<p><strong>Bakgrund: </strong>Hållbarhetsredovisning har utvecklats från att vara ett undantag till en norm, dock är enbart cirka 40 procent av de utgivna hållbarhetsredovisningarna granskade enligt en undersökning utförd av KPMG från 2008. Det saknas krav när det gäller granskningen av hållbarhetsredovisningarna och det finns ett antal standarder som kan användas vid granskningen, både internationella och nationella sådana. I och med detta försvåras jämförelser mellan företag samtidigt och det blir svårt att bedöma vilken kvalité den utförda granskningen har.</p><p><strong>Syfte:</strong> Uppsatsen syfte är att undersöka huruvida granskningsrapporten skiljer sig åt beroende på granskande aktör och/eller vilken granskningsstandard som används i Sverige, Tyskland, Storbritannien och Danmark. Med skillnader menas i det här fallet att undersöka vilka egenskaper i redovisningen som lyfts fram av den granskande aktören, vilken nivå på granskningen som lämnas samt vilka intressenter som granskningen riktar sig till i första hand. Genom att undersöka detta är det möjligt att bidra med kunskap om huruvida användbarheten av hållbarhetsredovisningarna påverkas av granskande aktör och använd granskningsstandard och om detta ser olika ut i de undersökta länderna.</p><p><strong>Metod:</strong> En undersökning av 30 hållbarhetsredovisningar i respektive land. Uppsatsen är en fallstudie och har en kvalitativ ansats.</p><p><strong>Slutsats:</strong> Granskningsrapporternas utformning skiljer sig mellan de undersökta länderna samt beroende på granskande aktör och använd granskningsstandard. En större andel av de hållbarhetsredovisningar som granskas av annan aktör än revisionbyrå ges ett bestyrkande med hög men inte absolut säkerhet. Granskningsrapporterna utgivna av revisionsbyråerna är betydligt mer standardiserade än de övriga vilket gör att dessa inte ger läsarna/intressenterna en fullständig bild av det granskade företagets hållbarhetsarbete. Därmed kan användbarheten av granskningen ifrågasättas. Användbarheten kan dock även ifrågasättas hos de granskningsrapporter som är utfärdade av annan aktör än revisionsbyrå. Då dessa aktörer inte är tydligt kontrollerade på samma sätt och det inte ställs samma krav på oberoende på dessa aktörer, så är det svårt att avgöra om den utförda granskningen är tillförlitlig.</p><p> </p> / <p><strong>Background:</strong> Sustainability Reporting has developed from being an exception to becoming a norm. According to a research performed by KPMG in 2008, only 40 per cent of the issued sustainability reports are assured by an independent assurance provider. There are no requirements regarding assurance of sustainability reports and it exist a number of standards that could be used in the assurance process for sustainability reports, as well international standards as national standards. As a result of this the comparison between companies becomes difficult and it is difficult to evaluate the quality of the performed assurance.</p><p><strong>Purpose:</strong> The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the assurance report given by the assurance provider differ depending on assurance provider and/or the assurance standard that is used in Sweden, Germany, Great Britain and Denmark. Assurance reports differ if the assurance provider emphasizes on different qualities and different stakeholders and provide different level of assurance. By examining this it would be possible to contribute with knowledge regarding whether the usefulness of sustainability reports depend on assurance provider and assurance standard and whether it exist differences between the examined countries.</p><p><strong>Methodology:</strong> A research involving 30 sustainability reports from each country. This thesis is based on case study and has a qualitative research method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> The content in the assurance reports differ between the countries in this thesis and is depending on assurance provider and assurance standard. A majority of the sustainability reports that provide a conclusion with reasonable assurance are assured by other assurance provider than accountants. The assurance reports issued by accountants are more standardized than the remaining reports and therefore give the readers/stakeholders an uncomplete picture of the sustainability actions performed by assured company. A consequence of this is that the usefulness of the assurance provided could be questioned. The usefulness could also be questioned regarding the reports provided by other provider than accountants because these providers do not have the same requirements regarding independence and control as the accounting firms and therefore it is difficult to judge the reliability of this reports.</p>

