially constructed basis of “historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values and beliefs and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space and provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). In our study, these individuals are statutory auditors facing important institutional change. In previous studies examining institutional change, researchers have highlighted the significance of institutional tension arising from the incompatibility of competing institutional logics (Seo and Creed, 2002; Thornton and Ocasio, 2008; Thornton et al., 2005). According to Tyson and Adams (2020), institutional logics that influence the behavior of individuals may include a conventional focus on profit maximization or, in the context of sustainability, a broader consideration of issues, such as CO₂ emissions, climate change and sustainable development. Changes in these practices can be linked to new stakeholder relationships, shifts in the hierarchy of dominant logics or altered motivations and values. In addition, in our study, we recognize two competing institutional logics. According to the traditional logic, the statutory auditor is a financial specialist and expert in financial reporting and audit. This was the dominant logic in the field until the introduction of the CSRD. The second is a new, sustainability-shaped logic, according to which the statutory auditor is also a sustainability expert, with all the necessary knowledge and experience required to perform sustainability reporting assurance.

As the literature suggests, two primary logics influence the accounting profession: fiduciary logic and commercial logic (Duff et al., 2020). Fiduciary logic emphasizes a sense of professional identity and responsibility to act in the public interest. Under the fiduciary logic, accountants are viewed as professionals akin to educators, priests, lawyers and physicians, bearing responsibilities to the wider community (Jones, 1995; Thornton et al., 2005). In contrast, commercial logic prioritizes income generation, entrepreneurial success and recognition as part of the business elite. According to commercial logic, accountants’ identities are rooted in a view of accounting as an industry centered on selling services and generating profits (Zeff, 2003; Thornton et al., 2005). Although tension between these two logics has long existed, recent research has documented a notable shift. Over the past two decades, commercial logic has gained prominence, increasingly overshadowing the fiduciary focus (Lander et al., 2013; Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005). In the context of organizations, this tension between logics and how organizations respond to it is crucial, as it can significantly affect social legitimacy and, consequently, access to critical resources. In certain cases, it may even affect an organization’s long-term survival (Greenwood et al., 2011). In this study, we apply the concepts of fiduciary logic and commercial logic to the statutory auditor profession.

This study aims to identify and evaluate statutory auditors’ readiness to provide sustainability reporting assurance, differences in their motivations and challenges and perceived benefits for companies. It used a survey to gather empirical data. A link to the anonymous questionnaire in the online form (Google Forms) was sent by e-mail to auditors in the Polish Chamber of Statutory Auditors’ bulletin on June 27, 2024, and the questionnaire was made available online on the organization’s website between June 27 and September 16, 2024. First, the questionnaire was pretested among a group of statutory auditors, and the Chamber authorities were consulted. The main purpose of the survey was to identify whether statutory auditors are interested in providing sustainability reporting assurance. Moreover, the questions addressed the motivations behind their decisions, the potential challenges they might face and the perceived benefits of sustainability reporting assurance for companies.

The questions relating to motivations and challenges associated with providing sustainability assurance were recorded as binary variables, where respondents indicated whether a given factor applied to them (coded as 1 = selected, 0 = not selected). In contrast, the items capturing perceived benefits for companies were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = unimportant, 5 = very important), enabling respondents to rate the relative importance of each benefit. The key grouping variable – respondents’ readiness to provide sustainability assurance services – was coded dichotomously (1 = ready, 0 = not ready). The full questionnaire used in the study is available as Supplementary Material. While the survey items capture observable motivations, challenges and perceptions rather than institutional logics directly, these patterns can be interpreted as manifestations of broader professional value orientations associated with fiduciary and commercial logics.

To assess the potential presence of common method bias, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test by subjecting all motivation-, challenge- and benefit-related items to an unrotated exploratory factor analysis. The results indicate that the first factor accounts for less than 50% of the total variance, suggesting that no single factor dominates the data set. Therefore, common method bias is unlikely to threaten the validity of our findings.

