ASSA 5000

This Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ASSA) applies to assurance engagements on:

1. sustainability information in a sustainability report for a financial year in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act);
2. sustainability information where the engagement is held out to have been conducted in accordance with this ASSA; and
3. sustainability information for any other purpose, except where ASAE 3410 Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements (ASAE 3410) is required to be applied.

This ASSA also applies, as appropriate, to assurance on other sustainability information.

Subject to paragraph Aus 0.4, this ASSA is effective for assurance engagements on sustainability information reported:

1. For periods beginning on or after 1 January 2025; or
2. As at a specific date on or after 1 January 2025.

Earlier application of this ASSA is permitted, except where ASAE 3410 is required to be applied.

Note: For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph Aus 0.3(b) does not require this standard to apply to any engagements for periods beginning before 1 January 2025.

For assurance engagements on sustainability information in a sustainability report under Chapter 2M of the Act for a financial year commencing from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2030, this ASSA applies as specified in Australian Sustainability Assurance Standard ASSA 5010 Timeline for Audits and Reviews of Information in Sustainability Reports under the Corporations Act 2001.

This Australian Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ASSA) deals with assurance engagements on sustainability information.

For purposes of this ASSA, sustainability information is information about sustainability matters. An entity’s disclosures about such matters may relate to several different topics (e.g., climate, labour practices, biodiversity) and aspects of topics (e.g., risks and opportunities, metrics and key performance indicators). Law or regulation or sustainability reporting frameworks may describe sustainability matters, topics or aspects of topics in different ways, and may also provide requirements or guidance for the entity in determining the sustainability information to be reported. (Ref: Para. A1, A21–A22, A43, Appendix 1)

Sustainability information is reported in accordance with the criteria. This ASSA requires the practitioner to evaluate whether the criteria that the practitioner expects to be applied in the preparation of the sustainability information are suitable for the engagement circumstances. In the absence of indications to the contrary, framework criteria that are embodied in law or regulation or are established by authorised or recognised organisations that follow a transparent due process are presumed to be suitable. (Ref: Para. A2, A197)

The criteria may specify a process by which the entity identifies sustainability matters to be reported, including the application of materiality in identifying such matters and the reporting boundary. In this ASSA, “the entity’s process to identify sustainability information to be reported” refers to the process applied by the entity to determine the sustainability matters to be reported in the sustainability information and the reporting boundary. (Ref: Para. A3)

The scope of the assurance engagement may extend to all of the sustainability information to be reported by the entity or only part of that information. For example, some jurisdictions may require the entirety of the sustainability information to be reported in accordance with an established framework to be subject to assurance. However, in certain jurisdictions, law or regulation may require that only climate-related disclosures in an entity’s sustainability information be subject to assurance. The reporting requirements of this ASSA require the practitioner to identify or describe the information that is subject to the assurance engagement. (Ref: Para. A4)

This ASSA is premised on the basis that: (Ref: Para. A5)

1. [Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 6.1.]
2. The practitioner who is performing the engagement is a member of a firm that is subject to ASQM 1^[1], or professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation, regarding the firm’s responsibility for its system of quality management, that are at least as demanding as ASQM 1. (Ref: Para. A8–A11)

The members of the engagement team and the engagement quality reviewer (for those engagements where one has been appointed) are subject to the applicable requirements of APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including Independence Standards) issued by the Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board Limited and the provisions in Part 5 of the International Ethics Standards for Sustainability Assurance (Including International Independence Standards) issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants and applicable legislative or other requirements, or professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation, that are at least as demanding; and (Ref: Para. A6–A7)

Quality management within firms that perform assurance engagements, and compliance with ethical principles, including independence requirements, are widely recognised as being in the public interest and an integral part of high-quality assurance engagements. When a practitioner performs a sustainability assurance engagement in accordance with this and other ASSAs, it is important to recognise that this ASSA includes requirements that reflect the premises described in paragraph 6. (Ref: Para. A5–A11)

Subject to the exceptions in paragraph Aus 0.1, this ASSA applies to all assurance engagements on sustainability information. This ASSA applies to all types of sustainability information, regardless of how that information is presented. (Ref: Para. A12–A14)

This ASSA deals with both reasonable and limited assurance engagements. Unless otherwise stated, each requirement of this ASSA applies to both reasonable and limited assurance engagements. Because the level of assurance obtained in a limited assurance engagement is substantially lower than in a reasonable assurance engagement, the procedures the practitioner will perform in a limited assurance engagement will vary in nature and timing from, and are less in extent than for, a reasonable assurance engagement. (Ref: Para. A15)

The Framework for Assurance Engagements notes that an assurance engagement may be either an attestation engagement or a direct engagement. This ASSA deals only with attestation engagements. Therefore, references in this ASSA to "assurance engagement" or "engagement" mean an attestation engagement.

Relationship with ASAE 3000 (Revised)^[2] 

This ASSA is an overarching standard that includes requirements and application material for all elements of a sustainability assurance engagement. Accordingly, the practitioner is not required to apply ASAE 3000 (Revised) when performing the engagement.

Relationship with the Audited Financial Report

This ASSA does not address sustainability information that is required to be included in the entity’s financial report in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. The auditor of the entity’s financial report is required to apply the Australian Standards on Auditing to such information.

Sustainability information may be presented together with the entity’s audited financial report, for example, as a part of the entity’s annual report or in a separate document or documents accompanying the annual report. In these circumstances, the audited financial reports are considered other information for purposes of this ASSA.

Scalability

This ASSA is intended for assurance engagements on sustainability information of all entities, regardless of size or complexity. However, the requirements of this ASSA are intended to be applied in the context of the nature and circumstances of the engagement.

[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3]

In conducting a sustainability assurance engagement, the objectives of the practitioner are:

1. To obtain reasonable assurance or limited assurance, as applicable, about whether the sustainability information is free from material misstatement;
2. To express a conclusion on the sustainability information through a written report that conveys a reasonable assurance or a limited assurance conclusion, as applicable, and describes the basis for the conclusion; and
3. To communicate further as required by this ASSA and any other relevant ASSA.

In all cases when reasonable assurance or limited assurance, as applicable, cannot be obtained and a qualified conclusion in the practitioner’s assurance report is insufficient in the circumstances for purposes of reporting to the intended users, this ASSA requires the practitioner to disclaim a conclusion or withdraw from the engagement, where withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation.

For the purposes of this Standard on Sustainability Assurance, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:

The definition of ‘the Code’ is Parts 1 to 3 of APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including Independence Standards) issued by the Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board and the provisions in Part 5 of the International Ethics Standards for Sustainability Assurance (Including International Independence Standards) issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants.’.

The definition of ‘Engagement team’ is ‘The engagement leader and other personnel performing the engagement, and any other individuals who perform procedures on the engagement, excluding a practitioner’s external expert. (Ref: Para. A28–Aus A29.1)’.

The definition of ‘Relevant ethical requirements’ is ‘Principles of professional ethics and ethical requirements that are applicable to practitioners when undertaking assurance engagements on sustainability information. Relevant ethical requirements comprise the Code related to sustainability assurance engagements, together with applicable legislative or other requirements that are more restrictive, or professional requirements or requirements in law or regulation that an appropriate authority has determined to be at least as demanding as the provisions of the Code, including the relevant requirements in Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act 2001 in the case of an engagement for assurance over information in a sustainability report under that Act. (Ref: Para. A62–A63)’

For the avoidance of doubt, the following terms used in this standard are to be read as having the same meaning as the terms used in the Act shown in the table below when conducting an audit or review of information in a sustainability report under Chapter 2M of the Act:

Complying with Standards that Are Relevant to the Engagement

The practitioner shall comply with this ASSA and any other ASSAs relevant to the engagement. (Ref: Para. A47)

The practitioner shall not represent compliance with this or any other ASSAs unless the practitioner has complied with the requirements of this ASSA and any other ASSAs relevant to the engagement. (Ref: Para. A47–A48)

Text of an ASSA

The practitioner shall have an understanding of the entire text of an ASSA, including its application and other explanatory material, to understand its objectives and to apply its requirements properly. (Ref: Para. A49–A54)

Complying with Relevant Requirements 

The practitioner shall comply with each requirement of this ASSA and any other relevant ASSAs unless, in the circumstances of the assurance engagement, the requirement is not relevant because it is conditional and the condition does not exist. Requirements that apply to only limited assurance or reasonable assurance engagements have the letter “L” (limited assurance) or “R” (reasonable assurance), respectively, after the paragraph number. When a requirement applies to both limited and reasonable engagements, but in a differential manner, such requirements have been presented in a columnar format with the “L” (limited assurance) and “R” (reasonable assurance) designations. (Ref: Para. A55)

In exceptional circumstances, the practitioner may judge it necessary to depart from a relevant requirement in an ASSA. In such circumstances, the practitioner shall perform alternative procedures to achieve the aim of that requirement. The need for the practitioner to depart from a relevant requirement is expected to arise only when the requirement is for a specific procedure to be performed and, in the specific circumstances of the assurance engagement, that procedure would be ineffective in achieving the aim of the requirement. (Ref: Para. A56)

Documentation of a Departure from a Relevant Requirement

If, in exceptional circumstances, the practitioner judges it necessary to depart from a relevant requirement in this ASSA or any other ASSAs, the practitioner shall document how the alternative procedures performed achieve the aim of that requirement, and the reasons for the departure. (Ref: Para. A57)

Failure to Achieve an Objective 

If an objective in this ASSA or any other ASSAs relevant to the engagement cannot be achieved, the practitioner shall evaluate whether this requires the practitioner to modify the practitioner’s conclusion or withdraw from the assurance engagement (where withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation). Failure to achieve an objective in this or any other relevant ASSA represents a significant matter requiring documentation in accordance with paragraph 69.

The practitioner shall accept or continue the engagement only when:

1. The practitioner has no reason to believe that relevant ethical requirements, including independence, will not be satisfied; (Ref: Para. A58–A64)
2. The practitioner has determined that those persons who are to perform the engagement collectively have the appropriate competence and capabilities, including having sufficient time, to perform the engagement; and
3. The basis upon which the engagement is to be performed has been agreed, by:
   1. Establishing that the preconditions for an assurance engagement are present (see also paragraph 76); and
   2. Confirming that there is a common understanding between the practitioner and the engaging party of the terms of the engagement, including the practitioner’s reporting responsibilities (see also paragraph 85).

If the engaging party imposes a limitation on the scope of the practitioner’s work in the terms of a proposed engagement such that the practitioner believes the limitation will result in the practitioner disclaiming a conclusion on the sustainability information, the practitioner shall not accept such an engagement as an assurance engagement, unless required by law or regulation to do so.

The engagement leader shall determine that the firm’s policies or procedures for the acceptance and continuance of client relationships and assurance engagements have been followed and that conclusions reached in this regard are appropriate in accepting the engagement in accordance with paragraph 26. (Ref: Para. A65–A67)

If the engagement leader obtains information that may have caused the firm to decline the engagement had that information been known by the firm prior to accepting or continuing the client relationship or specific engagement, the engagement leader shall communicate that information promptly to the firm, so that the firm and the engagement leader can take the necessary action.

The engagement leader shall be a member of a firm that applies: (Ref: Para. A68–A72)

1. ASQM 1; or
2. Professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation, that an appropriate authority has determined to be at least as demanding as ASQM 1. (Ref: Para: A73–A74)

Overall Responsibility for Managing and Achieving Quality

The engagement leader shall take overall responsibility for managing and achieving quality on the engagement and being sufficiently and appropriately involved throughout the engagement such that the engagement leader has the basis for determining whether the significant judgements made, and the conclusions reached, are appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the engagement. (Ref: Para. A75–A79)

If the engagement leader assigns the design or performance of procedures, tasks or actions related to a requirement of this ASSA to other members of the engagement team to assist the engagement leader in complying with the requirements of this ASSA, the engagement leader shall continue to take overall responsibility for managing and achieving quality on the engagement through direction and supervision of those members of the engagement team, and review of their work. (Ref: Para. A80)

Characteristics of the Engagement Leader

The engagement leader shall have: (Ref: Para. A81–A83)

1. Competence and capabilities in assurance skills and techniques developed through extensive training and practical application;
2. An understanding of the relevant ethical requirements, including those related to independence, that are applicable given the nature and circumstances of the assurance engagement; and
3. Sustainability competence sufficient to accept responsibility for the conclusions reached on the engagement.

