Forming the Assurance ConclusionForming the Assurance Conclusion

Forming the Assurance Conclusion

Evaluating the Evidence Obtained

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

1. 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

1. 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

1. 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)