The responses were made available to the authors in September 2024 in an Excel file. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 283 responses were considered valid, which means that more than 10% of active statutory auditors in Poland participated in the survey.

Descriptive statistics and selected statistical tests were used to explore the auditors’ motivations for providing assurance services, as well as their opinions on the challenges and benefits associated with these services. The data do not meet the assumptions required for parametric tests, such as ANOVA or t-tests (e.g. normality, interval-scale measurement). For this reason, nonparametric procedures were used. Specifically, the Mann–Whitney U test was used for group comparisons. Although non-parametric tests do not require normally distributed data, they assume homogeneity of distribution shapes across the groups being compared. To assess this assumption, we examined group distributions using Levene’s test applied to the ordinal and binary variables, as well as visual inspection of boxplots. The analyses did not indicate substantial violations of distributional similarity, supporting the use of the Mann–Whitney U test for group comparisons.

The average age of the respondents was 51 years, while their average experience as statutory auditors was 14 years. Only 10.7% of the respondents provide services to large public interest entities that will initially be subject to the CSRD assurance requirement. Table 1 presents the gender composition and employment structure of the surveyed statutory auditors, showing the distribution of respondents by gender and by type of employing organization.

The sample shows a clear predominance of women (61.1%). Among active statutory auditors, nearly half work in companies with Polish capital (47.2%).

Table 2 shows that just over half of the statutory auditors surveyed (53%) declare readiness to provide sustainability assurance. Among these auditors, the most frequently selected motivations relate to professional development (enhancing knowledge and acquiring new skills in an emerging field) and a personal interest in sustainability topics. These patterns suggest that for many respondents, the decision to engage in sustainability assurance is shaped by fiduciary-oriented motivations, such as commitment to professional competence and the public-interest dimension of sustainability reporting, rather than by purely commercial considerations. Motivations associated with commercial logic, such as revenue growth or increased client demand, appear less influential overall, indicating that auditors’ interest in sustainability assurance may be rooted more in identity-based and value-driven orientations than immediate economic gain. The gender-group patterns in Table 2 also exhibit interesting nuances. Compared with men, women auditors report intrinsic, development-oriented motivations (broadening knowledge and personal interest in sustainability) slightly more often. These differences suggest a somewhat stronger fiduciary-logic alignment among women, reflected in an emphasis on learning, ethics and sustainability engagement rather than short-term commercial outcomes.

To determine whether these observed differences held statistically, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted (Table 3). The results confirm that none of the motivational items differ significantly between women and men (all p > 0.05). This finding indicates that despite descriptive variations, both groups draw on similar underlying motivations when considering sustainability assurance.

Viewed through the lens of institutional logics, these findings suggest that readiness to provide sustainability assurance is shaped less by demographic factors or economic incentives and more by auditors’ professional value orientations. The prominence of learning- and ethics-oriented motivations among ready auditors signals a stronger identification with the fiduciary aspects of the profession, whereas the more hesitant group may prioritize commercial pragmatism or existing routines. Overall, motivations serve as indicators of broader professional mindsets, foreshadowing the more pronounced differences that appear later in perceived challenges and benefits.

Table 4 illustrates how motivations to provide sustainability assurance vary across different employment contexts. While the specific percentages differ, a clear pattern emerges: auditors across all settings most frequently cite professional development and personal interest in sustainability as key motivations. This finding indicates that, regardless of organizational form, decisions to engage in sustainability assurance are strongly influenced by fiduciary-oriented considerations, such as enhancing expertise and responding to broader societal expectations.

Auditors in companies with Polish capital place the greatest emphasis on expanding knowledge and developing new competencies, while self-employed and contract-based auditors report personal interest in sustainability as their strongest motivation. These patterns reflect a shared orientation towards learning and ethical responsibility rather than towards externally imposed or commercially driven motives. In contrast, auditors in foreign-owned companies report client-driven demand and revenue growth more frequently than other groups do, suggesting a somewhat stronger presence of commercial logic in these organizational environments. The higher sensitivity of such auditors to market expectations and competitive pressures may make sustainability assurance appear as both a strategic service line and a response to stakeholder demands.