Relevant Ethical Requirements, Including Those Related to Independence 

The practitioner shall comply with relevant ethical requirements, including those related to independence, that comprise: (Ref: Para. A58–A61, A64)

The provisions of the Code related to sustainability assurance engagements, together with any applicable legislative or other requirements that are more restrictive, including the relevant requirements in Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act 2001 in the case of an engagement for assurance over information in a sustainability report under that Act; or

Professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation, that an appropriate authority has determined to be at least as demanding as the provisions of the Code related to sustainability assurance engagements. (Ref: Para: A62–A63)

The engagement leader shall take responsibility for other members of the engagement team having been made aware of relevant ethical requirements that are applicable given the nature and circumstances of the engagement, and the firm’s related policies or procedures, including those that address: (Ref: Para. A84–A85)

1. Identifying, evaluating and addressing threats to compliance with relevant ethical requirements, including those related to independence;
2. Circumstances that may cause a breach of relevant ethical requirements, including those related to independence, and the responsibilities of members of the engagement team when they become aware of breaches; and
3. The responsibilities of members of the engagement team when they become aware of an instance of non-compliance with laws and regulations by the entity.

If matters come to the engagement leader’s attention that indicate that a threat to compliance with relevant ethical requirements exists, the engagement leader shall evaluate the threat through complying with the firm’s policies or procedures, using relevant information from the firm, the engagement team or other sources, and take appropriate action. (Ref: Para. A85–A86)

Throughout the engagement, the engagement leader shall remain alert, through observation and making enquiries as necessary, for evidence of breaches of relevant ethical requirements by members of the engagement team. If matters come to the engagement leader’s attention through the firm’s system of quality management or otherwise that indicate that members of the engagement team have breached relevant ethical requirements, the engagement leader, in consultation with others in the firm, shall determine the appropriate action. (Ref: Para. A86)

Assurance Skills and Techniques, Professional Scepticism and Professional Judgement

The practitioner shall apply assurance skills and techniques as part of an iterative, systematic engagement process.

The practitioner shall plan and perform the engagement with professional scepticism, recognising that circumstances may exist that cause the sustainability information to be materially misstated. (Ref: Para. A87–A92)

The practitioner shall exercise professional judgement in planning and performing the engagement, including determining the nature, timing and extent of procedures. (Ref: Para. A93–A95)

Engagement Resources

The engagement leader shall determine that sufficient and appropriate resources to perform the engagement are assigned or made available to the engagement team in a timely manner, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the engagement, the firm’s policies or procedures, and any changes that may arise during the engagement. (Ref: Para. A96–A97)

[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 42.1 and Aus 42.2.]

The engagement leader shall determine that members of the engagement team, and any practitioner’s external experts, collectively have the appropriate sustainability competence, competence and capabilities in assurance skills and techniques, and sufficient time, to perform the engagement. (Ref: Para. A98–A102)

The practitioner shall not use internal auditors to provide direct assistance on the sustainability assurance engagement. This extends to the use of internal auditors for direct assistance for components in the context of a group sustainability assurance engagement. (Ref: Para. Aus A29.1)

If the practitioner intends to obtain evidence from using the work of a firm other than the practitioner’s firm, the engagement leader shall determine whether the engagement leader will be able to be sufficiently and appropriately involved in such work. When the engagement leader: (Ref: Para. A103–A106)

1. Is able to be sufficiently and appropriately involved in that work, that firm is a component practitioner and the individuals performing the work are part of the engagement team. In such circumstances, the practitioner shall apply paragraphs 46–49 with respect to that work;
2. Is unable to be sufficiently and appropriately involved in that work, that firm is another practitioner, and the practitioner shall apply paragraphs 50–55 with respect to that work.

If, as a result of complying with the requirements in paragraphs 41–43, the engagement leader determines that resources assigned or made available are insufficient or inappropriate in the circumstances of the engagement, the engagement leader shall take appropriate action, including communicating with appropriate individuals in the firm about the need to assign or make available additional or alternative resources to the engagement. (Ref: Para. A107–A109)

The engagement leader shall take responsibility for using the resources assigned or made available to the engagement team appropriately, given the nature and circumstances of the engagement. (Ref: Para. A110)

Direction, Supervision and Review 

The engagement leader shall take responsibility for the direction and supervision of the members of the engagement team and the review of their work. (Ref: Para. A111–A116)

The engagement leader shall determine that the nature, timing and extent of direction, supervision and review is: (Ref: Para. A117–A118)

1. Planned and performed in accordance with the firm’s policies or procedures, professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements; and
2. Responsive to the nature and circumstances of the engagement and the resources assigned or made available to the engagement team by the firm.

The engagement leader shall review engagement documentation at appropriate points in time during the engagement, including documentation relating to: (Ref: Para. A119–A121, A173)

1. Significant matters;
2. Significant judgements, including those relating to difficult or contentious matters identified during the engagement, and the conclusions reached; and
3. Other matters that, in the engagement leader’s professional judgement, are relevant to the engagement leader’s responsibilities.

The engagement leader shall review, prior to their issuance, formal written communications to management, those charged with governance or regulatory authorities. (Ref: Para. A122)

Using the Work of Others 

Using the Work of Another Practitioner

If the practitioner intends to obtain evidence from using the work of another practitioner, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A123–A124)

1. Comply with relevant ethical requirements that apply to using the work of another practitioner; (Ref: Para. A125–A126)
2. Evaluate whether that practitioner has the necessary competence and capabilities for the practitioner’s purposes; (Ref: Para. A127)
3. Evaluate whether the nature, scope and objectives of that practitioner’s work are appropriate for the practitioner’s purposes; and (Ref: Para. A128)
4. Determine whether the evidence obtained from that practitioner’s work is adequate for the practitioner’s purposes. (Ref: Para. A124)

In making the evaluation in accordance with paragraph 50(c) and determination in accordance with paragraph 50(d), if the practitioner plans to use an assurance report of another practitioner that has been designed for use by user entities and their assurance practitioners across a value chain (referred to in this ASSA as a one-to-many report), the practitioner shall determine whether that assurance report provides sufficient appropriate evidence for the practitioner’s purposes by evaluating: (Ref: Para. A129–A131, A291)

1. Whether the description of the procedures performed and the results thereof are appropriate for the practitioner’s purposes; and
2. The adequacy of the standard(s) under which the assurance report was issued.

If the practitioner intends to obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls in accordance with paragraphs 119R or 120L, as applicable, the practitioner shall determine whether any complementary user entity controls identified in a one-to-many or other assurance report of another practitioner are relevant to the user entity. (Ref: Para: A130)

In making the determination in accordance with paragraph 50(d), the practitioner shall, to the extent necessary in the circumstances, communicate with another practitioner about the findings from another practitioner’s work. (Ref: Para. A132–A133)

The practitioner shall determine whether, and the extent to which, it is necessary to review additional documentation of the work performed by another practitioner. (Ref: Para. A134)

If the practitioner determines that the evidence obtained from the work of another practitioner is not adequate for the practitioner’s purposes, including when the practitioner is unable to obtain information to make that determination or when the practitioner is not satisfied that communications with another practitioner are adequate for the practitioner’s purposes, the practitioner shall:

1. Determine whether the practitioner is able to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence through performing alternative procedures; and
2. If sufficient appropriate evidence cannot be obtained through performing alternative procedures, consider the implications for the engagement, including whether a scope limitation exists. (Ref: Para. A135)

Using the Work of a Practitioner’s Expert

If the practitioner plans to use the work of a practitioner’s expert, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A136-A140)

1. Evaluate whether the expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity for the practitioner’s purposes; (Ref: Para. A141–A145)
2. When evaluating the objectivity of a practitioner’s external expert, enquire regarding interests and relationships that may create a threat to that expert’s objectivity; (Ref: Para. A145–A147)
3. Obtain a sufficient understanding of the field of expertise of the expert to determine the nature, scope and objectives of that expert’s work for the practitioner’s purposes; and (Ref: Para. A148–A149)
4. Agree with the expert, in writing when appropriate, on:
   1. The nature, scope and objectives of that expert’s work; and (Ref: Para. A149–A150)
   2. The respective roles and responsibilities of the practitioner and that expert, including the nature, timing and extent of communication between the practitioner and expert. (Ref: Para. A138–A139)

The practitioner shall evaluate the adequacy of the practitioner’s expert’s work for the practitioner’s purposes, including: (Ref: Para. A137; A151)

1. The relevance and reasonableness of that expert’s findings or conclusions, and their consistency with other evidence obtained by the practitioner; 
2. If that expert’s work involves use of significant assumptions and methods, the relevance and reasonableness of those assumptions and methods in the circumstances; and 
3. If that expert’s work involves the use of source data that is significant to that expert’s work, the relevance, completeness, and accuracy of that source data.

If the practitioner determines that the work of the practitioner’s expert is not adequate for the practitioner’s purposes, the practitioner shall:

1. Agree with that expert on the nature and extent of further work to be performed; or
2. Perform additional procedures appropriate to the circumstances. 

Using the Work of the Internal Audit Function

If the practitioner plans to use the work of the internal audit function, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A152–A154)

1. Evaluate the extent to which the internal audit function’s organisational status and relevant policies and procedures support the objectivity of the internal auditors; 
2. Evaluate the level of competence of the internal audit function, including in sustainability matters and applicable criteria; 
3. Evaluate whether the internal audit function applies a systematic and disciplined approach, including a system of quality control; 
4. Determine whether, and to what extent, to use specific work of the internal audit function; and
5. Determine whether that work is adequate for the practitioner’s purposes.

Communications Among Those Involved in the Engagement

The engagement leader shall take responsibility for determining that communications take place at appropriate times throughout the engagement among the engagement team and, as applicable, practitioner’s external experts and the internal audit function. (Ref: Para. A155–A159)

Consultation

The engagement leader shall take responsibility for the engagement team undertaking consultation on:

1. Difficult or contentious matters and matters on which the firm’s policies or procedures require consultation; and
2. Other matters that, in the engagement leader’s professional judgement, require consultation.

Engagement Quality Review

For those engagements for which an engagement quality review is required in accordance with ASQM 1 or the firm’s policies or procedures, the engagement leader shall discuss significant matters and significant judgements arising during the engagement, including those identified during the engagement quality review, with the engagement quality reviewer.

Monitoring and Remediation

The engagement leader shall: (Ref: Para. A160–A161)

1. Consider information from the firm’s monitoring and remediation process, as communicated by the firm, including, as applicable, information from the monitoring and remediation process of the network and across the network firms; and
2. Determine whether the information may affect the engagement and, if so, take appropriate action.

The practitioner shall maintain professional scepticism throughout the engagement, recognising the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist, notwithstanding the practitioner’s past experience of the honesty and integrity of the entity’s management and those charged with governance. (Ref: Para. A162)

The practitioner shall remain alert to the possibility that procedures performed during the engagement may bring instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations to the practitioner’s attention.

In the absence of identified or suspected non-compliance, the practitioner is not required to perform procedures regarding the entity’s compliance with laws and regulations, other than those set out in paragraphs 65 and 111–112.

If the practitioner identifies fraud or suspected fraud, or instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations, the practitioner shall determine whether law, regulation or relevant ethical requirements: (Ref: Para. A163–A165, A434)

1. Require the practitioner to report to an appropriate authority outside the entity; or 
2. Establish responsibilities under which reporting to an appropriate authority outside the entity may be appropriate in the circumstances.

