How We Ensure Credible ESG Assurance

Our methodology is designed to deliver ESG assurance that is credible, proportionate, and decision-useful. It is grounded in established assurance principles and adapted to the specific characteristics and limitations of each assessment scope.

We apply a consistent, structured approach across engagements, while tailoring scope and focus based on regulatory context, material risks, and intended use of assurance outcomes.

Audit Philosophy

Our assurance work is guided by the following principles:

Independence and Objectivity

We maintain clear professional boundaries and apply impartial judgment throughout all engagements.

Risk-Based Approach

We prioritize areas of higher ESG, regulatory, and reputational risk, rather than adopting checklist-driven approaches.

Materiality-Led Assessment

We focus on information that is material to users of ESG disclosures and relevant to regulatory and stakeholder decision-making.

Professional Skepticism

We critically evaluate evidence, assumptions, and representations, recognizing the evolving nature of ESG data and controls.

Engagement Lifecycle

Our engagement lifecycle reflects a risk-led, evidence-based approach to ESG assurance, with the delivery audit team actively involved from the outset and accountable throughout the engagement. While the stages below represent our standard methodology, the specific sequencing, emphasis, or formality of each step may vary depending on the requirements of the applicable standard, scheme, or assurance program. In all cases, the lifecycle is applied in a manner that preserves independence, supports professional judgment, and delivers credible, decision-useful outcomes.

1. Engagement, Acceptance and Independence

Each engagement begins with the active involvement of the audit team responsible for delivery. From the outset, the team participates in acceptance and independence assessments to confirm scope, competence, resourcing, and objectivity. Potential conflicts of interest and threats to impartiality are identified and addressed early, ensuring continuity of judgment and accountability from engagement acceptance through to reporting.

2. Planning and Scoping

Planning and scoping are led by the delivery audit team to ensure that engagement design reflects practical realities and material ESG risks. The team develops a risk-led audit plan, defining objectives, boundaries, applicable criteria, and reporting expectations based on a thorough understanding of the client’s activities, regulatory context, and risk profile. This early involvement supports consistency and reduces execution risk.

3. Stakeholder Engagement

The delivery audit team conducts stakeholder engagement activities to develop a grounded understanding of organizational context and risk exposure. Engagements may include management, operational personnel, workers, community representatives, or other affected stakeholders. The audit team applies professional judgment to conduct these interactions ethically, impartially, and with due sensitivity to confidentiality and power dynamics.

4. Evidence Gathering

Evidence gathering is performed by the same audit team that planned and scoped the engagement, ensuring continuity in interpretation and judgment. The team collects sufficient and appropriate evidence through document review, data analysis, interviews, observations, and site activities. Evidence is evaluated for reliability, relevance, and traceability to support defensible conclusions.

5. Evaluation and Feedback

The delivery audit team evaluates evidence against the agreed criteria using a risk-based approach and professional judgment. Preliminary observations are shared with the client to confirm factual accuracy and contextual understanding, while maintaining independence. This structured feedback step supports transparency and strengthens the quality of final outcomes.

6. Technical Review

A formal technical review is conducted by an independent reviewer who was not involved in engagement delivery. The review assesses the sufficiency of evidence, appropriateness of judgments, and consistency of conclusions with the engagement scope and criteria. In parallel, and prior to finalization, the client or auditee is provided an opportunity to review draft outputs for factual accuracy, identification of errors, and confirmation of proprietary or confidential information, without influencing professional judgments or conclusions.

7. Decision and Reporting

Final decisions and reporting are informed by the audit team’s evaluated evidence and the outcome of technical review. Reports are prepared by the delivery team to accurately reflect the engagement context, key risks, and conclusions, and are issued only once all quality and independence requirements are satisfied.

8. Corrective Action Verification and Future Assessments

Where corrective actions or follow-up activities are required, the audit team supports planning and assessment design while maintaining independence from implementation. This includes planning the verification of corrective actions and defining future assessments within the assurance cycle, as required by the applicable scheme or program.

Assurance Foundations and Limitations

Effective ESG assurance depends not only on process, but on how evidence is evaluated, judgment is applied, and limitations are understood. The following elements form the foundation of our assurance work. Together, they explain how we assess evidence and controls, apply professional judgment, address data quality challenges, communicate the inherent limitations of assurance, and maintain consistency as standards and expectations evolve.

Evidence and Controls

ESG assurance relies on a wide range of evidence types, which may vary in maturity and reliability.

We evaluate:

Data generation and aggregation processes
Internal controls and governance arrangements
Documentation and traceability of ESG information
Consistency between disclosures, underlying data, and operational practices

Where control environments are still developing, we assess how this affects assurance risk and adjust procedures accordingly.

Use of Professional Judgment

Professional judgment is central to ESG assurance.

We apply judgment when:

Determining materiality and risk priorities
Evaluating estimates, assumptions, and forward-looking information
Assessing the adequacy of controls and evidence
Forming assurance conclusions in areas of uncertainty

Judgments are documented and supported by evidence, consistent with assurance standards and professional expectations.

Data Quality and Limitations

We recognize that ESG data often:

Is derived from multiple systems and sources
Relies on estimates and qualitative inputs
Reflects evolving methodologies and definitions

Our methodology explicitly considers these limitations and ensures they are reflected appropriately in assurance procedures, findings, and conclusions.

Limitations of Assurance

ESG assurance provides a level of confidence, not absolute certainty.

Our work:

Does not guarantee future performance or outcomes
Does not replace management responsibility for disclosures
Is subject to inherent limitations related to data availability, estimates, and control maturity

These limitations are clearly communicated to ensure assurance conclusions are properly understood and used.

Consistency and Continuous Improvement

We maintain consistency through:

Standardized methodologies and templates
Structured documentation and review processes
Ongoing monitoring of regulatory and standards developments

Our methodology is reviewed and refined as ESG assurance practices, regulations, and expectations evolve.