arbiter
JournalsAccount

Effects of Different Team Formats on the Performance of Multidisciplinary GHG Assurance Teams

Erboon Ekasingh et al.

Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory2025https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-2023-051article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.41

Abstract

SUMMARY Assurance of GHG and other ESG disclosures has become widespread. We examine the effect of team format on the performance of GHG multidisciplinary assurance teams comprising an assurance expert (financial background) and a subject matter expert (scientific background). We compare the performance of three different multidisciplinary GHG assurance teams (nominal, interacting and review) on a brainstorming task involving GHG risk generation. We find that both nominal teams and review teams outperform interacting teams in the quantity and quality of risks generated. We also find evidence of the nature of cognitive diversity in multidisciplinary teams as assurance experts generate more unique risks associated with comparing the subject matter with suitable criteria than subject matter experts.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-2023-051

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{erboon2025,
  title        = {{Effects of Different Team Formats on the Performance of Multidisciplinary GHG Assurance Teams}},
  author       = {Erboon Ekasingh et al.},
  journal      = {Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-2023-051},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Effects of Different Team Formats on the Performance of Multidisciplinary GHG Assurance Teams

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.