The practitioner shall communicate with management or those charged with governance, on a timely basis during the engagement, significant matters that, in the practitioner’s professional judgement, merit the attention of management or those charged with governance, as appropriate. (Ref: Para. A166–A170)

Overarching Documentation Requirements 

Form, Content and Extent of Engagement Documentation

The practitioner shall prepare, on a timely basis, engagement documentation that provides a record of the basis for the assurance report that is sufficient and appropriate to enable a practitioner experienced in sustainability assurance, having no previous connection with the assurance engagement, to understand: (Ref: Para. A171–A173)

1. The nature, timing and extent of the procedures performed to comply with this ASSA, other relevant ASSAs and applicable legal and regulatory requirements;
2. The results of the procedures performed, and the evidence obtained; and
3. Significant matters arising during the assurance engagement, the conclusions reached thereon, and significant professional judgements made in reaching those conclusions. (Ref: Para. A174–A176)

In documenting the nature, timing and extent of procedures performed, the practitioner shall record: (Ref: Para. A177–A178)

1. The identifying characteristics of the specific items or matters tested; 
2. Who performed the assurance engagement work and the date such work was completed; and 
3. Who reviewed the assurance engagement work performed and the date and extent of such review.

The engagement documentation shall also include discussions of significant matters with management, those charged with governance and others, including the nature of the significant matters discussed, and when and with whom the discussions took place. (Ref: Para. A179)

Assembly of the Final Engagement File 

The practitioner shall assemble the engagement documentation in an engagement file and complete the administrative process of assembling the final engagement file on a timely basis after the date of the assurance report. After the assembly of the final engagement file has been completed, the practitioner shall not delete or discard engagement documentation of any nature before the end of its retention period. (Ref: Para. A180–A182)

In circumstances other than those envisaged in paragraph 212, when the practitioner finds it necessary to modify existing engagement documentation or add new engagement documentation after the assembly of the final engagement file has been completed, the practitioner shall, regardless of the nature of the modifications or additions, document:

1. The specific reasons for making them; and
2. When and by whom they were made and reviewed.

Documentation Related to Quality Management

The practitioner shall include in the engagement documentation: (Ref: Para. A183)

1. Issues identified with respect to compliance with relevant ethical requirements and how they were resolved; 
2. Conclusions about compliance with independence requirements that apply to the engagement, and any relevant discussions with the firm that support these conclusions; 
3. Conclusions reached regarding the acceptance and continuance of client relationships and assurance engagements, including with respect to the preconditions for an assurance engagement; and 
4. The nature and scope of, and conclusions resulting from, consultations undertaken during the course of the engagement.

Establishing Whether the Preconditions Are Present

The practitioner shall obtain a preliminary knowledge of the engagement circumstances, including: (Ref: Para. A184)

1. The sustainability information to be reported; and
2. Whether the scope of the proposed assurance engagement encompasses all or part of the sustainability information in (a). (Ref: Para. A185)

In order to establish whether the preconditions for an assurance engagement are present, based on the preliminary knowledge of the engagement circumstances and discussion with the appropriate party(ies), the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A184, A186–A187)

1. Consider whether the entity has a process to identify sustainability information to be reported; (Ref: Para. A187)
2. Evaluate whether the roles and responsibilities of management, those charged with governance and the engaging party, if different, are suitable in the circumstances. In doing so, the practitioner shall also evaluate whether management, or those charged with governance, when appropriate, have a reasonable basis for the sustainability information; and (Ref: Para. A186(a), A188–A191)
3. Evaluate whether the engagement exhibits all of the characteristics in paragraphs 77–80.

Appropriate Sustainability Matters

The practitioner shall evaluate whether the sustainability matters within the scope of the engagement are appropriate. In doing so, the practitioner shall consider whether those sustainability matters are identifiable and capable of consistent measurement or evaluation against the applicable criteria, such that the resulting sustainability information can be subjected to procedures for obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence. (Ref: Para. A192–A193)

Suitability and Availability of Criteria

The practitioner shall evaluate whether the criteria that the practitioner expects to be applied in the preparation of the sustainability information are suitable for the engagement circumstances and will be available to the intended users. In doing so, the practitioner shall:

1. Evaluate whether there are criteria for all of the sustainability information subject to the assurance engagement; (Ref: Para. A194)
2. Identify the sources of the criteria, including whether they are framework criteria, entity–developed criteria or a combination of both; (Ref: Para. A195–A198, A331)
3. Evaluate whether the criteria exhibit the following characteristics: (Ref: Para. A199–A201, A332–A335)
   1. Relevance; (Ref: Para. A336–A337)
   2. Completeness; (Ref: Para. A338)
   3. Reliability; (Ref: Para. A339)
   4. Neutrality; and (Ref: Para. A340–A341)
   5. Understandability; and (Ref: Para. A342)
4. Evaluate whether and how the criteria will be made available to the intended users. (Ref: Para. A202)

Evidence to Support the Practitioner’s Conclusion and Form of Conclusion

The practitioner shall determine whether

1. The practitioner expects to be able to obtain the evidence needed to support the practitioner’s conclusion; and (Ref: Para. A203–A206L)
2. The practitioner’s conclusion, in the form appropriate for the engagement, is to be contained in a written report.

Rational Purpose 

The practitioner shall determine whether the engagement exhibits a rational purpose. In doing so, the practitioner shall determine whether: (Ref: Para. A207–A208)

1. In the case of a limited assurance engagement, the practitioner expects to be able to obtain a meaningful level of assurance; (Ref: Para. A209L–A211L)
2. The engagement as a whole will be useful and not misleading to intended users; and
3. The scope of the assurance engagement is appropriate, including when the scope of the assurance engagement excludes part of the sustainability information to be reported. (Ref: Para. A212–A217)

Deciding Whether to Accept or Continue the Assurance Engagement

If the preconditions for an assurance engagement are not present, the practitioner shall discuss the matter with the engaging party. If changes cannot be made to meet the preconditions, the practitioner shall not accept the engagement as an assurance engagement, unless required by law or regulation to do so. However, an engagement accepted under such circumstances does not comply with this ASSA. Accordingly, the practitioner shall not include any reference within the assurance report to the engagement having been conducted in accordance with this ASSA or any other ASSAs.

Preconditions Not Present After Acceptance

If it is discovered after the engagement has been accepted that one or more preconditions for an assurance engagement is not present, the practitioner shall discuss the matter with the appropriate party(ies), and shall determine: (Ref: Para. A218)

1. Whether the matter can be resolved to the practitioner’s satisfaction;
2. Whether it is appropriate to continue with the engagement; and
3. Whether and, if so, how to communicate the matter in the assurance report.

If it is discovered after the engagement has been accepted that some or all of the applicable criteria are unsuitable or some or all of the sustainability matters are not appropriate for an assurance engagement, the practitioner shall consider withdrawing from the engagement, if withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation. If the practitioner continues with the engagement, the practitioner shall express a qualified or adverse conclusion, or disclaimer of conclusion, as appropriate in the circumstances. (Ref: Para. A218)

Assurance Report Prescribed by Law or Regulation

If law or regulation prescribes the layout or wording of the assurance report that is different from the requirements of the ASSAs, the practitioner shall evaluate:

1. Whether intended users may misunderstand the practitioner’s conclusion; and
2. If so, whether additional explanation in the assurance report can mitigate the possible misunderstanding.

If the practitioner concludes that additional explanation in the assurance report cannot mitigate the possible misunderstanding, the practitioner shall not accept the assurance engagement, unless required by law or regulation to do so. An assurance engagement conducted in accordance with such law or regulation does not comply with this ASSA. Accordingly, the practitioner shall not include any reference in the assurance report to the assurance engagement having been conducted in accordance with this ASSA.

Agreeing the Terms of the Assurance Engagement

The practitioner shall agree the terms of the assurance engagement with the engaging party. The agreed terms shall be specified in sufficient detail in an engagement letter or other suitable form of written agreement, written confirmation, or in law or regulation, and shall include: (Ref: Para. A219–A222)

1. Matters related to the objective and scope of the assurance engagement, including: 
   1. The objective of the assurance engagement; 
   2. The sustainability information within the scope of the assurance engagement, and the sustainability information that is not within the scope of the assurance engagement; 
   3. The reporting boundary within the scope of the assurance engagement; 
   4. Whether the engagement is a limited assurance engagement, reasonable assurance engagement, or a combined limited and reasonable assurance engagement and the sustainability information that is subject to each level of assurance; 
   5. The applicable criteria; and 
   6. That the assurance engagement will be conducted in accordance with ASSA 5000 General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements. 
2. The responsibilities of the practitioner; (Ref: Para. A221) 
3. The responsibilities of management or those charged with governance, as appropriate for: 
   1. The preparation of the sustainability information in accordance with the applicable criteria, including, where relevant, its fair presentation; 
   2. When applicable, identifying, selecting or developing suitable criteria; 
   3. Referring to or describing in the sustainability information, the applicable criteria it has used and, when it is not readily apparent from the engagement circumstances, who developed them; 
   4. Designing, implementing and maintaining a system of internal control that it determines is necessary to enable the preparation of sustainability information in accordance with the applicable criteria that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; and 
   5. Providing the practitioner with: 
      1. Access to all information of which management is aware that is relevant to the preparation of the sustainability information; 
      2. Additional information that the practitioner may request for the purpose of the assurance engagement; and 
      3. Unrestricted access to persons within the entity, from whom the practitioner determines it necessary to obtain evidence; 
4. Reference to the expected form and content of the report or reports to be issued by the practitioner and a statement that there may be modifications to the report in certain circumstances; and 
5. An acknowledgement that management agrees to provide written representations at the conclusion of the assurance engagement.

For recurring assurance engagements, the practitioner shall evaluate whether the circumstances require the terms of the assurance engagement to be revised or there is a need to remind the appropriate party(ies) of the existing terms.

Changing the Terms of the Assurance Engagement

The practitioner shall not agree to a change in the terms of the assurance engagement, including from a reasonable assurance engagement to a limited assurance engagement (i.e., to a lower level of assurance), when there is no reasonable justification for doing so. If the practitioner is unable to agree to a request to change in the terms of the assurance engagement and is not permitted by the appropriate party(ies) to continue the assurance engagement under the original terms, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A223–A224)

1. Withdraw from the assurance engagement, when possible under applicable law or regulation; and
2. Determine whether there is any obligation, either contractual or otherwise, to report the circumstances to other parties, such as those charged with governance, owners or regulators.

If the terms of the assurance engagement are changed:

1. The practitioner and the appropriate party(ies) shall agree on and record the new terms of the assurance engagement in an engagement letter or other suitable form of written agreement; and
2. The practitioner shall not disregard evidence that was obtained prior to the change.

Designing and Performing Procedures to Obtain Sufficient Appropriate Evidence 

For the purpose of obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence, the practitioner shall design and perform procedures: (Ref: Para. A225–A226)

1. In a manner that is not biased towards obtaining evidence that may be corroborative, or towards excluding evidence that may be contradictory; and (Ref: Para. A227–A228)
2. The nature, timing and extent of which are appropriate in the circumstances to provide evidence to meet the intended purpose of those procedures. (Ref: Para. A229–A244)

Information Intended to be Used as Evidence

When designing and performing procedures, the practitioner shall evaluate the relevance and reliability of information intended to be used as evidence, including information obtained from sources external to the entity. (Ref: Para. A245–A263)

When using information produced by the entity, the practitioner shall evaluate whether the information is sufficiently reliable for the practitioner’s purposes, including, as necessary in the circumstances: (Ref: Para. A264–A265)

1. Obtaining evidence about the accuracy and completeness of the information; and
2. Evaluating whether the information is sufficiently precise and detailed for the practitioner’s purposes.