Motivations linked to regulatory compliance or employer directives remain relatively weak across all groups, especially among self-employed and contract-based auditors, where engagement appears more voluntary and internally motivated. This finding reinforces the idea that sustainability assurance at this stage of CSRD implementation is driven more by professional identity and perceived societal relevance than by external coercion.

Viewed through the lens of institutional logics, these findings show that fiduciary logic predominates across most organizational types, shaping auditors’ willingness to develop competencies and contribute to the credibility of sustainability reporting. The stronger commercial motivations observed in foreign-owned companies reflect a dual-logic context, where fiduciary and commercial considerations coexist but are weighted differently depending on market exposure.

In the next stage, we identified the challenges associated with assurance service provision. Table 5 shows that auditors face several challenges when considering sustainability assurance, with the most frequently cited barrier being insufficient experience with assurance practices. This challenge is especially pronounced among auditors who are ready to provide assurance, suggesting that willingness to engage does not equate to confidence in current capabilities. Instead, these auditors appear more aware of the technical and methodological demands of sustainability assurance. Conversely, auditors who are not ready identify heavy workloads associated with financial audits as their primary barrier, indicating that capacity constraints rather than capability gaps play a greater role in discouraging participation.

A Mann–Whitney U test (Table 6) confirmed statistically significant differences between the two groups in several areas, including insufficient experience (p = 0.002), unfamiliarity with sustainability regulations (p = 0.006), client reluctance to pay for assurance (p < 0.001), preparation costs (p < 0.001) and shortages of qualified personnel (p = 0.011). These results highlight that ready auditors perceive a broader range of structural and market-driven challenges, while not-ready auditors are more constrained by traditional workload pressures.

Interpreted through the lens of institutional logics, the contrast between the groups becomes clearer. Auditors who express readiness despite acknowledging capability gaps appear guided by a fiduciary logic, which emphasizes professional responsibility, ethical duty and serving the public interest. Their willingness to engage reflects an orientation towards the evolving societal role of auditors, even when the organizational infrastructure is not yet fully supportive. In contrast, auditors who emphasize workload pressures and resource shortages align more closely with commercial logic, prioritizing efficiency, profitability and the practical realities of existing audit obligations. This divergence suggests that the audit profession is negotiating between long-standing fiduciary ideals and market-driven constraints as it adapts to the emerging field of sustainability assurance.

Overall, the results imply that readiness is not simply a function of lower perceived barriers; rather, it reflects the dominant logic through which auditors interpret those barriers – either as challenges to be addressed in service of the public interest or as risks that threaten operational efficiency.

The questions also addressed the perceived benefits for companies in obtaining assurance services, as viewed by the surveyed auditors. Table 7 shows that auditors generally perceive increased stakeholder trust and improved reputation as the most important benefits of sustainability assurance, although overall assessments remain moderate. Financial benefits are rated lowest across all the respondents. Notably, auditors who are ready to provide assurance consistently assign greater importance to nearly all benefit categories than those who are not ready, suggesting a more favorable view of the strategic and reputational value of assurance.

A Mann–Whitney U test (Table 8) confirmed significant differences between the two groups for most benefit dimensions, including trust enhancement, reputation, risk management, access to new markets, employee engagement and operational efficiency (all p < 0.05). Only financial benefits show no statistically significant difference. This pattern indicates that ready auditors attach greater importance to intangible, long-term organizational gains, while not-ready auditors evaluate these benefits more cautiously.

