Assured Sustainability Reporting Has a Blind Spot: “Other Information” Can Still Break Trust

Sustainability reporting is maturing quickly—moving from broad narratives to stakeholder-grade disclosures supported by independent assurance. Many boards are now commissioning sustainability assurance reports and understandably feel reassured when they see an unmodified conclusion. But there is a critical and often misunderstood reality in sustainability assurance:

An assurance conclusion covers only the sustainability information within scope—yet the credibility of the overall publication can be undermined by “other information” that sits beside it.

ISSA 5000’s illustrative sustainability assurance reports give this issue explicit visibility. The IAASB staff guidance notes that some illustrative reports provide examples of wording for sections such as “Other Information” because these elements are engagement-specific and important for user understanding.

This article explains:

• what “other information” is in sustainability assurance,

• why it is a governance issue (not only an assurance reporting issue),

• how the practitioner’s responsibilities work in practice,

• and how boards can reduce the reputational risk created by unaudited content sitting alongside assured sustainability information.

1) What is “Other Information” in a sustainability assurance context?

ISSA 5000 defines other information as information not subject to the assurance engagement that is included in the same document(s) that contain (a) the sustainability information subject to assurance and (b) the assurance report itself.

This is more than a technical definition. In the real world, most organisations publish sustainability information inside a broader package, such as:

• an Annual Report,

• an integrated report,

• a sustainability report embedded within a corporate report pack,

• or an investor presentation package.

In the illustrative reports, the sustainability report and the practitioner’s report are included in the company’s Annual Report, and the practitioner obtained the Annual Report before signing the assurance report.

That Annual Report contains many other elements that the market reads as a single, coherent corporate message: CEO/Chair statements, strategy narratives, risk commentary, financial statements, performance highlights, and often marketing-style claims. Much of that may be outside the sustainability assurance scope.

2) The core misunderstanding: assurance does not “bless” the whole Annual Report

The illustrative assurance report language is clear:

• Management is responsible for the other information.

• The practitioner’s opinion/conclusion on the sustainability report does not cover the other information.

• The practitioner does not express any form of assurance conclusion on that other information.

In other words, the assurance report should not be read as a blanket credibility stamp across the broader document.

This matters because sophisticated stakeholders—investors, banks, regulators, rating agencies, and NGOs—routinely scrutinize the entire Annual Report for consistency. If “other information” contains:

• exaggerated ESG claims,

• misleading performance statements,

• inconsistent targets,

• or selective omission of significant context,

then the organisation may face reputational damage even when the sustainability assurance conclusion is unmodified.

3) The practitioner’s responsibility: read it, compare it, respond when it conflicts

The “Other Information” section in the illustrative reports describes the practitioner’s role in practical terms. In connection with the sustainability assurance engagement, the practitioner’s responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether it is:

• materially inconsistent with the sustainability report, or

• materially inconsistent with knowledge obtained in the engagement, or

• otherwise appears to be materially misstated.

If, based on the work performed, the practitioner concludes there is a material misstatement of the other information, the practitioner is required to report that fact—and in the illustration, they state they have “nothing to report.”

Importantly, the explanatory notes reinforce that ISSA 5000 sets out:

• requirements for reading and considering other information and responding to outcomes, and

• requirements for when and how to include a separate “Other Information” section in the assurance report.

A governance takeaway

The practitioner’s reading obligation is not a full assurance engagement on the Annual Report narrative. But it creates a consistency checkpoint—and when inconsistencies are serious enough, they can become reportable.

That is why leadership teams should not treat “other information” as a marketing sandbox. When sustainability assurance exists, the surrounding narrative becomes higher-risk, not lower-risk.

4) Timing matters: other information should be finalized before the assurance report date

One of the most operationally significant requirements is often overlooked:

The practitioner is required to identify and make arrangements to obtain the final version of other information before the date of the assurance report.

This has direct implications for publication workflows. Many organisations treat Annual Report narrative as “still being refined” right up to print or upload. Sustainability and finance teams may finalize assured disclosures while corporate communications continues to adjust the surrounding narrative.

That creates a risk: if major narrative sections are not final in time, it can complicate the practitioner’s ability to complete their “other information” responsibilities. It also creates a risk that late-stage changes introduce inconsistencies after the practitioner has reviewed the material.

The explanatory notes also acknowledge an important boundary: the practitioner has no obligation to perform procedures on other information that becomes available after the date of the assurance report (while also providing guidance if the practitioner later becomes aware of a material inconsistency).

Board-level implication

If your organisation wants sustainability assurance to strengthen market confidence, you must treat the Annual Report workflow as an integrated governance process, with controlled versioning and disciplined sign-offs.

5) A subtle trap: when only part of sustainability information is assured, the rest becomes “other information”

In some engagements, assurance does not cover the entire sustainability report. The explanatory notes highlight that when the scope does not extend to the entirety of sustainability information reported, any sustainability information not subject to the assurance engagement but included in the same report pack becomes “other information.”

This is a major blind spot. A company may say:

• “Our sustainability report is assured,”

when in fact only selected disclosures are assured and substantial sustainability content remains unaudited—yet it is presented in the same document.

Practical example (common in early-stage assurance)

• GHG emissions metrics are assured,

• but transition plan narratives, offsets claims, or supply-chain statements are not.