Work Performed by a Management’s Expert

If information intended to be used as evidence has been prepared by a management’s expert, as part of the practitioner’s evaluation in accordance with paragraph 90, the practitioner shall, to the extent necessary, having regard to the significance of that expert’s work for the practitioner’s purposes: (Ref: Para. A266)

1. Evaluate the competence, capabilities and objectivity of that expert; (Ref: Para. A267–A268)
2. Obtain an understanding of the work performed by that expert; (Ref: Para. A269)
3. Obtain an understanding about how the information prepared by that expert has been used by management in the preparation of the sustainability information; and (Ref: Para. A270–A271)
4. Evaluate the appropriateness of the work of that expert as evidence. (Ref: Para. A272)

Doubts About the Relevance and Reliability of Information Intended to be Used as Evidence

If conditions identified during the assurance engagement cause the practitioner to believe that a document may not be authentic or that terms in a document have been modified but not disclosed to the practitioner, the practitioner shall investigate further and determine the effect on the rest of the evidence obtained. (Ref: Para. A273–A275)

If the practitioner has doubts about the relevance or reliability of information intended to be used as evidence, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A276)

1. Determine whether modifications or additions to procedures are necessary to resolve the doubts; and
2. If the doubts cannot be resolved, consider the effect, if any, on other aspects of the engagement, including whether such doubts indicate a risk that disclosures may be materially misstated due to fraud.

Planning Activities

The practitioner shall develop an overall strategy and engagement plan, including determining the nature, timing and extent of planned procedures. In doing so, the engagement leader shall consider information obtained in the acceptance and continuance process and, if applicable, whether knowledge obtained on other engagements performed by the engagement leader for the entity is relevant. (Ref: Para. A277–A287)

For a group sustainability assurance engagement, in developing the overall strategy and engagement plan in accordance with paragraph 95, the practitioner shall determine: (Ref: Para. A284–A291)

1. The sustainability information on which assurance work will be performed and the source of that information; (Ref: Para. A288)
2. The resources needed to perform the engagement, including component practitioner(s); and (Ref: Para. A108, A289–A290)
3. Whether to obtain evidence from the work performed by another practitioner(s). (Ref: Para. A291)

The engagement leader and other key members of the engagement team shall be involved in planning the assurance engagement, including participating in the discussion among the engagement team members required by paragraph 105.

Materiality

For purposes of planning and performing the assurance engagement, and evaluating whether the sustainability information is free from material misstatement, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A292–A299)

1. Consider materiality for qualitative disclosures; and (Ref: Para. A300)
2. Determine materiality for quantitative disclosures. (Ref: Para. A301–A305)

If the applicable criteria require the entity to apply both financial materiality and impact materiality in preparing the sustainability information, the practitioner shall take into account both perspectives when considering or determining materiality in accordance with paragraph 98. (Ref: Para. A306, A337)

For quantitative disclosures, the practitioner shall determine performance materiality. (Ref: Para. A307–A311)

Revision of Materiality as the Engagement Progresses

The practitioner shall revise materiality for a disclosure(s) in the event of becoming aware of information during the assurance engagement that would have caused the practitioner to have considered or determined a different materiality initially. (Ref: Para. A312)

Documentation

The practitioner shall include in the engagement documentation:

1. The factors relevant to the practitioner’s consideration of materiality for qualitative disclosures in accordance with paragraph 98(a);
2. The basis for the determination of materiality for quantitative disclosures, in accordance with paragraph 98(b); and
3. The basis for the practitioner’s determination of performance materiality in accordance with paragraph 100.

Designing and Performing Risk Assessment Procedures

When designing and performing risk assessment procedures in accordance with paragraphs 103L and 103R, the practitioner shall consider information from the practitioner’s procedures regarding acceptance and continuance of the client relationship or the sustainability assurance engagement. (Ref: Para. A319)

The engagement leader and other key members of the engagement team, and any key practitioner’s external experts, shall discuss the susceptibility of the disclosures to material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and the application of the applicable criteria to the entity’s facts and circumstances. The engagement leader shall determine which matters are to be communicated to members of the engagement team and to any practitioner’s external experts not involved in the discussion. (Ref: Para. A320–A321)

Understanding the Sustainability Matters and the Sustainability Information 

The practitioner shall obtain an understanding of the sustainability matters and the sustainability information, including the characteristics of events or conditions that could give rise to material misstatement of the disclosures. (Ref: Para. A322–A325)

Determining the Suitability of the Applicable Criteria

The practitioner shall determine whether the applicable criteria are suitable for the engagement circumstances, including that they exhibit the characteristics in paragraph 78. (Ref: Para. A199–A201, A326–A342)

Understanding the Entity’s Reporting Policies

The practitioner shall obtain an understanding of the entity’s reporting policies and the reason for any changes thereto. (Ref: Para. A2, A197, A343)

The practitioner shall evaluate whether the entity’s reporting policies are appropriate and consistent with: (Ref: Para. A2, A343–A344)

1. The applicable criteria; and
2. Criteria used in the relevant industry.

Understanding the Entity and Its Environment 

The practitioner shall obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including:

1. The nature of the entity’s operations, legal and organisational structure, ownership and governance, and business model; (Ref: Para. A345–A346)
2. The reporting boundary and activities within the reporting boundary; and (Ref: Para. A347)
3. Goals, targets, or strategic objectives related to sustainability matters and measures used to assess the entity's performance or determine management compensation. (Ref: Para. A348)

Understanding the Legal and Regulatory Framework

The practitioner shall obtain an understanding of: (Ref: Para. A349–A351)

1. The legal and regulatory framework applicable to the entity and the industry or sector in which the entity operates, in the context of the entity’s sustainability information; and
2. How the entity is complying with that framework.

Enquiries and Discussion with Appropriate Parties 

The practitioner shall make enquiries of appropriate parties and, when appropriate, others within the entity regarding whether: (Ref: Para. A352–A353)

1. They have knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud or identified or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations affecting the sustainability information; and
2. The entity has an internal audit function and, if so, make further enquiries to obtain an understanding of the activities and main findings, if any, of the internal audit function with respect to the sustainability information.

Understanding the Components of the Entity’s System of Internal Control

The Control Environment

The Entity’s Risk Assessment Process

The Entity’s Process for Monitoring the System of Internal Control

The Information System and Communication

The practitioner shall obtain an understanding of the entity’s information system and communication relevant to the sustainability matters and the preparation of the sustainability information, including: (Ref: Para. A377–A381)

1. The entity’s process to identify sustainability information to be reported. (Ref: Para. A382–A384)
2. How information from external sources, such as service organisations or other organisations in the entity’s value chain, is recorded, processed, corrected as necessary, and incorporated into the sustainability information. (Ref: Para. A385)
3. For estimates and forward-looking information, how the entity identifies the relevant methods, assumptions or sources of data, and the need for changes in them, that are appropriate in the context of the applicable criteria.

Based on the practitioner’s understanding of the information system and communication in accordance with paragraph 117, the practitioner shall evaluate whether the entity’s information system appropriately supports the preparation of the sustainability information in accordance with the applicable criteria. (Ref: Para. A386)

Control Activities

R. The practitioner shall obtain an understanding of control activities by identifying: (Ref: Para. A387–A392)

1. Controls for which the practitioner plans to obtain evidence by testing their operating effectiveness, which shall include: 
   1. Controls that address risks for which substantive procedures alone do not provide sufficient appropriate evidence; or 
   2. If applicable, any complementary user entity controls identified in an assurance report of another practitioner that are determined to be relevant to the user entity in accordance with paragraph 52; 
2. Based on the controls identified in (a), the IT applications and the other aspects of the entity’s IT environment that are subject to risks arising from the use of IT; 
3. The entity’s general IT controls that address risks arising from the use of IT identified in (b); and 
4. Other controls that the practitioner considers are appropriate to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement at the assertion level for disclosures and design further procedures responsive to those assessed risks.

Design and Implementation of Controls

Identifying Control Deficiencies 

Based on the practitioner’s understanding of the components of the entity’s system of internal control, the practitioner shall consider whether one or more control deficiencies have been identified. (Ref: Para. A400–A403)

Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement

R. Due to the unpredictable way in which management is able to override controls, the practitioner shall treat risks of management override of controls as risks of material misstatement due to fraud and thus risks of material misstatement at the upper end of the spectrum of risk. (Ref: Para. A418R)

Evaluating the Evidence Obtained from the Risk Assessment Procedures 

The practitioner shall determine whether the evidence obtained from the risk assessment procedures provides an appropriate basis for the identification and assessment of the risks of material misstatement. If not, the practitioner shall perform additional risk assessment procedures until evidence has been obtained to provide such a basis. (Ref: Para. A419)

Documentation

The practitioner shall include in the engagement documentation: 

1. The engagement team discussion in accordance with paragraph 105, and the significant decisions reached; 
2. Key elements of the practitioner’s understanding, enquiries and discussion in accordance with paragraphs 106–119R;
3. The evaluation of the design of identified controls, and determination of whether such controls have been implemented, in accordance with paragraph 120L, if applicable, and paragraph 120R; and  
4. The identified and assessed risks of material misstatement, in accordance with paragraphs 122L and 122R.

Designing and Performing Further Procedures

In designing and performing further procedures, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A424–A427)

1. Consider the reasons for the assessment given to the risks of material misstatement;
2. Consider whether the practitioner intends to obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls in determining the nature, timing and extent of other procedures; and
3. Obtain more persuasive evidence the higher the practitioner’s assessment of risk.

Overall Responses

Responding to Identified or Suspected Fraud or Non-Compliance with Laws and Regulations

The practitioner shall respond appropriately to fraud or suspected fraud, or non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations, identified during the engagement by obtaining: (Ref: Para. A430–A431)

1. An understanding of the nature of the act and the circumstances in which it occurred; and
2. Further information to evaluate the possible effect on the sustainability information.

If the practitioner suspects there may be instances of fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations, the practitioner shall discuss the matter, unless prohibited by law or regulation, with the appropriate level of management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance. (Ref: Para. A432)

The practitioner shall evaluate the implications of identified or suspected fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations for the assurance engagement, including the practitioner’s risk assessment procedures and the reliability of written representations, and take appropriate action. (Ref: Para. A433–A435)

Tests of Controls 

If the practitioner intends to obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls identified in accordance with paragraphs 119R or 120L, the practitioner shall design and perform tests of controls by: (Ref: Para. A436–A437)

1. Performing enquiry and other procedures to obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of the controls, including:
   1. How the controls were applied at relevant times during the period to which the sustainability information relates;
   2. The consistency with which they were applied; and
   3. By whom or by what means they were applied.
2. Determining whether the controls to be tested depend upon other controls and, if so, whether it is necessary to obtain evidence supporting the effective operation of those indirect controls.

The practitioner shall test controls for the appropriate period for which the practitioner intends to obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of those controls, subject to paragraph 134.

If the practitioner obtains evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls during an interim period and intends to extend the conclusions of those tests of controls for the remaining period, the practitioner shall obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of those controls for the period subsequent to the interim period.

If the practitioner plans to use evidence from a previous sustainability assurance engagement about the operating effectiveness of controls, the practitioner shall establish the continuing relevance of the evidence by obtaining evidence about whether significant changes in those controls have occurred subsequent to the previous engagement. The practitioner shall obtain this evidence by performing enquiry, combined with observation or inspection, to confirm the understanding of those specific controls, and (Ref: Para. A438–A439)

1. If there have not been changes that affect the continuing relevance of the evidence from the previous engagement, the practitioner shall test the controls at least once in every third engagement, and shall test some controls in each engagement.
2. If there have been changes that affect the continuing relevance of the evidence from the previous engagement, the practitioner shall test the controls in the current engagement.

If the practitioner plans to obtain evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls over a risk of material misstatement for which the assessment of risk is close to the upper end of the spectrum of risk, the practitioner shall test those controls in the current period.