Interpreted through the lens of institutional logics, these results illustrate distinct underlying orientations. Auditors who are ready to provide assurance appear more strongly guided by fiduciary logic, placing value on assurance for its contribution to credibility, transparency and broader societal trust in sustainability information. They view assurance as a mechanism for reinforcing the profession’s public-interest role and generating long-term organizational benefits. In contrast, auditors influenced by commercial logic focus on more immediate, concrete outcomes, such as direct financial benefits, which are perceived as less certain at this stage. This explains why financial benefits do not significantly differentiate the groups: they are neither highly valued by fiduciary-driven auditors nor sufficiently tangible for commercially oriented auditors.

Overall, the results suggest that readiness to provide sustainability assurance is linked to how auditors interpret the purpose of assurance itself. Those who see assurance as part of the profession’s ethical mandate recognize broader reputational and trust-building benefits, whereas those guided by commercial pragmatism are less convinced regarding its value. This divergence reinforces the idea that motivations and readiness are embedded in deeper professional value structures rather than isolated benefit assessments.

The study results indicate that only approximately half of the respondents expressed interest in offering sustainability reporting assurance services, suggesting that the traditional and the new, sustainability-related logics are still competing within the profession and do not (yet) exhibit a definitive shift toward the new logic.

Our findings regarding RQ1 indicate that the motivations driving statutory auditors’ readiness to provide sustainability reporting assurance services vary according to auditor characteristics. An analysis of these characteristics revealed that women are more likely to cite a personal commitment to sustainability as a motivation, which suggests that fiduciary logic is dominant in this group. This might be due to socialization that encourages empathy and community-oriented values, which align with support for sustainability goals (cf. Ibrahim and Angelidis, 2009; Ariail et al., 2012; Krasodomska et al., 2020). In addition, women often view their professional roles as a means to contribute to societal good, which may drive their interest in sustainability assurance. Although women respondents descriptively reported slightly stronger intrinsic motivations related to sustainability, these differences were not statistically significant. This suggests that motivations towards sustainability assurance are broadly similar across genders in the Polish audit profession, which aligns with the findings of a study by Krasodomska et al. (2020) on Polish accountants’ attitudes towards the NFRD.

Fiduciary logic also seems to guide auditors employed by companies with Polish capital or running their own businesses more often than those working for companies with foreign capital, who tended to cite commercially driven motivations. Opportunities for revenue growth – an expression of commercial logic – seem to be of moderate importance across all groups but are notably more significant among auditors in companies with foreign capital. This commercially oriented approach may be influenced by the priorities of foreign-owned firms, which often emphasize profitability and market competitiveness – factors that can encourage the pursuit of revenue through services such as sustainability assurance. As suggested by previous studies, such firms, particularly the Big Four, are well positioned to leverage their scale to achieve economies of scale in delivering these services (Farooq and de Villiers, 2017; Aliyu, 2024; Lander et al., 2013). In contrast, auditors from Polish capital companies or those who are self-employed appear to place greater emphasis on social responsibility than on immediate financial gain.

Overall, the lack of sufficient education and training in the field of sustainability, highlighted by previous studies on sustainability assurance (Gray, 2000; Farooq and de Villiers, 2017), is also evident in the context of the current study. The motivations of statutory auditors to provide assurance services primarily arise from a desire to deepen their knowledge, acquire additional skills and competencies in the emerging field and an interest in sustainability. The demand for these services from clients, along with the associated economic benefits, is of secondary importance. Since the respondents’ answers indicate that they are driven primarily by a desire to enhance their knowledge of and skills in sustainability, as well as a personal interest in the topic, fiduciary logic appears to dominate. These findings suggest that, in contrast to studies showing that commercial logic has gained prominence in the accounting profession, increasingly overshadowing the fiduciary focus (Lander et al., 2013; Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005), this may not be the case in regard to statutory auditors and sustainability reporting assurance. Given that the cost of the assurance service is estimated at 30% of the statutory audit fee, which is relatively high (Business and Accountancy Daily, 2024), it also helps explain the low interest in performing this service among the respondents. If driven purely by commercial logic, they should be more interested in providing assurance services.