Bakgrund: Hållbarhetsredovisning har utvecklats från att vara ett undantag till en norm, dock är enbart cirka 40 procent av de utgivna hållbarhetsredovisningarna granskade enligt en undersökning utförd av KPMG från 2008. Det saknas krav när det gäller granskningen av hållbarhetsredovisningarna och det finns ett antal standarder som kan användas vid granskningen, både internationella och nationella sådana. I och med detta försvåras jämförelser mellan företag samtidigt och det blir svårt att bedöma vilken kvalité den utförda granskningen har. Syfte: Uppsatsen syfte är att undersöka huruvida granskningsrapporten skiljer sig åt beroende på granskande aktör och/eller vilken granskningsstandard som används i Sverige, Tyskland, Storbritannien och Danmark. Med skillnader menas i det här fallet att undersöka vilka egenskaper i redovisningen som lyfts fram av den granskande aktören, vilken nivå på granskningen som lämnas samt vilka intressenter som granskningen riktar sig till i första hand. Genom att undersöka detta är det möjligt att bidra med kunskap om huruvida användbarheten av hållbarhetsredovisningarna påverkas av granskande aktör och använd granskningsstandard och om detta ser olika ut i de undersökta länderna. Metod: En undersökning av 30 hållbarhetsredovisningar i respektive land. Uppsatsen är en fallstudie och har en kvalitativ ansats. Slutsats: Granskningsrapporternas utformning skiljer sig mellan de undersökta länderna samt beroende på granskande aktör och använd granskningsstandard. En större andel av de hållbarhetsredovisningar som granskas av annan aktör än revisionbyrå ges ett bestyrkande med hög men inte absolut säkerhet. Granskningsrapporterna utgivna av revisionsbyråerna är betydligt mer standardiserade än de övriga vilket gör att dessa inte ger läsarna/intressenterna en fullständig bild av det granskade företagets hållbarhetsarbete. Därmed kan användbarheten av granskningen ifrågasättas. Användbarheten kan dock även ifrågasättas hos de granskningsrapporter som är utfärdade av annan aktör än revisionsbyrå. Då dessa aktörer inte är tydligt kontrollerade på samma sätt och det inte ställs samma krav på oberoende på dessa aktörer, så är det svårt att avgöra om den utförda granskningen är tillförlitlig. / Background: Sustainability Reporting has developed from being an exception to becoming a norm. According to a research performed by KPMG in 2008, only 40 per cent of the issued sustainability reports are assured by an independent assurance provider. There are no requirements regarding assurance of sustainability reports and it exist a number of standards that could be used in the assurance process for sustainability reports, as well international standards as national standards. As a result of this the comparison between companies becomes difficult and it is difficult to evaluate the quality of the performed assurance. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the assurance report given by the assurance provider differ depending on assurance provider and/or the assurance standard that is used in Sweden, Germany, Great Britain and Denmark. Assurance reports differ if the assurance provider emphasizes on different qualities and different stakeholders and provide different level of assurance. By examining this it would be possible to contribute with knowledge regarding whether the usefulness of sustainability reports depend on assurance provider and assurance standard and whether it exist differences between the examined countries. Methodology: A research involving 30 sustainability reports from each country. This thesis is based on case study and has a qualitative research method. Conclusion: The content in the assurance reports differ between the countries in this thesis and is depending on assurance provider and assurance standard. A majority of the sustainability reports that provide a conclusion with reasonable assurance are assured by other assurance provider than accountants. The assurance reports issued by accountants are more standardized than the remaining reports and therefore give the readers/stakeholders an uncomplete picture of the sustainability actions performed by assured company. A consequence of this is that the usefulness of the assurance provided could be questioned. The usefulness could also be questioned regarding the reports provided by other provider than accountants because these providers do not have the same requirements regarding independence and control as the accounting firms and therefore it is difficult to judge the reliability of this reports.

Audit evidence enables the auditor to express an opinion on the financial statements. To address the risk that the auditor may express an inappropriate opinion, the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures must be responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement. The auditor must aggregate the levels of assurance obtained from different combinations of tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to respond to the assessed risks. These evidence planning decisions are complex and require professional judgement. Research has found that the extent of audit procedures is not linked to the assessed risks and that auditors may not know to aggregate evidence from different types of audit procedures. Research also supports the use of a structured audit methodology that includes decision models, to guide the application of professional judgement. This leads to the overall objective of this study: the development of an integrated audit evidence planning model to quantify the extent of audit evidence. The study employs a grounded theory model building approach, interpreting the relevant concepts and principles from the literature review into the development of the model. The integrated audit evidence planning model quantitatively relates the extent of audit evidence in a logical and structured manner with the risk assessment and three distinct overall levels of assurance needed to support the audit opinion. It uses the cumulative nature of audit evidence and the compensatory inter-relationship between tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to quantitatively aggregate the extent and levels of assurance from the different combinations of procedures to obtain reasonable assurance at the required overall level of assurance. The model provides a framework for influencing and guiding the exercise of professional judgement and is a practical and effective tool to benefit the users thereof when conducting an audit. Thus, the study models the extent of audit evidence with reference to the aggregation of different types and combinations of evidence and the linkage between the risk assessment and the extent of evidence that provides a flexible framework for the application of professional judgement regarding the gathering of audit evidence. / Auditing / D. Com. (Auditing)

Audit evidence enables the auditor to express an opinion on the financial statements. To address the risk that the auditor may express an inappropriate opinion, the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures must be responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement. The auditor must aggregate the levels of assurance obtained from different combinations of tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to respond to the assessed risks. These evidence planning decisions are complex and require professional judgement. Research has found that the extent of audit procedures is not linked to the assessed risks and that auditors may not know to aggregate evidence from different types of audit procedures. Research also supports the use of a structured audit methodology that includes decision models, to guide the application of professional judgement. This leads to the overall objective of this study: the development of an integrated audit evidence planning model to quantify the extent of audit evidence. The study employs a grounded theory model building approach, interpreting the relevant concepts and principles from the literature review into the development of the model. The integrated audit evidence planning model quantitatively relates the extent of audit evidence in a logical and structured manner with the risk assessment and three distinct overall levels of assurance needed to support the audit opinion. It uses the cumulative nature of audit evidence and the compensatory inter-relationship between tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to quantitatively aggregate the extent and levels of assurance from the different combinations of procedures to obtain reasonable assurance at the required overall level of assurance. The model provides a framework for influencing and guiding the exercise of professional judgement and is a practical and effective tool to benefit the users thereof when conducting an audit. Thus, the study models the extent of audit evidence with reference to the aggregation of different types and combinations of evidence and the linkage between the risk assessment and the extent of evidence that provides a flexible framework for the application of professional judgement regarding the gathering of audit evidence. / Auditing / D. Com. (Auditing)