Get a plain-English read of Engagement-level Quality Management
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Standard on Sustainability Assurance ASSA 5000 General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements.
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)
Competence and capabilities in assurance skills and techniques developed through extensive training and practical application;
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
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)
Section Engagement-level Quality Management - Standard on Sustainability Assurance ASSA 5000 General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements - Engagement-level Quality Management | Zoe
Identifying, evaluating and addressing threats to compliance with relevant ethical requirements, including those related to independence;
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
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.]
Aus 42.1 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)
Aus 42.2 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)
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;
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)
Planned and performed in accordance with the firm’s policies or procedures, professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements; and
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)
Significant matters;
Significant judgements, including those relating to difficult or contentious matters identified during the engagement, and the conclusions reached; and
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)
Comply with relevant ethical requirements that apply to using the work of another practitioner; (Ref: Para. A125–A126)
Evaluate whether that practitioner has the necessary competence and capabilities for the practitioner’s purposes; (Ref: Para. A127)
Evaluate whether the nature, scope and objectives of that practitioner’s work are appropriate for the practitioner’s purposes; and (Ref: Para. A128)
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)
Whether the description of the procedures performed and the results thereof are appropriate for the practitioner’s purposes; and
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:
Determine whether the practitioner is able to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence through performing alternative procedures; and
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)
Evaluate whether the expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity for the practitioner’s purposes; (Ref: Para. A141–A145)
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)
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)
Agree with the expert, in writing when appropriate, on:
The nature, scope and objectives of that expert’s work; and (Ref: Para. A149–A150)
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)
The relevance and reasonableness of that expert’s findings or conclusions, and their consistency with other evidence obtained by the practitioner;
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
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:
Agree with that expert on the nature and extent of further work to be performed; or
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)
Evaluate the extent to which the internal audit function’s organisational status and relevant policies and procedures support the objectivity of the internal auditors;
Evaluate the level of competence of the internal audit function, including in sustainability matters and applicable criteria;
Evaluate whether the internal audit function applies a systematic and disciplined approach, including a system of quality control;
Determine whether, and to what extent, to use specific work of the internal audit function; and
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:
Difficult or contentious matters and matters on which the firm’s policies or procedures require consultation; and
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)
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
Determine whether the information may affect the engagement and, if so, take appropriate action.