When evaluating the operating effectiveness of controls, the practitioner shall evaluate whether misstatements detected through performing other procedures indicate that controls are not operating effectively. The absence of misstatements detected by other procedures, however, does not provide evidence that controls being tested are effective.

If deviations from controls that the practitioner tests are detected, the practitioner shall make specific enquiries to understand these matters and their potential consequences and shall determine whether:

1. The tests of controls that have been performed provide sufficient appropriate evidence about the operating effectiveness of those controls;
2. Additional tests of controls are necessary; or
3. The potential risks of material misstatement need to be addressed by performing substantive procedures.

Substantive Procedures 

R. The further procedures required by paragraph 126R shall include substantive procedures that are responsive to each risk for which the assessment of that risk is close to the upper end of the spectrum of risk. (Ref: Para. A407)

R. Irrespective of the assessed risks of material misstatement, the practitioner shall consider the need to design and perform substantive procedures for disclosures that, in the practitioner’s judgement, are material. (Ref: Para. A440R–A441R)

R. The practitioner shall consider whether external confirmation procedures are to be performed. (Ref: Para. A442–A443)

If substantive procedures are performed at an interim date and the practitioner intends to extend the conclusions of those substantive procedures for the remaining period, the practitioner shall perform: (Ref: Para. A444–A445)

1. Substantive procedures, combined with tests of controls for the period subsequent to the interim period; or
2. If the practitioner determines that it is sufficient, substantive procedures only that provide a reasonable basis for extending the conclusions to the period subsequent to the interim period.

Analytical Procedures

Sampling

If the practitioner uses sampling as a means for selecting items for testing, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A449)

1. Consider the purpose of the procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn;
2. Determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an appropriately low level; and
3. Select the sample, perform procedures on the items selected, and evaluate the results.

Estimates and Forward–Looking Information

Revising the Risk Assessment in a Reasonable Assurance Engagement

R. If the practitioner becomes aware of a matter or obtains new information that is inconsistent with the evidence on which the practitioner originally based the identification and assessment of the risks of material misstatement at the assertion level for the disclosures, the practitioner shall:

1. Revise, if necessary, the assessment of the risks of material misstatement; and
2. Perform additional procedures to obtain further evidence to enable the practitioner to express a reasonable assurance conclusion. (Ref: Para. A463R)

Determining Whether Additional Procedures Are Necessary in a Limited Assurance Engagement

L. If the practitioner becomes aware of a matter that causes the practitioner to believe the sustainability information may be materially misstated, the practitioner shall design and perform additional procedures to obtain further evidence until the practitioner is able to: (Ref: Para A464L–A467L)

1. Conclude that the matter(s) is not likely to cause the sustainability information to be materially misstated; or
2. Determine that the matter(s) causes the sustainability information to be materially misstated.

The Entity’s Process for Assembling the Sustainability Information

Documentation

The practitioner shall include in the engagement documentation:

1. The overall responses in accordance with paragraphs 128L and 128R and the reasons for such responses;
2. The results of the further procedures, including the conclusions where these are not otherwise clear;
3. Identified or suspected fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations and the procedures performed, the significant professional judgements made, and the conclusions reached thereon; and
4. When applicable, conclusions reached about whether it is appropriate to use evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls obtained in previous engagements.

Accumulation of Identified Misstatements

The practitioner shall accumulate misstatements identified during the engagement, other than those that are clearly trivial. (Ref: Para. A470–A476)

The practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A477–A480)

1. Consider whether identified misstatements, either individually or in aggregate, may be due to fraud; and
2. Respond appropriately if there are indicators that there may be material misstatements due to fraud.

Consideration of Identified Misstatements as the Engagement Progresses

The practitioner shall determine whether the approach to the engagement needs to be revised if: (Ref: Para. A481)

1. The nature of identified misstatements and the circumstances of their occurrence indicate that other misstatements may exist that, when aggregated with misstatements accumulated during the engagement, could be material; or
2. The misstatements accumulated during the engagement may, in the aggregate, result in the sustainability information being materially misstated.

Communicating and Correcting Misstatements

The practitioner shall communicate to management, on a timely basis, all misstatements accumulated during the assurance engagement, and shall request management to correct those misstatements. (Ref: Para. A482)

If, at the practitioner’s request, management has examined the sustainability information and corrected misstatements that were detected, the practitioner shall perform additional procedures with respect to the work performed by management to determine whether material misstatements remain.

If management refuses to correct some or all of the misstatements communicated by the practitioner, the practitioner shall obtain an understanding of management’s reasons for not doing so and shall consider that understanding when forming the practitioner’s conclusion. (Ref: Para. A483)

Evaluating the Effect of Uncorrected Misstatements

Prior to evaluating the effect of uncorrected misstatements, the practitioner shall consider whether the results of procedures performed and evidence obtained indicate that materiality needs to be revised.

The practitioner shall determine whether uncorrected misstatements are material, individually or in the aggregate. In making this determination, the practitioner shall consider the size and nature of the misstatements, and the particular circumstances of their occurrence. (Ref: Para. A484–A498)

Documentation

The practitioner shall include in the engagement documentation:

1. All misstatements accumulated during the engagement, other than those that are clearly trivial, and whether they have been corrected (paragraphs 153 and 156); and
2. The practitioner’s conclusion as to whether uncorrected misstatements are material, individually or in aggregate, and the basis for that conclusion (paragraph 160).

The practitioner shall evaluate whether the sustainability information adequately references or describes the applicable criteria and the sources of those criteria. (Ref: Para. A499–A501)

The practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A502–A504L)

1. Perform procedures to identify events occurring up to the date of the assurance report that may have an effect on the sustainability information and the assurance report; and
2. Evaluate the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence obtained about whether such events are appropriately reflected in that sustainability information in accordance with the applicable criteria.

The practitioner shall respond appropriately to facts that become known to the practitioner after the date of the assurance report, that, had they been known to the practitioner at that date, may have caused the practitioner to amend the assurance report. (Ref: Para. A505)

The practitioner shall request from management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance a written representation: (Ref: Para. A506–A507)

1. That they have fulfilled their responsibility for the preparation of the sustainability information, including comparative information where appropriate, in accordance with the applicable criteria, as set out in the terms of the engagement; 
2. That they have provided the practitioner with all relevant information and access as agreed in the terms of the engagement and reflected all relevant matters in the sustainability information; 
3. Whether they believe the effects of uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, individually and in the aggregate, to the sustainability information. A summary of such items shall be included in, or attached to, the written representation; 
4. Whether they believe that significant assumptions used in making estimates and preparing forward-looking information are appropriate; 
5. That they have communicated to the practitioner all deficiencies in internal control relevant to the engagement that are not clearly trivial of which they are aware; 
6. Whether they have disclosed to the practitioner their knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud or identified or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations where the fraud or non-compliance could have a material effect on the sustainability information; and 
7. That they adjusted the sustainability information for or disclosed all events occurring subsequent to the date of the sustainability information and for which the applicable criteria require adjustment or disclosure.

If, in addition to the required representations, the practitioner determines that it is necessary to obtain one or more written representations to support other evidence relevant to the sustainability information, the practitioner shall request them.

When written representations relate to matters that are material to the sustainability information, the practitioner shall:

1. Evaluate their reasonableness and consistency with other evidence obtained, including other representations (oral or written); and
2. Consider whether those making the representations can be expected to be well-informed on those matters.

The date of the written representations shall be as near as practicable to, but not after, the date of the assurance report.

If one or more of the requested written representations are not provided or the practitioner concludes that there is sufficient doubt about the competence, integrity, ethical values, or diligence of those providing the written representations, or that the written representations are otherwise not reliable, the practitioner shall:

1. Discuss the matter with management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance;
2. Re-evaluate the integrity of those from whom the representations were requested or received and evaluate the effect that this may have on the reliability of representations (oral or written) and evidence in general; and
3. Take appropriate actions, including determining the possible effect on the conclusion in the assurance report.

The practitioner shall disclaim a conclusion on the sustainability information or withdraw from the engagement, when withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation, if:

1. The practitioner concludes that there is sufficient doubt about the integrity of the person(s) providing the written representations required by paragraphs 165(a) and (b) that written representations in these regards are not reliable; or
2. The entity does not provide the written representations required by paragraphs 165(a) and (b).

Obtaining the Other Information

The practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A508–A511)

1. Identify the other information by determining, through discussion with management, the document or documents expected to be issued that will contain the sustainability information and the assurance report thereon, and the entity’s planned manner and timing of the issuance of such document(s); and
2. Make arrangements with management to obtain in a timely manner prior to the date of the assurance report, the final version of such document(s).

Reading and Considering the Other Information 

The practitioner shall read the other information obtained prior to the date of the assurance report and, in doing so shall: (Ref: Para. A512–A513)

1. Consider whether there is a material inconsistency between the other information and the sustainability information;
2. Consider whether there is a material inconsistency between the other information and the practitioner’s knowledge obtained during the assurance engagement, in the context of evidence obtained and conclusions reached in the engagement; and
3. Remain alert for indications that the other information, not related to the sustainability information or to the practitioner’s knowledge obtained during the engagement, appears to be materially misstated.

Responding When a Material Inconsistency Appears to Exist or Other Information Appears to Be Materially Misstated

If the practitioner identifies that a material inconsistency appears to exist or becomes aware that the other information appears to be materially misstated, the practitioner shall discuss the matter with management and, if necessary, perform other procedures to conclude whether:

1. A material misstatement of the other information exists;
2. A material misstatement of the sustainability information exists; or
3. The practitioner’s understanding of the entity and its environment needs to be updated.

If the other information includes the entity’s financial report is subject to audit and the practitioner identifies that a material inconsistency appears to exist between those financial reports and the sustainability information, or becomes aware that the financial reports appear to be materially misstated, the practitioner shall also communicate the matter to the auditor of the entity’s financial report, unless prohibited by law or regulation, or professional requirements.

Responding When the Practitioner Concludes That a Material Misstatement of the Other Information Exists 

If the practitioner concludes that a material misstatement of the other information exists, the practitioner shall request management to correct the other information. If management: (Ref: Para. A514–A515)

1. Agrees to make the correction, the practitioner shall determine that the correction is made; or
2. Refuses to make the correction, the practitioner shall communicate the matter to those charged with governance and request that the correction be made.

If the practitioner concludes that a material misstatement exists in the other information and it is not corrected after communicating with those charged with governance, the practitioner shall take appropriate action, including: (Ref: Para. A514–A515)

1. Considering the implications for the assurance report and communicating with those charged with governance about how the practitioner plans to address the material misstatement in the assurance report; or (Ref: Para. A516)
2. If withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation, withdrawing from the engagement. (Ref: Para. A517)

Responding When a Material Misstatement of the Sustainability Information Exists or the Practitioner’s Understanding of the Entity and Its Environment Needs to Be Updated

If, as a result of performing the procedures in paragraph 172, the practitioner concludes that a material misstatement of the sustainability information exists, or the practitioner’s understanding of the entity and its environment needs to be updated, the practitioner shall respond appropriately. (Ref: Para. A518)

Evaluating the Evidence Obtained

The practitioner shall evaluate the sufficiency and appropriateness of the evidence obtained, including evidence from the work performed by a practitioner’s external expert, another practitioner or internal audit function, and, if necessary in the circumstances, attempt to obtain further evidence. In making this evaluation, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A519–A522)

1. Evaluate whether the evidence obtained meets the intended purpose of the procedures; and
2. Consider all evidence obtained, including evidence that is consistent or inconsistent with other evidence, and regardless of whether it appears to corroborate or to contradict the disclosures.

The practitioner shall evaluate whether judgements and decisions made by management in the estimates made and assumptions used in preparing the sustainability information, including with respect to forward-looking information, even if they are individually reasonable, are indicators of possible management bias. When indicators of possible management bias are identified, the practitioner shall evaluate the implications for the assurance engagement. Where there is intention to mislead, management bias is fraudulent in nature.

