Connect with us

Accounting

IAASB rolls out ISSA 5000 sustainability assurance standard

Published

on

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is preparing for the adoption of its International Standard on Sustainability Assurance 5000 early next year as companies look to get outside approval from auditing firms on their environmental efforts.

The IAASB approved the standard in September, but is awaiting final approval from the Public Interest Oversight Board, an international body that oversees the IAASB and other standard-setters affiliated with the International Federation of Accountants. The IAASB expects to provide educational materials in January once the PIOB formally approves ISSA 5000, probably by the end of this year. 

Policymakers, regulators and other standard-setting bodies in multiple jurisdictions have already indicated plans to adopt this new standard. Earlier this year the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recognized the IAASB’s work and standards in this area for the purpose of allowing assurance on climate disclosures, even though the SEC’s own climate rule is currently on hold pending the outcome of multiple lawsuits. 

IFAC offices

“ISSA 5000, which is our sustainability assurance standard, is meant to serve as a global baseline for sustainability assurance practices,” said IAASB chair Tom Seidenstein. 

Once the PIOB certifies the IAASB standard, the IAASB plans to offer a range of guidance and educational materials to help people and other standard-setters with the application and implementation of ISSA 5000. So far, the IAASB has heard positive responses from standard-setters in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Brazil, Turkey and the European Union, about their intention of adopting some or all of the standard for their requirements. “That’s just the earliest stages,” said Seidenstein. “They were all waiting for us to finish the standard, and we’ll have to see how those considerations progress.”

ISSA 5000 builds on two of the IAASB’s existing standards on assurance: International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000, a principles-based standard for assurance for nonfinancial reporting, and ISAE 3410, a specific standard for greenhouse gas reporting assurance.

“With the growing desire to have sustainability reporting throughout the world and the emergence of some of the leading reporting frameworks, we were urged to take what we had and make it specific to sustainability reporting,” said Seidenstein. “We took a pretty broad-based, principles-based framework that applied to all assurance and really focused it in, took our best practices on the assurance side, grabbed some of the key concepts that we’ve brought into the audit side, and made a sustainability-specific standard. Now what’s really important about this is it will work with all sustainability information prepared with any suitable reporting framework.”

That means it would work with not only the SEC’s climate-related disclosure rule, but also with the International Sustainability Standards Board’s S1 and S2 standards on sustainability and climate-related disclosures as well as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards mandated under the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, along with other major frameworks like Global Reporting Initiative standards. The IAASB has also been in talks with the American Institute of CPAs’ Auditing Standards Board about incorporating at least some of the ISSA 5000 framework into the ASB’s attestation requirements.

The IAASB developed the standards so they could work with various frameworks. “Our standard covers any sustainability information, so that would be covered as long as the reporting framework fulfills certain criteria, then our standard will work against that,” said Seidenstein. “You’re assuring against a framework. Reporting standard-setters will set the framework.”

ISSA 5000 addresses both limited and reasonable assurance. “Most assurance engagements these days are on a limited assurance basis,” said Seidenstein, noting that both the SEC and CSRD rules require only limited assurance. But he believes investors will eventually be demanding the more stringent “reasonable assurance.” 

“We wanted to have a clear pathway in our standards with a differentiation between limited and reachable assurance requirements, and ISSA 5000 provides both,” said Seidenstein. 

Reasonable assurance is similar to the level of assurance offered in financial audits. “The assurance practitioner does a number of inquiries, does the risk assessment, responds to it and reduces the risk of material misstatement down to an acceptable level,” Seidenstein explained. “That’s really important, and will give a high-level degree of confidence that the sustainability reports are stated correctly. In the world of limited assurance, there’s less work done. It’s stated in a negative way, that there’s nothing that’s come to the attention of the practitioner that would lead them to believe that the statements are materially misstated. That’s really about a different type of risk assessment, different lines of inquiry, in responding to areas of risk, whereas a reasonable assurance engagement is much more robust. Most people are focused on limited right now to develop the capacity, knowledge and understanding as we then transition to reasonable assurance over time.”