If that unassured content is ambitious, persuasive, or commercially important, it can become the largest reputational risk even though it sits outside the scope of assurance.

Recommendation: If your assurance scope is limited, disclose scope boundaries clearly and ensure that unassured sustainability content is written with the same discipline as assured disclosures.

6) What happens when the assurance conclusion is modified?

ISSA 5000’s explanatory notes underline that a qualified conclusion on sustainability information can affect the “Other Information” statement required in the assurance report.

This point matters because modified conclusions tend to arise from:

• scope limitations (insufficient evidence), or

• identified misstatements.

In those situations, “other information” may contain statements that rely on the same data or narrative that caused the qualification. That creates a heightened risk of inconsistency or a need for modified wording about what the practitioner can or cannot conclude regarding the related other information.

Board-level implication

A modified conclusion is not merely a technical issue for the assurance provider. It is a disclosure governance issue that can spill into:

• investor communications,

• chairman/CEO statements,

• press releases,

• and website claims.

7) A critical exception: why “Other Information” may not appear in a disclaimer of conclusion

The explanatory notes point out a striking presentation rule:

When the practitioner disclaims a conclusion, the assurance report does not include an “Other Information” section, because including it may overshadow the disclaimer on the sustainability information as a whole.

The summary table in the illustrative reports also reflects this: in the case of a disclaimer of conclusion, “Other information” is not included.

This is a vital insight for boards and audit committees: if evidence is insufficient and the practitioner disclaims, the organisation loses more than an assurance conclusion—it also loses the standard assurance report mechanism that communicates the practitioner’s “other information” reading responsibilities.

8) The real-world risk: “green gloss” around assured data

Most sustainability-related reputational crises do not originate from the assured metric itself. They originate from:

• selective narrative framing,

• overstated conclusions,

• implied claims that exceed what is supported by the assured disclosures,

• or marketing content that creates an impression of performance that the underlying disclosures do not justify.

This is why “other information” matters: it is the most common channel through which greenwashing risk enters the publication pack.

Even when the practitioner’s responsibility is limited to reading and assessing material inconsistency, the risk to the organisation is not limited. Stakeholders may:

• circulate screenshots,

• highlight contradictions across sections,

• compare Annual Report claims with sustainability disclosures,

• or challenge why assured disclosures appear conservative while marketing narratives are bold.

The market does not distinguish neatly between “assured” and “other” when assessing trust.

9) A governance model: how to control “other information” risk

Here is a practical, board-friendly control model to reduce other-information risk while strengthening reporting credibility.

A. Establish “one truth” governance for ESG claims

Create a central register of:

• key ESG metrics,

• targets and timelines,

• transition plan milestones,

• and approved descriptions of methodology.

Require that all Annual Report narrative, CEO statements, and marketing claims draw from this register.

B. Apply a “consistency review” protocol before publication

Before final sign-off, run a structured cross-check:

• CEO/Chair statements vs sustainability report disclosures

• risk factors vs transition plan assertions

• investor highlights vs methodology notes

• stated compliance posture vs actual scope

This aligns with the practitioner’s duty to consider material inconsistencies.

C. Lock the Annual Report version early enough

Because the practitioner needs the final other information before the assurance report date, you need disciplined versioning and editorial freeze protocols.

D. If assurance scope is partial, communicate scope boundaries clearly

If only selected sustainability disclosures are assured, treat all other sustainability narrative as “high-risk other information” and apply enhanced internal review.

E. Ensure audit committee oversight

The illustrative reports emphasize that those charged with governance oversee the sustainability reporting process.

In practice, audit committees should explicitly oversee the consistency of the entire report pack, not only the assured section.

10) Why this is especially relevant for Caribbean and regional organisations

Many Caribbean-based organisations operate under:

• increasing lender ESG requirements,

• supply-chain sustainability expectations from multinational partners,

• emerging local regulatory developments,

• and growing public scrutiny around climate commitments.

At the same time, reporting capacity is often constrained:

• sustainability data may be spread across multiple systems,

• teams may rely on external consultants,

• and messaging may be developed by different functions (finance, sustainability, PR, investor relations) with limited integration.

In this environment, the “other information” risk is amplified because:

• cross-functional messaging misalignment is more likely,

• sustainability narratives may be aspirational (and therefore higher risk),

• and stakeholder scrutiny can be more intense when trust is fragile.

A disciplined “other information” governance framework is one of the most cost-effective ways to protect credibility while improving disclosure quality.

Sustainability assurance is strongest when the surrounding narrative is governed

ISSA 5000’s illustrative reports are clear that the practitioner’s assurance conclusion does not cover other information, and no assurance is expressed on it. Yet practitioners must read other information and consider whether it is materially inconsistent or misstated.

For boards and executives, the message is simple:

If you want assured sustainability reporting to build trust, you must govern the entire publication pack—not only the assured metrics.

Next Step!

If your organisation is preparing for sustainability assurance, publishing sustainability disclosures inside an Annual Report, or trying to reduce greenwashing and inconsistency risk, Dawgen Global can support you with:

• sustainability reporting governance design,

• “one truth” ESG claims frameworks,

• pre-assurance readiness reviews and control mapping,

• and ISSA 5000-aligned assurance preparation support.

Email [email protected] to schedule a working session.

About Dawgen Global