Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p98
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 315646–318997

a reasonable assurance engagement, it is also not appropriate for a limited assurance engagement, and vice versa. Therefore, inappropriate sustainability matters for a reasonable assurance engagement cannot be overcome by changing the engagement to a limited assurance engagement.

 2.       In evaluating whether the sustainability matters are appropriate, and whether the sustainability information can be subject to procedures for obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence, the practitioner may consider matters such as the characteristics of the sustainability matters (i.e., the degree to which they are qualitative versus quantitative, factual versus judgemental, historical versus forward-looking, and relate to a point in time or cover a period) and the reporting boundary.

Suitability and Availability of Criteria (Ref: Para. 78, 107)

Suitable criteria for only some of the sustainability matters (Ref: Para. 78(a))

 1.       If suitable criteria are unavailable for some of the sustainability information subject to the assurance engagement, but the practitioner can identify one or more disclosures for which the criteria are suitable, then an assurance engagement may be performed with respect to those disclosures.

Sources of the criteria (Ref: Para. 78(b))

 1.       Criteria may be:

         1.                 Framework criteria, that is:

                 1.                  Embodied in law or regulation;

                 2.                Established for use by certain types of entities by an organisation(s) that is authorised or recognised to promulgate standards for reporting sustainability information that follow a transparent due process involving deliberation and consideration of the views of a wide range of stakeholders;

                 3.              Developed collectively by a group that does not follow a transparent due process;

                 4.              Published in scholarly journals or books; or

                 5.                 Developed for sale on a proprietary basis;

         2.                 Entity-developed criteria; or

         3.                 A combination of framework criteria and entity-developed criteria.

 2.       When criteria are selected from multiple frameworks or entity-developed criteria are to be used, the practitioner's evaluation of the suitability of the criteria may be more extensive and the practitioner may need to consider subjectivity or opportunity for management bias in selecting or developing the criteria.

 3.       Framework criteria that are embodied in law or regulation or are established by an authorised or recognised organisation that follows a transparent due process may be presumed to be suitable in the absence of indications to the contrary. The entity may select and apply reporting policies to apply the framework criteria as described in paragraph A2.

 4.       There may be circumstances when the framework criteria are not suitable on their own and may need to be supplemented by additional framework or entity-developed criteria in order to:

           * Be sufficiently prescriptive about the scope of the sustainability matters to be addressed in the sustainability information.

           * Address the entity's industry or jurisdictions in which the entity operates, or other factors pertinent to the sustainability