In response to RQ2, we identified the challenges faced by statutory auditors and examined how these differ between those who are ready to provide sustainability reporting assurance services and those who are not. The main challenges for auditors who were ready to provide assurance were a lack of experience and knowledge of assurance practices, while those who were not interested cited workload and insufficient knowledge. Statutory auditors also highlighted challenges such as companies’ reluctance to incur extra costs and unfamiliarity with sustainability regulations. Notably, auditors who were ready to provide assurance services faced challenges related to insufficient experience, limited knowledge and the need for collaboration with professionals from other fields. These findings resonate with the current discussion in the literature that limited knowledge and skills in sustainability might explain why these accounting professionals do not view themselves as vehicles for the changes introduced by the CSRD (cf. Farooq and de Villiers, 2019, 2017). However, their readiness to collaborate with outside experts can be seen as a way to minimize these threats and transcend their traditional role as data verifiers (Channuntapipat, 2021). The differing challenges identified by auditors indicate that those ready to provide assurance are driven by fiduciary logic, emphasizing professional responsibility, whereas those who are not, deterred by service costs or personnel shortages, are influenced by commercial logic, focusing on efficiency and profitability.

RQ2 also addressed whether the perceived benefits for companies differ between auditors who are ready to provide sustainability reporting assurance services and those who are not. The respondents indicate that the main benefits of assurance for companies are increased stakeholder trust and an enhanced reputation, which is consistent with the findings of Aliyu’s (2024) study. This aligns with the notion that assurance enhances the credibility of reporting (e.g. Farooq and de Villiers, 2017; Hodge et al., 2009), particularly when it is provided by statutory auditors (Hodge et al., 2009). In contrast, financial benefits for companies are perceived as the least significant. In addition, compared with those who are not ready, auditors ready to provide assurance services perceived greater benefits for companies, such as increased stakeholder trust and improved reputation. This finding also supports the results of previous studies conducted in the Polish setting, which revealed that the benefits associated with the implementation of sustainability reporting by companies have the potential to trigger a positive shift in accountants’ perceptions of the modifications introduced by the NFRD (Krasodomska et al., 2020) and the CSRD (Krasodomska et al., 2024), making the adjustment to the new challenges posed by the EU regulations smoother. In the context of the theoretical background of the study, the findings suggest that auditors guided by fiduciary logic are more likely to value the reputational and ethical benefits of assurance and, therefore, show greater readiness to provide such services. This aligns with emerging evidence that auditors’ own sustainability focus can shape their disclosure behaviors (Liu et al., 2023), reinforcing our interpretation that fiduciary-oriented auditors may contribute to the broader transformation of reporting practices.

While our interpretation suggests the presence of distinct logics that shape auditors’ orientations towards sustainability assurance, this interpretation warrants further reflection. The differences between auditors who provide sustainability assurance and those who do not may partly reflect variations in practical experience. However, such experience does not mechanically determine the institutional logics guiding their orientations. Institutional logics constitute broader normative and professional frameworks that may coexist, compete or even operate in tension with individual experiences and day-to-day practice.

Also, in the broader context of sustainability assurance service provision and in line with the competing logics identified in our findings, attention could be drawn to the potential jurisdictional tensions between statutory auditors and other assurance providers. As noted in the introduction, in EU countries, sustainability assurance may not be exclusively reserved for statutory auditors but may also be undertaken by other qualified actors, such as consultants or technical experts (Gillet-Monjarret, 2022; Farooq and de Villiers, 2019). This coexistence of competing provider groups contributes to a pluralistic field in which different institutional logics – a traditional logic versus a sustainability-shaped logic – interact and, at times, come into conflict. Prior research suggests that these dynamics reflect not only differences in methodologies and knowledge bases but also deeper struggles over professional authority and recognition (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019; O’Dwyer et al., 2011). Hence, statutory auditors may draw on their established audit-based legitimacy (traditional logic), while alternative providers build legitimacy through their specialized sustainability expertise (sustainability-shaped logic). In this sense, competition in the sustainability assurance market extends beyond readiness to provide such services and is closely tied to legitimacy-building strategies, as each group seeks to position itself as the most credible and appropriate provider of assurance in an evolving regulatory and institutional environment (Ruiz-Barbadillo and Martínez-Ferrero, 2022; Michelon et al., 2019).

