Page 70 - Corporate Responsibility Report 2013
P. 70
07 Sustainability Framework and Commitment
► Reviewed the Report for the appropriate transposition and presentation of the sustainability
data linked to the G4 General and Specific Standard Disclosures under the scope of our assurance
engagement (indicated in the assurance column of the GRI G4 Content Index with a checkmark, pp.
60-65), including limitations and assumptions relating to how these data are presented within the
Report.
► Reviewed information or explanations to substantiate key data, statements and assertions
regarding the sustainability disclosures under the scope of our assurance engagement.
► Reviewed the AIA UNGC CoP against the guidelines found in the Practical Guide to the UNGC
CoP.
► Reviewed the “Linkage table between ISO26000:2010 and GRI G4 Guidelines” to check AIA’s
adherence to Clause 4.
Level of assurance
The evidence gathering procedures were designed to obtain a limited level of assurance (as set out in
ISAE 3000) on which we formed our conclusions. The extent of these evidence gathering procedures is
less than those designed to obtain a reasonable level of assurance and therefore a lower level of
assurance is provided. This is also expressed by the ‘moderate’ level of assurance, under AA1000AS,
according to which “the assurance provider achieves moderate assurance where sufficient evidence has
been obtained to support their statement, such as the risk of their conclusion being in error is reduced
but not reduced to very low or zero”.
Limitations of our review
► Our review was limited to the English version of the Report. In the event of any inconsistency in
translation between the English and Greek versions, as far as our conclusions are concerned, the
English version of the Report prevails.
► The scope of our work did not include any review of third party activities or performance, nor
attending any stakeholder engagement activities.
► Our review did not include financial data and the corresponding narrative text and testing of the
Information Technology systems used or those upon which the collection and aggregation of data
was based by AIA.
► We do not provide any assurance relating to future information such as estimates, expectations or
targets, or their achievability.
Our conclusions
Based on the scope of our review our conclusions are outlined below:
1. Adherence to the AccountAbility Principles of Inclusivity, Materiality and Responsiveness,
against the relevant criteria found in the AA1000APS.
Inclusivity: Has AIA been engaging with stakeholders across the business to develop its approach to
sustainability?
► Nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that any key stakeholder groups
have been excluded from stakeholder engagement activities, or to conclude that AIA has not
applied the Inclusivity principle in developing its approach to sustainability.
70 / aia.gr
► Reviewed the Report for the appropriate transposition and presentation of the sustainability
data linked to the G4 General and Specific Standard Disclosures under the scope of our assurance
engagement (indicated in the assurance column of the GRI G4 Content Index with a checkmark, pp.
60-65), including limitations and assumptions relating to how these data are presented within the
Report.
► Reviewed information or explanations to substantiate key data, statements and assertions
regarding the sustainability disclosures under the scope of our assurance engagement.
► Reviewed the AIA UNGC CoP against the guidelines found in the Practical Guide to the UNGC
CoP.
► Reviewed the “Linkage table between ISO26000:2010 and GRI G4 Guidelines” to check AIA’s
adherence to Clause 4.
Level of assurance
The evidence gathering procedures were designed to obtain a limited level of assurance (as set out in
ISAE 3000) on which we formed our conclusions. The extent of these evidence gathering procedures is
less than those designed to obtain a reasonable level of assurance and therefore a lower level of
assurance is provided. This is also expressed by the ‘moderate’ level of assurance, under AA1000AS,
according to which “the assurance provider achieves moderate assurance where sufficient evidence has
been obtained to support their statement, such as the risk of their conclusion being in error is reduced
but not reduced to very low or zero”.
Limitations of our review
► Our review was limited to the English version of the Report. In the event of any inconsistency in
translation between the English and Greek versions, as far as our conclusions are concerned, the
English version of the Report prevails.
► The scope of our work did not include any review of third party activities or performance, nor
attending any stakeholder engagement activities.
► Our review did not include financial data and the corresponding narrative text and testing of the
Information Technology systems used or those upon which the collection and aggregation of data
was based by AIA.
► We do not provide any assurance relating to future information such as estimates, expectations or
targets, or their achievability.
Our conclusions
Based on the scope of our review our conclusions are outlined below:
1. Adherence to the AccountAbility Principles of Inclusivity, Materiality and Responsiveness,
against the relevant criteria found in the AA1000APS.
Inclusivity: Has AIA been engaging with stakeholders across the business to develop its approach to
sustainability?
► Nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that any key stakeholder groups
have been excluded from stakeholder engagement activities, or to conclude that AIA has not
applied the Inclusivity principle in developing its approach to sustainability.
70 / aia.gr
