Voluntary Assurance Under the Voluntary Standard: When It Might Be Worth It

External assurance is not required for applying the Voluntary Standard. That doesn't automatically mean assurance is unnecessary in every case. Here's when voluntary assurance might be worth considering.

Why the question arises at all

The question of voluntary assurance tends to arise from different directions. On one hand, customers, banks or other business partners may request sustainability information. The Voluntary Standard offers a structured way to prepare it. On the other, the question can also stem from a company's own strategic ambition: wanting to position itself on sustainability topics without being sure which standard to use, the Voluntary Standard can serve as a point of orientation with good comparability, independent of any specific external request.

Important context: what a request actually covers

Where the Voluntary Standard is used in the context of the Value Chain Cap, it covers the disclosures that a CSRD-obligated company may request from smaller business partners for its own reporting purposes. That doesn't mean every conceivable information request is thereby satisfied. Requests unrelated to a business partner's own CSRD reporting, for example, individual requirements from banks, tenders, or other stakeholders outside that context – can still go beyond the scope of the Voluntary Standard. More on this in our dedicated articles on the Value Chain Cap.

What the decision might depend on

Whether voluntary assurance is worthwhile is likely to depend mainly on the intended use and the expectations of the relevant audience:

• Where disclosures are used for financing decisions, such as loan agreements, assurance could strengthen the negotiating position.

• In tenders or supplier evaluations by larger companies, an assured basis could reduce follow-up questions.

• Where disclosures are used purely internally or shared only occasionally with individual partners, the cost of assurance is often unlikely to be proportionate.

What voluntary assurance practically involves

A common approach is a limited assurance engagement. In essence, it is a process-focused review: it examines how the reported data was collected, from whom and from which sources, and whether the underlying processes are plausible and clearly documented. This typically also includes sample-based testing of individual disclosures. The outcome is naturally less extensive than a full statutory audit, but it does send a different signal externally when a report is accompanied by a statutory auditor's confirmation.

Assurance isn't all-or-nothing

Beyond a full external assurance engagement, options also include validating individual metrics on a selective basis, or establishing internal quality assurance that documents data collection in a traceable way without going through formal external assurance.

The real starting point

Regardless of whether assurance follows later, it is worth building processes and data collection from the outset so that they could withstand a later review – whether internal or external. That is likely to reduce the effort involved should the need for assurance arise down the line.