The introduction of mandatory sustainability assurance under the CSRD has created a profound shift in the EU regulatory landscape, redefining the scope and responsibilities of the audit profession. This regulatory transformation offers a unique opportunity to examine how statutory auditors respond to the expansion of their traditional role into the domain of sustainability reporting. By examining auditors’ motivations, perceived challenges and assessments of potential benefits, this study sheds light on how the audit profession interprets and adapts to the institutional pressures associated with this emerging regulatory environment. Investigating this process in the context of Poland is particularly insightful, as the region combines recent regulatory change with distinct institutional, economic and professional characteristics. The coexistence of evolving sustainability expectations and historically compliance-oriented regulatory cultures makes this setting especially suitable for exploring whether auditors are ready to embrace their new responsibilities. In doing so, the study contributes to a growing body of research examining how professional actors in the accounting field respond to sustainability-related regulatory reforms and how competing institutional logics shape their readiness to engage with new practices.

This study contributes to the literature in three main ways. First, from a theoretical perspective, this paper contributes by applying institutional logics theory to the study of sustainability assurance, an area that has not been widely explored through this lens. In the context of sustainability assurance, the traditional and the sustainability-based logics remain in tension. Moreover, the study findings highlight the dominant fiduciary logic among statutory auditors, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining legitimacy and trust with stakeholders rather than focusing primarily on commercial or regulatory incentives. Fiduciary logic is rooted in a commitment to ethical behavior and responsibility towards stakeholders, which drives auditors to seek assurance roles in sustainability reporting.

More broadly, the study contributes to the institutional logics literature by illustrating how competing professional value systems influence auditors’ responses to regulatory change in emerging sustainability assurance settings. By examining how auditors interpret the motivations, challenges and benefits associated with sustainability assurance, the findings provide empirical insight into how fiduciary and commercial logics interact within the accounting profession when new responsibilities are introduced. By demonstrating this tendency, the paper enriches the literature on sustainability assurance by showing how institutional logics shape auditors’ motivations and actions.

Second, from an empirical perspective, the study offers novel evidence based on survey data from statutory auditors operating in a newly regulated assurance environment, which designates them as the only group authorized to provide mandatory sustainability assurance. This regulatory shift represents a critical moment in the evolution of the audit profession. The study findings provide insight into the motivations, perceived challenges and expected benefits associated with sustainability assurance from the perspective of the profession, shedding light on the ways auditors are navigating this transformation and emphasizing how their underlying logics influence their decision-making. In doing so, the paper not only deepens our understanding of auditors’ perspectives but also identifies key drivers – such as knowledge acquisition, personal commitment to sustainability and the demand for new competencies – that may affect the broader transition of the profession towards sustainable development.

By linking auditors’ motivations and perceived barriers to underlying professional logics, the study also contributes to sustainability assurance research by offering a theoretically informed explanation of why auditors differ in their readiness to engage with sustainability assurance. This perspective highlights that the implementation of sustainability assurance reforms depends not only on technical competencies and regulatory requirements but also on the professional value systems that shape how auditors interpret and respond to these changes. In this way, the study extends prior institutional logics research by demonstrating how regulatory reforms such as the CSRD can activate, reinforce or challenge existing professional logics within audit practice. These insights are essential for understanding the potential barriers and enablers in the adoption of sustainability assurance and could inform strategies for facilitating the profession’s adaptation to the emerging sustainability landscape.