If the practitioner obtains evidence that is inconsistent with other evidence, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A523–A526)

1. Determine what modifications or additions to procedures are necessary to understand and address the inconsistency; and
2. Consider the effect, if any, on other aspects of the assurance engagement.

Concluding

The practitioner shall form a conclusion about whether the sustainability information is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In forming that conclusion, the practitioner shall consider the practitioner’s evaluation in paragraphs 178 and 179 regarding the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence obtained and the determination in paragraph 160 of whether uncorrected misstatements are material, individually or in the aggregate. (Ref: Para. A527)

When the principles of fair presentation are embodied in the applicable criteria, the evaluation required by paragraph 181 shall also include consideration of: (Ref: Para. A528–A529)

1. The overall presentation, structure, and content of the sustainability information; and
2. When appropriate in the context of the criteria, the wording of the practitioner’s conclusion, or other engagement circumstances, whether the sustainability information represents the sustainability matters in a manner that achieves fair presentation.

If sustainability information prepared in accordance with a fair presentation framework does not achieve fair presentation, the practitioner shall discuss the matter with management and, depending on the requirements of the applicable framework and how the matter is resolved, shall determine whether it is necessary to modify the conclusion in the assurance report in accordance with paragraph 203.

If the sustainability information is prepared in accordance with compliance criteria, the practitioner is not required to evaluate whether the sustainability information achieves fair presentation. However, if the practitioner concludes that such sustainability information is misleading, the practitioner shall discuss the matter with management and, depending on how it is resolved, shall determine whether, and how, to communicate it in the practitioner’s report.

Scope Limitation

If the practitioner is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence, a scope limitation exists, and the practitioner shall either: (Ref: Para. A530–A531)

1. Express a qualified conclusion;
2. Disclaim a conclusion; or
3. Withdraw from the engagement, if withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation, as appropriate.

Taking Overall Responsibility for Managing and Achieving Quality 

Prior to dating the assurance report, the engagement leader shall:

1. Take responsibility for determining whether relevant ethical requirements, including independence, have been fulfilled.
2. Determine, through review of engagement documentation and discussion with the engagement team, that sufficient appropriate evidence has been obtained to support the conclusions reached and for the assurance report to be issued.
3. Review the sustainability information and the assurance report, to determine that the report to be issued will be appropriate in the circumstances.
4. Determine that:
   1. The engagement leader’s involvement has been sufficient and appropriate throughout the engagement such that the engagement leader has the basis for determining that the significant judgements made and the conclusions reached are appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the engagement; and (Ref: Para. A532–A534)
   2. The nature and circumstances of the engagement, any changes thereto, and the firm’s related policies or procedures have been taken into account in complying with the requirements of this ASSA.
5. If the engagement is subject to an engagement quality review, determine that the engagement quality review has been completed.

Documentation

The practitioner shall include in the engagement documentation:

1. The basis for the engagement leader’s determination in accordance with paragraph 186(b) that sufficient appropriate evidence has been obtained, including:
   1. The determination in accordance with paragraph 50(d) that the work of another practitioner is adequate for the practitioner’s purposes;
   2. The evaluation in accordance with paragraph 57 that the work of a practitioner’s external expert is adequate for the practitioner’s purposes;
   3. The determination in accordance with paragraph 59(e) that the work of the internal audit function is adequate for the practitioner’s purposes; and
   4. If the practitioner identified information that was inconsistent with their final conclusion regarding a significant matter and how the practitioner addressed the inconsistency (see paragraph 180); and (Ref: Para. A535)
2. The basis for the engagement leader’s determination in accordance with paragraph 186(d)(i) that the engagement leader’s involvement has been sufficient and appropriate throughout the engagement. (Ref: Para. A536)

The assurance report shall be in writing and shall contain a clear expression of the practitioner’s reasonable assurance opinion or limited assurance conclusion about the sustainability information. (Ref: Para. A537–A538)

The practitioner’s conclusion shall be clearly separated from information or explanations that are not intended to affect the practitioner’s conclusion, including any:

1. Emphasis of Matter paragraphs;
2. Other Matter paragraphs;
3. Findings related to particular aspects of the engagement;
4. Recommendations; or
5. Additional information included in the assurance report.

The wording used shall make it clear that an Emphasis of Matter paragraph, Other Matter paragraph, findings, recommendations or additional information is not intended to detract from the practitioner’s conclusion. (Ref: Para. A537–A538)

Assurance Report Content

The assurance report shall include at a minimum the following basic elements: (Ref: Para. A539, A567–A569)

1. A title that clearly indicates the report is an independent practitioner’s limited, reasonable or combined limited and reasonable assurance report. (Ref: Para. A540) 
2. An addressee. (Ref: Para. A541) 
3. The practitioner’s conclusion in the first section of the assurance report, which: (Ref: Para. A542–A552)
   1. Includes a heading reflecting the type of conclusion provided, either:
      1. For unmodified conclusions, “Reasonable Assurance Opinion,” “Limited Assurance Conclusion,” or appropriate headings for an assurance report for a combined reasonable assurance and limited assurance engagement; or
      2. For modified conclusions, the heading in a. above shall be prefixed with “Qualified,” “Adverse,” or “Disclaimer of” as appropriate, and, for an assurance report for a combined reasonable and limited assurance engagement, clear identification of which opinion(s) or conclusion(s) is modified;
   2. Identifies the entity whose sustainability information has been subject to the assurance engagement;
   3. Identifies or describes the level of assurance, either reasonable or limited or different levels of assurance for different parts of the sustainability information, obtained by the practitioner; (Ref: Para. A542)
   4. Identifies or describes the sustainability information subject to the assurance engagement, including, if appropriate, the sustainability matters and how that information is reported; (Ref: Para. A543–A544)
   5. Specifies the date of, or period or periods covered by the sustainability information;
   6. Expresses a conclusion, which: (Ref: Para. A545L–A547)
      1. For reasonable assurance, shall be expressed in a positive form, that the sustainability information is prepared or fairly presented, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable criteria; or
      2. For limited assurance, shall be expressed in a form that conveys whether, based on the procedures performed and evidence obtained, a matter(s) has come to the practitioner’s attention to cause the practitioner to believe that the sustainability information is not prepared or not fairly presented, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable criteria;
   7. Identifies the applicable criteria, whether framework criteria, entity-developed criteria or both, and, for entity-developed criteria, where it is located; (Ref: A548–A551)
   8. The conclusion in paragraph 190(c)(vi) shall be phrased in terms of: (Ref: Para. A545L–A547)
      1. The sustainability information and the applicable criteria; or
      2. A statement made by the appropriate party(ies); and
   9. When appropriate, the conclusion shall inform the intended users of the context in which the practitioner’s conclusion is to be read. (Ref: Para. A552) 
4. The basis for conclusion directly following the Conclusion section, with the heading “Basis for Opinion” for a reasonable assurance report, “Basis for Conclusion” for a limited assurance report, or appropriate heading(s) for an assurance report for a combined reasonable and limited assurance engagement that:
   1. States that the engagement was conducted in accordance with ASSA 5000 General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements; (Ref: Para. A553)
   2. For a limited assurance engagement, states that:
      1. The procedures in a limited assurance engagement vary in nature and timing from, and are less in extent than for, a reasonable assurance engagement; and
      2. Consequently, the level of assurance obtained in a limited assurance engagement is substantially lower than the assurance that would have been obtained had a reasonable assurance engagement been performed;
   3. Refers to the section of the assurance report that describes the practitioner’s responsibilities in accordance with this ASSA (see paragraph 190(h));
   4. States that the practitioner complies with the independence and other ethical requirements of:
      1. The Code related to sustainability assurance engagements; or
      2. Other professional requirements or requirements in law or regulation, and shall:
         1. Identify those requirements; and
         2. Disclose the name of the appropriate authority that has determined such requirements to be at least as demanding as the provisions of the Code related to sustainability assurance engagements;
   5. If the relevant ethical requirements require the practitioner to publicly disclose when the practitioner applied independence requirements specific to sustainability assurance engagements of certain entities, the statement in accordance with part (iv) above shall indicate that the practitioner is independent of the entity in accordance with the independence requirements applicable to the sustainability assurance engagements of those entities; (Ref: Para. A554)
   6. States that the firm of which the practitioner is a member applies:
      1. ASQM 1; or
      2. Other professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation, and shall:
         1. Identify those requirements; and
         2. Disclose the name of the appropriate authority that has determined such requirements to be at least as demanding as ASQM 1;
   7. States whether the practitioner believes that the evidence the practitioner has obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the practitioner’s conclusion; and
   8. If the practitioner expresses a modified conclusion, provides a description of the matter(s) giving rise to the modification.
5. Where applicable, a section with a heading "Other Information,” containing the matters in accordance with paragraph 202.
6. A section with the heading "Responsibilities for the Sustainability Information” that:
   1. States that management or those charged with governance, as appropriate, is responsible for: (Ref: Para. A555–A556)
      1. The preparation and, if applicable, fair presentation of the sustainability information in accordance with the applicable criteria; and (Ref: Para. A557)
      2. Designing, implementing and maintaining such internal controls that management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of sustainability information in accordance with the applicable criteria that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; and
   2. If those responsible for oversight of the process to prepare the sustainability information are different from those who fulfill the responsibilities described in (f)(i), identifies those responsible for oversight. (Ref: Para. A556)
7. If applicable, a section with the heading “Inherent Limitations in Preparing the Sustainability Information” that describes any significant inherent limitations associated with the measurement or evaluation of the sustainability matters against the applicable criteria, including inherent limitations relating to forward-looking information included in the sustainability information. (Ref: Para. A494, A558–A560 and A579)
8. A section with the heading "Practitioner’s Responsibilities” that states that: (Ref: Para. A555)
   1. The objective of the practitioner is to plan and perform the assurance engagement to obtain limited or reasonable assurance, as applicable, about whether the sustainability information is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an assurance report that includes a conclusion (for limited assurance) or opinion (for reasonable assurance);
   2. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error, and:
      1. Are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the decisions of intended users taken on the basis of the sustainability information; or
      2. If materiality is defined or described differently in the applicable criteria, include such definition or description;
   3. The practitioner exercises professional judgement and maintains professional scepticism throughout the engagement;
   4. The practitioner performs risk assessment procedures, including obtaining:
      1. For limited assurance: an understanding of internal controls relevant to the engagement to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, at the disclosure level, but not for the purpose of providing a conclusion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. If the limited assurance report includes a conclusion on the effectiveness of internal control, the practitioner shall omit the phrase that the practitioner’s consideration of internal control is not for the purpose of providing a conclusion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control; or
      2. For reasonable assurance: an understanding of internal controls relevant to the engagement, to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, at the assertion level for the disclosures, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal controls. If the reasonable assurance report includes an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control, the practitioner shall omit the phrase that the practitioner’s consideration of internal control is not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control;
   5. The practitioner designs and performs procedures:
      1. For limited assurance: responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement at the disclosure level; or
      2. For reasonable assurance: responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement at the assertion level for the disclosures;
   6. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement due to fraud is higher than for one due to error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal controls.
9. For limited assurance, a section, with the heading "Summary of Work Performed," that contains an informative summary of the work performed as a basis for the practitioner’s conclusion. This section shall describe the nature, timing and extent of procedures performed sufficiently to enable users to understand the limited assurance the practitioner has obtained. (Ref: Para. A561–A565L)
10. The practitioner’s signature.
11. The location in the jurisdiction where the engagement leader practices.
12. The date of the assurance report. The assurance report shall be dated no earlier than the date on which: (Ref: Para. A566)
    1. The practitioner has obtained the evidence on which the practitioner’s conclusion is based, including evidence that those with the recognised authority have asserted that they have taken responsibility for the sustainability information; and
    2. When an engagement quality review is required in accordance with ASQM 1 or the firm’s policies or procedures, the engagement quality review is complete.

