what to reportIndependent Review

Two types of independent report review are:¹

• Assurance: Conclusion provides confidence that statements made in the impact performance report are accurate and fairly presented in all material respects.²
• Verification: Conclusion provides an opinion about the degree to which the Reporting Norms have been followed.

Impact evaluations can serve as an input into high-quality impact performance reporting. However, impact evaluators are not providers of independent review. Evaluators review impact performance rather than reviewing the report itself. When an independent impact evaluation is commissioned, the report preparer can either use the information from the evaluation to prepare their own impact performance report, or the evaluation itself can constitute the performance report — providing it adheres to the Reporting Norms. In this instance, the report can be termed an “independent impact performance report.”

These services may be combined by preparers. For instance, if the results of an independent impact evaluation were included in an impact performance report, an assurance provider would assess whether the statements in the report are supported by the evidence provided in the evaluation. Additional services — such as certification, rating, and scoring, among others — may be layered on top of these.

A companion document provides a set of suggested questions that independent reviewers can use to test asset managers’ impact performance reports against the Reporting Norms. These suggested questions are not intended to be used on a standalone basis but rather in combination with existing assurance standards such as those of AccountAbility and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.³,⁴ The benefits to report preparers and report users of independent reviewers using those standards includes confidence that the reviewer is adhering to codes of ethics and quality control, and guidance on when conditions for independent review have been met, among others.

The Reporting Norms assume a three-party relationship between the preparer of the report, the user of the report, and the independent reviewer.⁵ The report preparer is responsible for providing information relevant to or for the benefit of report users. It is the preparer’s role to provide accurate information to the best of their reasonable knowledge and ability. The independent reviewer assesses the information provided by the preparer in reference to specified criteria (in this case, the Reporting Norms) in order to provide a conclusion about the report to the user.

The frequency of independent review can vary. For example, all sections of a report might be reviewed independently in one year, while the next year only selected sections might be assured. Alternatively, while impact performance reports are published once a year, independent review could be done less frequently (for instance every two or three years). Since independent review is intended to increase the reliability of reported information for the user, preparers are encouraged to consult with the users of the impact performance report to understand their needs and expectations.

The Reporting Norms may also be used by external impact report preparation services. In this case, the entity commissioning the report retains ultimate responsibility for the report. In addition, the external provider would be unable to perform assurance or verification services for the entity