Third, from a practical perspective, the findings provide useful insight for regulators, professional bodies and educators by identifying key areas in which statutory auditors may require additional support, training and institutional guidance to effectively perform sustainability assurance engagements. A significant portion of statutory auditors expressed a lack of experience of and knowledge regarding sustainability and assurance practices. Therefore, specialized training programs focused on sustainability regulations, assurance practices and the integration of sustainability data into assurance processes are crucial. Such programs can enhance auditors’ confidence and competence in providing assurance for sustainability reports. The study is also informative for regulatory bodies overseeing the audit profession concerning how to prepare statutory auditors for their new roles. Furthermore, the study contributes to increasing awareness about how the auditing profession is adapting to new regulations. This insight can be particularly valuable for companies that are considering or seeking sustainability reporting assurance services, as it provides a clearer understanding of the evolving landscape. In addition, educators will benefit from these findings by gaining a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the field, which can inform the development of more targeted training programs. Statutory auditors themselves may also find the study’s results useful, as they shed light on the professional adjustments necessary to meet the demands of these new regulatory frameworks.

Notably, despite the single-country focus, the study’s findings may have relevance beyond the Polish context and offer insights applicable to other countries facing similar regulatory and institutional conditions. The situation regarding sustainability reporting and its assurance in Poland is similar to that in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe because of the economic transition from planned to market economies, the slower adoption of sustainability practices and the distinct approaches to corporate governance in Poland than in Western Europe (Krasodomska, 2025; Albu et al., 2024). Many companies in the region are only now starting to address sustainability challenges in a meaningful way, with small and medium-sized enterprises lagging even further behind. In addition, the regulatory culture in the region has traditionally been compliance-focused, emphasizing adherence to legal requirements over voluntary engagement with sustainability initiatives. In countries where statutory auditors are designated as the exclusive assurance providers, mirroring Poland’s regulatory choice, the profession is likely to encounter similar tensions between fiduciary and commercial logics, comparable capacity constraints and analogous needs for specialized sustainability training. Moreover, the observed motivations, particularly the prominence of fiduciary logic and auditors’ emphasis on knowledge acquisition and public-interest responsibilities, may also resonate in contexts where the audit profession is navigating the shift from traditional financial assurance to broader sustainability-focused roles. Consequently, while grounded in the Polish context, the findings offer broader insight into how statutory auditors in emerging or transitioning institutional environments may respond to the expanding expectations introduced by the CSRD, providing a foundation for comparative research and practical reflections across similarly situated European countries.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample is based on statutory auditors in Poland. Although the Polish context resembles that of other Central and Eastern European countries, the findings may not be fully generalizable to countries with different regulatory frameworks, levels of sustainability maturity or professional traditions. Second, while the survey provided valuable insights into auditors’ motivations and challenges, it relies on self-reported data, which can be subject to bias. Third, the study captures perceptions during an early stage of regulatory implementation. Auditors’ attitudes, competencies and motivations may evolve as they gain experience with sustainability assurance.

Future research could expand on this study by exploring cross-national comparisons to examine how statutory auditors’ motivations and challenges vary across different regulatory contexts. Longitudinal studies could track how auditors’ engagement with sustainability assurance evolves over time. Qualitative research based on semistructured interviews could provide deeper insight into how statutory auditors perceive their emerging roles as assurance providers and how the profession adapts to new regulatory demands. Finally, future studies could examine the jurisdictional tensions between statutory auditors and other sustainability assurance providers, particularly in the EU context, where the flexibility introduced by the CSRD enables both groups to operate in a market shaped by competing institutional logics. Such research could provide valuable insights into how professional boundaries are negotiated and how legitimacy is constructed in an evolving assurance landscape.

The authors are grateful to the Polish Chamber of Statutory Auditors for its collaboration in conducting the survey. The paper has benefited from comments received from the participants of the 26th Annual Conference on Finance and Accounting in Prague, 2025; 47th European Accounting Association (EAA) Annual Congress in Rome, 2025; and the SAAA/IAAER Biennial International Conference in Cape Town, 2025.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.