Name of the Engagement Leader in the Assurance Report

When the assurance report on sustainability information is for a listed entity, the name of the engagement leader shall be included, unless, in rare circumstances, such disclosure is reasonably expected to lead to a significant personal security threat. In the rare circumstances that the practitioner intends not to include the name of the engagement leader in the assurance report, the practitioner shall discuss this intention with those charged with governance to inform them of the practitioner’s assessment of the likelihood and severity of a significant personal security threat. (Ref: Para. A570–A572)

Reference to a Practitioner’s Expert in the Assurance Report 

If the practitioner refers to the work of a practitioner’s expert in the assurance report, the wording of that report shall not identify the expert, unless required by law or regulation, or otherwise imply that the practitioner’s responsibility for the conclusion expressed in that report is reduced because of the involvement of that expert. (Ref: Para. A99, A573–A575)

Other Reporting Responsibilities

If the practitioner addresses other reporting responsibilities in the assurance report on the sustainability information that are in addition to the practitioner’s responsibilities under this ASSA, these other reporting responsibilities shall be addressed in a separate section in the assurance report with a heading “Report on Other Legal and Regulatory Requirements” or otherwise as appropriate to the content of the section. If these other reporting responsibilities address the same report elements as those presented under the reporting responsibilities required by this ASSA, the other reporting responsibilities may be presented in the same section as the related report elements required by this ASSA. (Ref: Para. A576–A577)

If other reporting responsibilities are presented in the same section as the related report elements required by this ASSA, the practitioner’s report shall clearly differentiate the other reporting responsibilities from the reporting that is required by this ASSA. (Ref: Para. A578)

If the assurance report contains a separate section that addresses other reporting responsibilities, the requirements of paragraph 190 shall be included under a section with a heading “[Limited, Reasonable, or Limited and Reasonable] Assurance Report on the Sustainability Information.” The “Report on Other Legal and Regulatory Requirements” shall follow the “[Limited, Reasonable, or Limited and Reasonable] Assurance Report on the Sustainability Information.” (Ref: Para. A578)

If the practitioner is required by law or regulation to use a specific layout or wording of the assurance report, the assurance report shall refer to this ASSA only if the assurance report includes, at a minimum, each of the elements identified in paragraphs 190 and 191.

Engagements Conducted in Accordance with Both ASSA 5000 and Other Assurance Standards

A practitioner may be required to conduct an assurance engagement in accordance with the assurance standards of a specific jurisdiction (the “other assurance standards”), and has additionally complied with this ASSA in the conduct of the engagement. If this is the case, the assurance report may refer to this ASSA in addition to the other assurance standards, but the practitioner shall do so only if:

1. There is no conflict between the requirements in the other assurance standards and those in this ASSA that would lead the practitioner:
   1. to reach a different conclusion, or
   2. not to include an Emphasis of Matter paragraph or Other Matter paragraph that, in the particular circumstances, is required by this ASSA; and
2. The assurance report includes, at a minimum, each of the elements set out in paragraphs 190 and 191 when the practitioner uses the layout or wording specified by the other assurance standards. The assurance report shall identify such other assurance standards, including the jurisdiction of origin of the other assurance standards.

Unmodified Conclusion

Emphasis of Matter Paragraph and Other Matter Paragraph

If the practitioner considers it necessary to: (Ref: Para. A579–A582)

1. Draw intended users’ attention to a matter presented or disclosed in the sustainability information that, in the practitioner’s judgement, is of such importance that it is fundamental to intended users’ understanding of that information (an Emphasis of Matter paragraph); or
2. Communicate a matter other than those that are presented or disclosed in the sustainability information that, in the practitioner’s judgement, is relevant to intended users’ understanding of the engagement, the practitioner’s responsibilities or the assurance report (an Other Matter paragraph); and

this is not prohibited by law or regulation, the practitioner shall do so in a paragraph in the assurance report, with an appropriate heading, that clearly indicates the practitioner’s conclusion is not modified in respect of the matter.

If the applicable criteria are designed for a specific purpose, the practitioner shall include an Emphasis of Matter paragraph that alerts readers to this fact, and that, as a result, the sustainability information may not be suitable for another purpose. (Ref: Para. A583–A584)

Other Information

If the practitioner has obtained the other information by the date of the assurance report, the assurance report shall include a separate section in accordance with paragraph 190(e), except when the practitioner disclaims a conclusion, in which case an “Other Information” section is not included. (Ref: Para. A585)

When the assurance report is required to include an Other Information section in accordance with paragraph 201, this section shall include:

1. A statement that management or those charged with governance, as appropriate, is responsible for the other information;
2. An identification of other information obtained by the practitioner prior to the date of the assurance report;
3. A statement that the practitioner’s conclusion does not cover the other information and, accordingly, that the practitioner does not provide a conclusion thereon; (Ref: Para. A586)
4. A description of the practitioner’s responsibilities relating to reading, considering, and reporting on other information as required by this ASSA; and
5. Either:
   1. A statement that the practitioner has nothing to report with respect to the other information; or
   2. If the practitioner has concluded that there is an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information, a statement that describes the uncorrected material misstatement of the other information.

Modified Conclusion 

The practitioner shall express a modified conclusion in the following circumstances:

1. When, in the practitioner’s professional judgement, a scope limitation exists, and the effect of the matter could be material. In such cases, the practitioner shall express a qualified conclusion or a disclaimer of conclusion. (Ref: Para. A587, A593L–A595)
2. When, in the practitioner’s professional judgement, the sustainability information is materially misstated. In such cases, the practitioner shall express a qualified conclusion or adverse conclusion. (Ref: Para. A588–A590, A593L–A595)

The practitioner shall express a qualified conclusion when, in the practitioner’s professional judgement, the effects, or possible effects, of a matter are not so material and pervasive as to require an adverse conclusion or a disclaimer of conclusion. A qualified conclusion shall be expressed as being “except for” the effects, or possible effects, of the matter to which the qualification relates. (Ref: Para. A591–A594R)

If the practitioner expresses a modified conclusion because of a scope limitation, but is also aware of a matter(s) that causes the sustainability information to be materially misstated, the practitioner shall include in the assurance report a clear description of both the scope limitation and the matter(s) that causes that the sustainability information to be materially misstated.

If a statement made by management, or those charged with governance, as appropriate, in the sustainability information has identified and properly described that the sustainability information is materially misstated, the practitioner shall either:

1. Express a qualified conclusion or adverse conclusion phrased in terms of the sustainability information and the applicable criteria; or
2. If specifically required by the terms of the engagement to phrase the conclusion in terms of a statement made by the appropriate party(ies), express an unqualified conclusion, but include an Emphasis of Matter paragraph in the assurance report referring to the statement made by the appropriate party(ies), that identifies and properly describes that the sustainability information is materially misstated.

Comparative Information

The practitioner shall determine whether the applicable criteria (or law or regulation) require comparative information to be included in the sustainability information and, if so, whether that comparative information is appropriately presented. (Ref: Para. A596)

In determining whether the comparative information is appropriately presented, the practitioner shall evaluate whether: (Ref: Para. A597–A598)

1. The comparative information is consistent with the disclosures presented in the prior period and, if not, any inconsistencies are addressed in accordance with the applicable criteria; and
2. The criteria for measurement or evaluation of the sustainability information reflected in the comparative information are consistent with those applied in the current period or, if there have been changes, whether they have been properly applied and adequately disclosed.

If the comparative information is not referred to in the practitioner’s assurance conclusion and was not subject to an assurance engagement in the prior period, the practitioner shall state that fact in an Other Matter paragraph. Such a statement does not, however, relieve the practitioner of the requirements in paragraphs 207–208. (Ref: Para. A599–A600)

If the comparative information is not referred to in the practitioner’s conclusion and was subject to an assurance engagement in the prior period, the practitioner shall state in an Other Matter paragraph: (Ref: Para. A599–A600)

1. If the assurance engagement for the prior period had a different level of assurance or a different engagement scope than the current period, that fact and what those differences were; or
2. If the assurance engagement for the prior period was conducted by a predecessor practitioner:
   1. That fact;
   2. The type of conclusion provided by the predecessor practitioner;
   3. If the conclusion was modified, the reasons for any modification; and
   4. The date of that report.

Irrespective of whether the practitioner’s conclusion refers to the comparative information, if the practitioner becomes aware that there may be a material misstatement of the comparative information presented, the practitioner shall: (Ref: Para. A601)

1. Discuss the matter with management and perform procedures appropriate in the circumstances;
2. Consider the effect on the assurance report; and
3. If the comparative information presented contains a material misstatement, and the comparative information has not been restated:
   1. When the practitioner’s conclusion refers to the comparative information, the practitioner shall express a qualified conclusion or an adverse conclusion in the assurance report; or
   2. When the practitioner’s conclusion does not refer to the comparative information, the practitioner shall include an Other Matter paragraph in the assurance report describing the circumstances affecting the comparative information.

Documentation

Matters Arising After the Date of the Assurance Report

If, in exceptional circumstances, the practitioner performs new or additional procedures or draws new conclusions after the date of the assurance report, the practitioner shall document: (Ref: Para. A602)

1. The circumstances encountered;
2. The new or additional procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions reached, and their effect on the assurance report; and
3. When and by whom the resulting changes to engagement documentation were made and reviewed.

Sustainability Information (Ref: Para. 2–5)

Sustainability information is often intended to give insight into sustainability-related risks and opportunities for users to understand and evaluate the impacts of sustainability matters on the entity or the entity’s actual or potential impacts, positive or negative, on the environment, society or economy.

The framework criteria determine the principles and concepts regarding the measurement or evaluation of sustainability matters. Although the framework may not specify how to measure or evaluate all sustainability matters, it ordinarily embodies sufficient broad principles that can serve as a basis for the entity to select and apply reporting policies that are consistent with the underlying concepts in, and meet the objectives of, the requirements of the framework.

The entity’s process to identify sustainability information to be reported, including the identification and selection of the sustainability matters and the reporting boundary, may be required by the sustainability reporting framework or entity-developed criteria. Such a process may be referred to as the entity’s “materiality assessment,” or “materiality process,” among other terms, as the process involves the application of materiality in identifying which information relevant to the information needs of intended users is material for the purposes of reporting. Appendix 2 illustrates how the entity’s process to identify sustainability information to be reported is considered by the practitioner throughout the engagement.

As described in paragraph 80, in connection with the acceptance and continuance of the assurance engagement, the practitioner is required to obtain a preliminary knowledge about the sustainability information to be reported, and whether the scope of the engagement encompasses all or part of that sustainability information.

Premises in this ASSA (Ref: Para. 6–7)

Law, regulation or professional requirements in a jurisdiction may specify relevant ethical requirements or requirements relating to quality management to be applied in the conduct of assurance engagements, and may provide guidance about what constitutes “at least as demanding” as the Code regarding relevant ethical requirements for assurance engagements, and ASQM 1 regarding a firm’s responsibility for its system of quality management.

Ethical Requirements (Ref: Para. 6(a), 7)

As explained in paragraph A58, the Code sets out the fundamental principles of ethics that establish the standards of behaviour expected of an assurance practitioner and establishes the Australian Independence Standards. The fundamental principles are integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, and professional behaviour. Paragraph A59 describes the conceptual framework in the Code that an assurance practitioner is required to apply when addressing threats to compliance with the fundamental principles. Paragraphs A60–A61 describe matters that may give rise to potential threats to compliance and that may affect or influence the practitioner’s independence.

Paragraph A62 explains that professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation, addressing compliance with relevant ethical requirements are at least as demanding as the provisions of the Code related to sustainability assurance engagements when they address the matters referred to in paragraphs A58–A61 and impose obligations that achieve the aims of the requirements set out in the Code related to such engagements.