However, the standards should help investors assess the reliability of a company’s sustainability reporting. 

“What these standards will do, just like audit standards and just like assurance today, but in a much more specific way, will give the users of information more confidence that an external third party that’s independent and expert has reviewed the sustainability reports and can either provide a limited assurance or reasonable assurance opinion against the sustainability report, and that should give confidence,” said Seidenstein. “It’s the same thing as you would expect on the financial reporting side. It’s precisely why audits are important that you have an independent expert third party look at it to make sure that there’s no material misstatements.” 

An IFAC report that was released in June aims to help those who use sustainability reporting understand what to expect from sustainability assurance, addressing limited vs. reasonable assurance and explaining what different types of conclusions can indicate.

Auditors would follow many of the same basic approaches and methodologies in the world of financial auditing, from the planning to the conclusion to the reporting stages. “We focus very much on the planning, the risk assessment phase, the risk response phase of audits, so it’s very similar in many concepts, but translated to a sustainability context,” said Seidenstein. “What is slightly different in this world is first of all, you have much more qualitative and prospective information than you would in the financial reporting context, so you’re very focused on the process, the controls, the approach to making sure that the disclosures are materially correct.”

The IAASB wrote the standard so it can be used by both accountants and non-accountants since some other types of consulting firms that aren’t accounting firms have also been providing assurance on sustainability reporting, particularly when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. IFAC’s State of Play in Sustainability Assurance report found that 689 of 1,187 (for 950 companies) assurance reports were signed by audit firms in 2022. 

The report found the IAASB’s assurance standard, International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000 (Revised), continues to be used most frequently. In the most recent year for which data is available (2022), 92% of firms applied ISAE 3000 (Revised) in their sustainability assurance engagements, 98% of companies reported some level of detail on sustainability, and 69% obtained assurance on at least some of their sustainability disclosures. But the mix of reporting standards used by companies remains fragmented

For ISSA 5000, non-accountant practitioners would still need to adhere to the IAASB’s quality management standards as well as the ethics standards developed by its sister standard-setting board, the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. IESBA has also been developing ethics standards for sustainability reporting. The International Organization of Securities Commissions has encouraged both the IAASB and IESBA to develop sustainability assurance and ethics standards since September 2022. IESBA is expected to approve its standards in December, and the PIOB will meet to certify them in January. 

“We’re clearly proud of this work, that we were able to turn this around in under two years’ time with robust due process, and we met the timeline particularly set forward by IOSCO in their recommendation to both us and IESBA in terms of supporting sustainability reporting requirements,” said Seidenstein.

Even though the SEC’s climate rule is on hold, he believes the standards will still be useful for U.S. accountants. 

“In the United States, there are many different companies that will be seeking assurance, or already do seek assurance, on their sustainability reporting,” said Seidenstein. “So many companies have ESG reports or sustainability reports on a voluntary basis. There are a number of companies that are likely to adopt ISSB standards beyond that on a voluntary basis, or report on some other set of standards currently and are seeking assurance. There are many companies that will be required to conform with the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, and they will be required to have assurance under the CSRD and potentially be required to use our set of standards. The European Commission asked the CEAOB, which is the Committee of European Audit Oversight Boards, to advise the Commission on how to implement assurance requirements. It said specifically to look at our work on 5000 in that regard. American companies may have that requirement and could be in the value chain of companies that require sustainability reporting, whether it’s in Europe or elsewhere, and would also require assurance. There are a number of ways that our work could be relevant to American companies, irrespective of the climate rule.”

A recent report from the Visual Lease Data Institute found that a little over half (55%) of finance executives who were surveyed reported that the pause on the SEC climate disclosure rule has impacted their organization’s climate-related reporting efforts, and only 43% say their companies have established related benchmarks (a 4% increase from 2023).

ISSA 5000 promises to be widely useful for auditing firms in providing assurance on these important metrics. “We believe that this will establish a global baseline on the assurance side to complement what’s happening on the reporting side, and you really can’t have one without the other,” said Seidenstein.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Trending