Glossary›Connection to the financial statements›Consistency with the financial report
Glossary term
Cluster F · F2
Tier 1 · differentiator
Consistency with the financial report
Definition
Consistency with the financial report is the cross-check both the financial statement auditor and the sustainability assurance provider must perform. Each considers whether there is a material inconsistency between the sustainability report and the financial report. An unexplained inconsistency is a finding for both engagements, not just one.
On this page
In practice
This requirement is the reason most entities appoint the same firm for both reports. It is doable across two firms and the Corporations Act permits it, but each firm then needs access to the other’s subject matter, and the cost and coordination sit with the entity.
The practical preparation is a reconciliation schedule prepared by the entity, before either engagement starts, that lists every point of contact between the two reports and shows how each ties: the consolidated group, the reporting period, the segment or site list, any asset-specific climate statement and the corresponding accounting treatment, and any climate-driven provision, impairment or capital commitment.
What the assurer does with it
The assurer reads the financial report against the sustainability report and lists differences. Where a difference exists, they ask for the explanation and test it. What they reject is an explanation that only works verbally. The most common finding is not a contradiction but a silence: the climate statements describe a material transition risk to a product line, and the financial statements contain no reference to it anywhere, including in the going concern or impairment assessments. The assurer’s next question is whether the financial statements or the climate statements are wrong, and that question goes to both the audit committee and the financial statement auditor.
Commonly confused with
Connected information, which is the AASB S2 concept about how the disclosures relate to each other. Consistency is the assurance procedure that tests it.
Sources
1
ASSA 5000 General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements
AUASB
2
3
4
5
Review status
Review required
Last reviewed
15 September 2026
Editorial pass, unsigned
Reviewer required
Registered company auditor with financial reporting expertise
Next scheduled review
1 July 2027
Part of
Cluster F, Connection to the financial statements
6 terms on where the sustainability report meets the audited accounts. Small cluster, high consequence: this is where both assurers cross-check each other’s work.
Related terms
The AASB S2 concept this procedure is designed to test
The technique the assurer uses to find the differences worth asking about
How the emissions data is tied back to the accounting records
Related questions
How do we tie our emissions data back to the general ledger?
−
You reconcile the spend or volume behind each emissions source to the ledger accounts that record it, and you document the differences. It is not a perfect tie and it is not meant to be. The point is completeness: the ledger is the only population in the business already complete and already audited, so it is the natural control total for showing nothing has been left out.
What will our auditor actually ask for?
+
In year one they ask for evidence behind the disclosures that are actually assured: Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, your governance disclosures, and the specified strategy paragraphs on climate risks and opportunities. In practice that means source documents, a calculation they can rebuild from those documents, and minutes showing the governance you described actually happened.
What happens if the assurance provider disagrees with our numbers?
+
Disagreement is normally resolved before it reaches the conclusion: the practitioner raises a query, you produce more evidence or adjust the number, and the file moves on. A modified conclusion only arrives if you decline to adjust something material, or if they cannot obtain the evidence they need. The second case is far more common in a first year and is entirely preventable through documentation.
Where this sits commercially
The finding that catches first-year reporters is a silence, not a contradiction. This page names it and says what the assurer asks next.
Other terms in this cluster