Quality Management (Ref: Para. 6(b), 7)

As explained in paragraph A68, this ASSA has been written in the context of a range of measures taken to support the quality of assurance engagements. Such measures include a system of quality management implemented across the firm.

Paragraph A69 explains the responsibilities of the firm to design, implement and operate a system of quality management for assurance engagements, and paragraph A70 describes the components addressed by such a system that is designed in accordance with the requirements of ASQM 1.

As explained in paragraph A73, professional requirements, or requirements in law or regulation that deal with the firm’s responsibilities to design, implement, and operate a system of quality management are at least as demanding as ASQM 1 when they address all the matters referred to in paragraphs A69–A71 and impose obligations on the firm that achieve the aims of the objectives and requirements of ASQM 1.

In accordance with ASQM 1, the objective of the firm is to design, implement and operate a system of quality management that provides the firm with reasonable assurance that:

1. The firm and its personnel fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and conduct engagements in accordance with such standards and requirements; and
2. Engagement reports issued by the firm or engagement leaders are appropriate in the circumstances.

Types and Presentation of Sustainability Information (Ref: Para. 8)

The sustainability information presented by an entity may be limited to certain matters, such as selected metrics, targets or key performance indicators. Alternatively, the sustainability information may cover many different aspects of topics as required by the sustainability reporting framework or by law or regulation, or that the entity chooses to present voluntarily.

Sustainability information may be presented in different ways, for example, in a separate sustainability report issued by the entity, as part of the entity’s annual report (e.g., a separately identified report within the annual report, as part of the management report or management commentary), in an integrated report, or through some other reporting mechanism. Depending on the applicable criteria, the sustainability information may be for a single entity, or may include information for entities that are part of a group or other entities in the reporting entity’s value chain.

In some circumstances, the sustainability reporting framework may permit sustainability information to be incorporated by reference from other sources, such as the audited financial report or another section of a management report (i.e., a section other than that containing the sustainability information required to be reported). The information incorporated by reference may have been subject to an audit or an assurance engagement. If such information is within the scope of the sustainability assurance engagement, the practitioner responsible for the sustainability assurance engagement may intend to obtain evidence from the work performed by the financial statement auditor or another assurance practitioner. In these circumstances, the requirements in this ASSA addressing using the work of another practitioner apply, including the requirement to communicate, to the extent necessary in the circumstances, about the findings from another practitioner’s work.

Reasonable and Limited Assurance Engagements (Ref: Para. 9)

When the disclosures relate to a number of aspects of topics, separate conclusions may be provided on each aspect. Each conclusion is expressed in the form that is appropriate to either a reasonable assurance engagement or a limited assurance engagement. References in the ASSAs to the conclusion in the assurance report include each conclusion when separate conclusions are provided.

(Ref: Para. 18)

Assertions 

R. Assertions are used by practitioners to consider the different types of potential misstatements that may occur when identifying and assessing, and responding to, the risks of material misstatement in a reasonable assurance engagement. Examples of assertions are provided in paragraph A415R.

Component 

The framework criteria may specify that the sustainability information to be reported should be for the same reporting entity as the related financial report (see also paragraph A35). For purposes of the ASSAs, components that include entities or business units required to be included in the reporting entity’s group financial report (e.g., subsidiaries of a parent entity) are referred to as group components. The framework criteria may also require the sustainability information to be extended to include information from other entities that are part of the reporting entity’s upstream or downstream value chain. For purposes of the ASSAs, components that include such entities are referred to as value chain components.

Component Practitioner 

A component practitioner may comprise individuals from a network firm, a firm that is not a network firm, or another office within the practitioner’s firm.

In limited circumstances, the practitioner may be able to be sufficiently and appropriately involved in the work of another firm at a value chain component. For example, the reporting entity may have a direct business relationship with a supplier that allows management to arrange for the practitioner to obtain access to information at that entity or access to the firm that has performed work on that information. In those circumstances, if the practitioner intends to use such work and is able to be sufficiently and appropriately involved in the work, the other firm is a component practitioner for purposes of the ASSAs.

Criteria 

The criteria, particularly framework criteria, may include guidance about the sustainability matters (including the topics and aspects of topics) to be reported. The criteria also may establish how those sustainability matters are to be measured or evaluated, and how they are to be presented or disclosed.

Disclosure(s) 

The term “disclosure(s)” is used in this ASSA in the context of sustainability assurance engagements and refers to sustainability information about an aspect of a topic. Accordingly, it is not intended to have the same meaning as “financial statement disclosures” as defined or described in financial reporting frameworks.

Appendix 1 explains the relationship between sustainability matters, sustainability information and the related disclosures. Disclosure(s) may include quantitative or qualitative information and can vary in form and length. Management’s disclosures provide a starting point in considering whether and how certain disclosures may be combined by the practitioner for the purpose of planning and performing the engagement (see also paragraphs A285–A287).

Engagement Leader 

The individual appointed as the engagement leader may be a partner or another senior staff member in the firm (e.g., a director or principal). Whether the individual is permitted to be an engagement leader in accordance with this ASSA depends on how the firm assigns responsibilities, and whether law, regulation or professional requirements include requirements that specify who may be permitted to accept responsibility for the engagement.

The term engagement leader in this ASSA is the equivalent of “engagement partner” in ASQM 1.

Engagement Risk 

Engagement risk does not refer to, or include, the practitioner’s business risks, such as loss from litigation, adverse publicity, or other events arising in connection with particular sustainability matters.

In general, engagement risk can be represented by the following components:

1. Risks that the practitioner does not directly influence, which consist of:
   1. The susceptibility of the sustainability information to a material misstatement before consideration of any related controls applied by the entity (inherent risk); and
   2. The risk that a material misstatement that occurs in the sustainability information will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis by the entity’s internal control (control risk); and
2. The risk that the practitioner does directly influence, which is the risk that the procedures performed by the practitioner will not detect a material misstatement (detection risk).

R. Reducing engagement risk to zero is very rarely attainable or cost-beneficial. Therefore, reasonable assurance is less than absolute assurance due to factors such as the following:

• The use of selective testing.
• The inherent limitations of internal control.
• The fact that much of the evidence available to the practitioner is persuasive rather than conclusive.
• The use of professional judgement in gathering and evaluating evidence and forming conclusions based on that evidence.
• In some cases, the characteristics of the sustainability matters (e.g., forward-looking information).

Engagement Team 

The engagement team includes personnel, which includes any internal experts, and, if applicable, component practitioners. Another practitioner is not part of the engagement team.

[Deleted by the AUASB.]

Internal auditors who provide direct assistance refers to the use of internal auditors to perform procedures under the direction, supervision and review of the practitioner. Although they may perform procedures similar to those performed by the practitioner, such internal auditors are not independent of the entity as is required of the practitioner. They are therefore not members of the engagement team. In Australia, the practitioners is prohibited from using internal auditors to provide direct assistance.

Entity 

An example of an identifiable portion of a legal or economic entity is a single factory or other form of facility, such as a landfill site.

Firm 

The legal nature of the organisation performing the assurance engagement may take many forms and may not be described as a firm.

Fraud 

Although some form of management bias is inherent in subjective decisions relating to sustainability information, when there is intention to mislead, management bias is fraudulent in nature.

Paragraphs A323, A473 and A479 provide examples of matters related to material misstatements due to fraud or management bias in sustainability information, examples of where or how misstatements in sustainability information may arise and examples of misstatements due to fraud in sustainability information, respectively.

Group 

A single legal entity organised with branches or divisions is also a group for purposes of this ASSA if the sustainability information for those branches and divisions is included in the single legal entity’s sustainability information through an aggregation process.

Group Sustainability Information 

The framework criteria may specify that the sustainability information to be reported should be for the same reporting entity as the related financial report. For example, if consolidated financial report are required to be prepared in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework, then the sustainability information would include information for the same entities or business units included in the consolidated financial report. The criteria may also require the sustainability information to be extended to include information from other entities that are part of the upstream or downstream value chain. Such sustainability information, including information from the value chain, is referred to as “group sustainability information” in the ASSAs.

Intended Users 

Examples of intended users include shareholders, investors, lenders and other creditors who may use sustainability information to make resource allocation decisions. Other intended users who may be interested in the sustainability information reported by the organisation include consumers, taxpayers, employees, competitors, prudential authorities, central banks and bodies in charge of financial stability oversight, those granting public contracts, partners, suppliers, community, Indigenous Peoples, government, regulators, and interest groups.

In some cases, there may be intended users other than those to whom the assurance report is addressed. The practitioner may not be able to identify all those who will read the assurance report, particularly when a large number of people have access to it. In such cases, particularly when possible users are likely to have a broad range of interests in the sustainability matters, intended users may be limited to major stakeholders with significant and common interests. Intended users may be identified in different ways, for example, by agreement between the practitioner and management or those charged with governance, or by law or regulation.

In some cases, specific users (for example, lenders) may request the appropriate party(ies) to arrange for an assurance engagement to be performed on sustainability information that has been prepared using criteria that are designed for a specific purpose. When engagements use criteria that are designed for a specific purpose, paragraph 200 requires a statement alerting readers to this fact. In addition, the practitioner may consider it appropriate to indicate that the assurance report is intended solely for specific users. Depending on the engagement circumstances, this may be achieved by restricting the distribution or use of the assurance report (see paragraph A584).

Partner 

As noted in paragraph A31, the entity performing the assurance engagement may not be described as a firm. Therefore, the individual with authority to bind the organisation with respect to the performance of the engagement may not carry the title of partner.

Reporting Boundary 

In some cases, framework criteria may specify the reporting boundary. In other circumstances, the reporting boundary may be determined by the entity, in which case the reporting boundary will be part of the entity-developed criteria. The reporting boundary may vary for different topics or aspects of topics (e.g., some key performance indicators may have different boundaries from other key performance indicators because of the nature of the sustainability matters).

Although the entity’s sustainability information and financial report may relate to the same reporting entity, the reporting boundary for sustainability information may differ from the boundary for purposes of preparing financial report. For example, the reporting boundary for sustainability information may include activities, operations, relationships, or resources up and down the entity’s value chain. An entity’s supply chain is part of the value chain.

Substantive Procedures 

Analytical procedures performed to respond to an assessed risk of material misstatement are substantive in nature and therefore this ASSA requires the practitioner to develop an expectation as the basis for evaluating the results of those procedures (see paragraphs 143L and 143R). Analytical procedures may also be used as risk assessment procedures to help identify inconsistencies, unusual events or conditions, and amounts, ratios, and trends that indicate matters that may have implications for the engagement. Unusual or unexpected relationships that are identified may assist the practitioner in identifying risks of material misstatement, including risks of material misstatement due to fraud.

Sustainability Information 

As explained in paragraph 2, sustainability information is information about sustainability matters and may cover a number of topics and aspects of those topics. Paragraph 2 also explains that law or regulation or sustainability reporting frameworks may describe sustainability matters, topics or aspects of topics in different ways. Examples of topics and aspects of topics include the following:

As explained in paragraph 5, the scope of the assurance engagement may not extend to the entirety of the sustainability information reported. Therefore, for purposes of the ASSAs, the term “sustainability information” is to be read as the information that is subject to assurance. Sustainability information not subject to the assurance engagement that is included in a document or documents containing the sustainability information subject to the assurance engagement and the assurance report thereon is other information.

Sustainability Matters 

Law or regulation or sustainability reporting frameworks may define or describe sustainability matters in different ways. Depending on the criteria, sustainability matters may address:

• The impacts on the entity’s strategy, business model or performance;
• The impacts of the entity’s activities, products and services on the environment, society or economy; or
• The entity’s sustainability policies, plans, goals or targets.

In addition to impacts, the criteria may also refer to risks and opportunities (e.g., how sustainability-related risks and opportunities could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s prospects) or dependencies (e.g., resources and relationships throughout the entity’s value chain that may affect the entity’s strategy or business model).

Complying with Standards that Are Relevant to the Engagement (Ref: Para. 19–20)