Effects of Different Team Formats on the Performance of Multidisciplinary GHG Assurance Teams
研究了温室气体鉴证团队中，名义团队和审查团队在头脑风暴任务中生成风险的数量和质量均优于互动团队，且鉴证专家在将主题与标准比较时能生成更多独特风险。
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.