Mehr Glaubwürdigkeit durch Testate? - Institute for Sustainability

Endbericht Evaluation des Nutzens von „Testaten“ in Nachhaltigkeitsberichten
8. Reviewed BP’s processes for determining material issues to be included in the Report
and assessed whether the processes had been appropriately applied in preparing the Report.
9. Reviewed the information received at group level on which judgements of the issues to be
disclosed are based.
10. Assessed whether BP’s reporting (which includes both the environmental and social
web content and the Report together) are ‘in accordance’ with GRI through reviewing
whether the reporting:
a. Contains all information required in Sections 1-3 of Part C of the Guidelines (Vision
and Strategy, Profile and Governance Structure and Management Systems).
b. Contains a GRI Content Index.
c. Contains data regarding performance against each of the GRI core indicators or explanations
for omissions.
d. Is consistent with the 11 principles by reviewing BP’s own assessment against GRI
and interviewing a selection of BP staff.
e. Contains a statement signed by the board or the CEO confirming that the reporting
has been prepared in accordance with GRI.
Das detaillierte Arbeitsprogramm führt bei Ernst & Young London zu einem sehr stark auf
das Unternehmen zugeschnittenem Feedback im Assurance Statement, welches von
SustainAbility (2004) ausdrücklich als hervorragendes Beispiel gelobt wird und das sich auch
in spezifischen Kommentaren von E&Y in den einzelnen Berichtskapiteln niederschlägt.
In anderen Darstellungen von Prüfungsprozessen wird da weit weniger in die Tiefe
gegangen. Ernst & Young Amsterdam z.B. dokumentiert für die Testierung des „ING in
society report 2003“ folgendes Arbeitsprogramm:
“Our principal review procedures were:
• Obtaining an understanding of the sector and its relevant social responsibility issues;
• Assessing the acceptability of the reporting principles used and significant estimates and calculations
made in preparing the ‘ING in Society 2003’ report;
• Performing analytical procedures at both Group and Business Unit level to assess the quantitative
data;
• Examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the descriptive and quantitative data provided,
and studying relevant company documents;
• Conducting interviews with the responsible company officers in the Netherlands, mainly for
the purpose of assessing the plausibility of the descriptive and quantitative data in the ‘ING in
Society 2003’ report;
• Evaluating the overall view of the ‘ING in Society 2003’ report, in part by testing its contents
against the reporting guidelines set out in the Sustainability Reporting Guideline issued by the
Council for Annual Reporting in the Netherlands and the guidelines issued by the Global Reporting
Initiative.”
Während bei BP eine Prüfung nach dem AA 1000 AS erfolgte, steht der Prüfungsvermerk im
„ING in society report 2003“ primär für eine Richtigkeitsprüfung, die "... in accordance with
the standard for assurance engagements generally accepted in the Netherlands, as issued
by the International Federation of Accountants and the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registeraccountants
(Royal NIVRA)“ erfolgte. Das umfangreiche AA 1000 AS Arbeitsprogramm
führt bei BP zu detailliertem Feedback von Ernst & Young UK. Auf Basis des deutlich
knapperen Arbeitsprogramms fällt die Beurteilung durch Ernst & Young NL im ING-Report
inhaltlich deutlich knapper aus:
“Conclusions
Based on the procedures performed, nothing came to our attention that leads us not to believe that:
• the description of policy and measures in the ‘ING in Society 2003’ report of ING properly reflects
the efforts made in 2003;
57