Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p50
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 172219–175490

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.

 5.                  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)

 6.                  The practitioner's signature.

 7.                 The location in the jurisdiction where the engagement leader practices.

 8.                  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

 1.            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)