Distribution Network
Content
Opaque language and jargon are widely believed to undermine the
assurance of corporate responsibility reports, a leading reporter in
the field has warned.
Mobile phone company Vodafone says its own experience – allied to views gathered from interested parties – has shown that jargon in assurance statements 'tends to undermine [their] value and to confuse non-specialist readers'.
It says better use of language would make them 'easier to understand' for lay readers, and suggests a 'common standard' to reduce confusion.
Vodafone, commenting in a new paper on assurance issued as one of a series of CR Dialogues intended to stimulate debate, says assurance is 'valued by many stakeholders', but that 'some feel it adds little to CSR reporting', with 'inaccessible' language partly to blame. 'Terminology [in statements] such as "limited assurance" and "nothing has come to our attention" suggests the assurers have done less than they actually have,' it says. The company adds that there is often not enough involvement of stakeholders in assurance, the scope of which is usually decided by the company and may not be what stakeholders want.
Report readers also become confused when only some information is assured, even if there are good reasons for this.
Malcolm Guy, director of The Reassurance Network, an assurance provider, told EP: 'The assurance standard (ISAE3000) developed by the accounting sector last year has provided a valuable framework, but appears to have restricted the content and tone of assurance statements, which are becoming increasingly guarded and heavily qualified. Our experience is that this trend has not been well received by stakeholders or by companies.'
Vodafone says companies and assurers should make more use of less formal assurance statements, such as testimonials from NGO staff, or academics, and run assurance in parallel with preparing a report to identify weaknesses early on.
Mobile phone company Vodafone says its own experience – allied to views gathered from interested parties – has shown that jargon in assurance statements 'tends to undermine [their] value and to confuse non-specialist readers'.
It says better use of language would make them 'easier to understand' for lay readers, and suggests a 'common standard' to reduce confusion.
Vodafone, commenting in a new paper on assurance issued as one of a series of CR Dialogues intended to stimulate debate, says assurance is 'valued by many stakeholders', but that 'some feel it adds little to CSR reporting', with 'inaccessible' language partly to blame. 'Terminology [in statements] such as "limited assurance" and "nothing has come to our attention" suggests the assurers have done less than they actually have,' it says. The company adds that there is often not enough involvement of stakeholders in assurance, the scope of which is usually decided by the company and may not be what stakeholders want.
Report readers also become confused when only some information is assured, even if there are good reasons for this.
Malcolm Guy, director of The Reassurance Network, an assurance provider, told EP: 'The assurance standard (ISAE3000) developed by the accounting sector last year has provided a valuable framework, but appears to have restricted the content and tone of assurance statements, which are becoming increasingly guarded and heavily qualified. Our experience is that this trend has not been well received by stakeholders or by companies.'
Vodafone says companies and assurers should make more use of less formal assurance statements, such as testimonials from NGO staff, or academics, and run assurance in parallel with preparing a report to identify weaknesses early on.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No