The “Assurance Gap” in ESG Information Disclosure in the Baijiu Industry: Current Status, Causes, and Countermeasures

Authors

  • Jian Zhou School of Economics and Business Administration, Yibin University, Yibin 644000, China
  • Qing Li School of Economics and Business Administration, Yibin University, Yibin 644000, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/pmyq6z05

Keywords:

Baijiu Industry; ESG Information Disclosure; Sustainability Information Assurance; Assurance Gap.

Abstract

With the release of the Guidelines for Sustainability Reports of Listed Companies by the Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Beijing Stock Exchanges, A-share ESG information disclosure has entered a new “partially mandatory” stage. As a traditional industry with high environmental sensitivity, the baijiu industry has significantly increased its ESG report disclosure rate. However, behind the prosperity of disclosure, the coverage rate and quality of third-party assurance have long remained low, forming an “assurance gap.” Based on the publicly available ESG reports of 15 listed baijiu enterprises with operating revenue of more than RMB 1 billion in 2025, this paper systematically reviews the current status of ESG information disclosure and assurance in the baijiu industry, deconstructs the specific manifestations of the assurance gap from four dimensions-calibers, depth, scope, and providers-and further analyzes the underlying causes of the gap from four levels: institutional supply, technical system, corporate governance, and service supply. The study finds that among the 15 sample enterprises, 5 implemented third-party assurance, with a coverage rate of approximately 33.3%, slightly higher than the average level of 29.8% for the mandatory disclosure group in the overall market. However, the assurance standards are mainly AA1000AS v3 Type 2 moderate assurance and ISAE 3000 reasonable assurance; the assurance scope is mostly limited to selected performance indicators or excludes forward-looking information; industry-specific topics are insufficiently covered; and all assurance providers are international TIC institutions or consulting companies, with accounting firms absent. The formation of the assurance gap is the result of multiple factors: insufficient adaptation between general standards and industry characteristics, immaturity of non-financial assurance technology, weak independence of corporate ESG internal control, and lagging supply of professional assurance services. Accordingly, this paper proposes targeted countermeasures from four dimensions-institutional norms, technical support, corporate governance, and service cultivation-in order to provide a reference for bridging the ESG assurance gap in the baijiu industry and improving the quality of sustainability information disclosure in the industry.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967.

[2] 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.

[3] Cheng, M. M., Green, W. J., & Ko, J. C. W. (2015). The impact of strategic relevance and assurance of sustainability indicators on investors’ decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 131–162.

[4] Hoang, H., & Trotman, K. T. (2021). The effect of CSR assurance and explicit assessment on investor valuation judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 40(1), 19–33.

[5] Zhang, J., Qing, S., Han, M., et al. (2026). ESG information assurance and assurance level and non-professional investors’ investment judgments: An experimental research. Auditing Research, (2), 1–12.

[6] Liu, M., & Wang, P. (2025). Sustainability information assurance: Disagreements and choices. Accounting Research, (10), 3–16.

[7] Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2026). CICPA official answers to reporters on issuing the Sustainability Information Assurance Standard No. 6101-Basic Standard (Trial). Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

[8] Chang, M., Dong, D., Xie, J., et al. (2026). Research on ESG report assurance of A-share listed companies in 2025 under mandatory disclosure policy. The Chinese Certified Public Accountant, (5), 22–31.

[9] Huang, S. (2026). Problems and countermeasures of mandatory disclosure of sustainability information. Finance and Accounting Monthly. Advance online publication.

[10] Yi, P. (2026). Problems and regulatory countermeasures of ESG assurance of pharmaceutical listed companies: A case study of RuiZhi Pharma. Friends of Accounting, (12), 54–60.

[11] Cheng, B., Han, M., Zhong, Y., et al. (2026). Adaptation and reconstruction of core elements of China’s sustainable information assurance report: Based on comparative analysis of accounting firms and third-party institutions. Journal of Nanjing Audit University, (3), 24–35.

[12] Chen, S., Xue, S., Zhang, W., et al. (2024). Factors impacting the development of sustainability business of accounting firms: Based on interviews with 11 accounting firms. Auditing Research, (1), 28–40.

[13] Li, M. (2026). Research on sustainability assurance: Review and prospects. Auditing and Economic Research, (2), 1–15.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-25

Issue

Section

Articles