Talk:Main Page
From AccountAbility AA1000 Wiki
This area to initiate discussion around particular topics to discuss specific issues and promote debate in parallel to the wiki editing. Please post your comments here relating to a particular issue or any other general comments you have.
Contents |
Future home of AA1000AS? -- Australia - Sydney Consultation Recommendations 11:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Need to clarify the process and the pre-conditions for the future home of the AA1000AS and its on going management and development. Should ensure it is consistent with state of the art thinking of collaborative governance, that is, learn lessons from that process
Should Embeddedness be the fourth principle? -- Dwaistell 11:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
At a number of our consultations the possibility of a fourth principle 'embeddedness' has been raised. What are the views of users on this possibility?
Re: Should Embeddedness be the fourth principle? -- Banarra 22:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The original AA1000 Framework principles included embeddedness and continuous improvement – these are clearly principles that are currently included in the standard however they are not explicitly required in the current draft and we would suggest that they could be.
Comments from TC Discussion -- AA Technical Committee 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Main audience of the standard should be the assurance practitioners not reporters.
There have been concerns that the standard is too much of a reporting standard. If it made more reference to GRI where it mentions guidance then there would be less confusion over the purpose of the standard.
Agreed that this needs to be an assurance standard
For the wiki process it was thought easier to keep requirements and guidance together but this doesn't have to be the case in the final standard - requirements as the core - supported by guidance. Guidance can then be linked to who the guidance is for (reporters, readers etc). Also need to ensure the links are there to ensure that this doesn't appear that it is trying to rewrite GRI or something else.
Suggested that we make guidance obviously separate from the requirements of the standard (e.g different colour, background, different pages?). Clarify what is requirements and what is guidance - make it much less ambiguous.
Seems we need a 10-12 page core document on requirements supported by other separate guidance.
There is value in the guidance for reporters but we need to make it clear that the requirements are core.
We need to focus on driving the requirements - the core. Only after that can we discuss what supporting guidance is needed.
We also need to answer the question - assurance on what? Concern that instead of narrowing this, it has actually expanding this time round. Is the assurance just on reporting and the systems that support reporting, or is it assurance on a much broader issue?
Assurance of information and public disclouse? or should it include performance? Performance is judged in relation to the reporting.
Systems, data and conduct (performance)? Just reporting? If we are talking about reporting, we have to consider what is not reported but should be - this needs to include systems - review engagement and what gaps exist.
Distinction between reporting process assurance and the reliability of the information presented. Two differences stages. Accounting standards look at the second and are divorced from the first.
The fundamental benefit of AA1000AS is that it doesn't allow narrow scope and reduce it to data verification. It needs to keep assurance of 'the right things' and 'things right'.
Is performance responding to the expectations of stakeholders. This needs to be considered.
We need to draw out the difference between the technical and social aspects of assurance.
A. What - right things and things right - information (public disclosure), underlying systems for management performance, data and conduct (?). Assurance on the report - to do this you need to look at underlying systems. B. Who - addressed primarily to assurance providers - guidance provided to preparers etc C. How - Core requirements section and a clearly separated guidance piece (in these guidance pieces there is a need to be very clear on links to other standards/frameworks - our goal is convergence not competition.
GRI - incremental approach. Companies also use an incremental approach to assurance - not straight into full assurance. What is the subject matter? Discrete disclosures? link to financial performance/sustainability
Categories of Assurance: A - are we doing the right things? B - Right things and few issues (rational and material selection)? C - Right things and all material issues? D - all report including non-material issues
1.Not precise enough - need more precision
2. Who the statement is for - strongly believe the statement is for stakeholders in general
3. Independence and impartiality - debate by Deloitte and FEE on the importance of independence and impartiality. Impariality is key, independence is difficult - need to assess relationships, financials and other
4. Levels - difficult as ever. Wouldn't mind if there were 2 levels, but stakeholders value rich feedback. Two different levels, could be aligned with ISAE3000 - but don't want the conclusion summed up in a couple lines.
Accounting world - sees assurance as resulting in a conclusion - what ISAE 3000 does. Findings are stated to management. In the statement - no opinion - this is what we did and this is what we've found. Does this tells stakeholders what they want to know? Don't want negative language and 2 line conclusions.
Stakeholders want to hear what the assurance provider thinks. What happens when the assurance provider finds major gaps between the first draft report and the company performance - better if the company acknowledges this. Is there a need to even mention this if the final report is satisfactory - need to focus on the final report - opinion is on this - not on the drafts.
Methodology section - needs to take account of the iterative process between assurance provider and reporting organisation. Stakeholders don't see this process.
5. Link to GRI - lean on GRI standard disclosures as much as possible. Including disclosures on stakeholder engagement and materiality process. Use GRI or some other and standard and state what you have used? Would help application of the standard to refer to the GRI or something equivalent.
An organisation must be able to demonstrate it has used accpetable reporting guidelines and frameworks, and here are some examples e.g. GRI.
Make distinction between principles in GRI and AS. AS - have you identified the right issues to manage? GRI - content of report.
