Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p87
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 282989–286079

network firm may be subject to common quality management policies or procedures as the practitioner's firm, given that they are part of the same network.

 2.       Quality management at the engagement level is supported by the firm's system of quality management and informed by the specific nature and circumstances of the engagement. The practitioner may be able to depend on the firm's related policies or procedures regarding the evaluation of the adequacy of an internal expert's work. For example, the firm's training programs may provide internal experts with an appropriate understanding of the interrelationship of their expertise with the assurance process. Reliance on such training may affect the nature, timing and extent of the practitioner's procedures to evaluate the adequacy of the practitioner's internal expert's work.

 3.       ASQM 1 requires the firm to have policies or procedures to address quality risks arising from the use of resources from a service provider, which includes the use of an external expert. A practitioner's external expert is not a member of the engagement team and may not be subject to the firm's policies or procedures under its system of quality management.

Evaluating the competence, capabilities and objectivity of a practitioner's external expert (Ref: Para. 56(a)–(b))

 1.       Relevant ethical requirements applicable to the practitioner when using the work of a practitioner's external expert may include provisions addressing the fulfillment of the practitioner's ethical responsibilities related to evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity for the practitioner's purposes. Such provisions may prohibit the practitioner from using the work of a practitioner's external expert if the practitioner:

         1.                 Is unable to determine whether the external expert has the necessary competence or capabilities, or is objective;

         2.                 Has determined that the external expert does not have the necessary competence or capabilities; or

         3.                 Has determined that it is not possible to eliminate circumstances that create threats to the expert's objectivity, or apply safeguards to reduce such threats to an acceptable level.

 2.       The evaluation of whether the threats to objectivity are at an acceptable level may depend upon the role of the practitioner's external expert and the significance of the expert's work in the context of the engagement. In some cases, it may not be possible to eliminate circumstances that create threats or apply safeguards to reduce threats to an acceptable level, for example, if a proposed practitioner's external expert is an individual who has played a significant role in preparing the sustainability information.

 3.       When evaluating the objectivity of a practitioner's external expert, it may be relevant to:

           * Enquire also of the appropriate party(ies) about any known interests or relationships that the appropriate party(ies) has with the expert that may