Strategies for Choosing an External Assurance Vendor for Your Companys Sustainability Report

1. Introduction: Why is External Assurance Important for Your Sustainability Report?

Amidst growing awareness of sustainability issues, sustainability reports have become a vital means for companies to communicate their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and impact to stakeholders. However, to ensure the information presented is truly credible and trustworthy, the involvement of an external assurer is increasingly crucial. This assurance process not only enhances the quality of the report but also brings various strategic benefits to the company.

• Increased Credibility and Stakeholder Trust: External assurance serves as an independent verification of the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the information presented in the sustainability report. This is crucial for investors, regulators, customers, and the general public. A report that has undergone an assurance process and received certification provides confidence that the information disclosed by the company is accurate and accountable. Furthermore, it demonstrates the companys tangible commitment to transparency and accountability regarding the social, environmental, and economic impacts of its operations. 
  
  Specifically, investors increasingly rely on verified ESG data in their investment decision-making. A global survey conducted by PwC in 2023 revealed that 94% of investors believe corporate reports often contain sustainability claims that are not sufficiently supported by evidence. Interestingly, however, 85% of the same respondents stated that reasonable assurance would significantly increase their confidence in such sustainability reports. This phenomenon underscores how skeptical the market is of unilateral corporate claims and how valuable validation from an independent third party is. 
  
  In Indonesia, where the practice of assurance for sustainability reports is still developing and its adoption relatively low—as evidenced by only 20 reports being assured in 2022 —companies that proactively seek assurance not only meet rising global expectations. More importantly, they also have a significant potential to differentiate themselves in the eyes of investors and other stakeholders. This step builds a reputation as an entity at the forefront of transparency and accountability , transforming assurance from a mere obligation into a strategic element for gaining access to broader capital and market trust. 
  
  

• Meeting Regulatory and Market Demands: Various regulations, including the Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) No. 51/POJK.03/2017 and OJK Circular Letter (SEOJK) No. 16/SEOJK.04/2021 in Indonesia, have encouraged the improvement of sustainability reporting practices. Although assurance is not yet uniformly mandatory across all jurisdictions, the global trend clearly indicates a movement in that direction. An example is the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in the European Union, which has begun to mandate assurance. Market demands for transparency and corporate social responsibility also continue to rise, making SR Assurance an essential element to ensure that companies comply with established and recognized standards. 
  
  The gap between Indonesian regulations, which may not be as stringent as in some developed countries , and global best practices and international investor expectations creates its own dynamics. On one hand, companies focusing solely on meeting minimal local requirements risk falling behind global standards and losing appeal to sophisticated international investors. On the other hand, this gap presents an opportunity for visionary companies in Indonesia to surpass local compliance. By voluntarily adopting global assurance standards, they can enhance their competitiveness in the international market and position themselves as leaders in sustainability practices. 
  
  

• Internal Benefits: Risk and Opportunity Identification, Strategy Improvement: The assurance process is not only beneficial for external parties. Internally, this process helps companies identify various risks and opportunities related to sustainability aspects. Findings from the assurance process can provide valuable input for formulating or refining business strategies to be more sustainable and responsive to environmental and social changes. Furthermore, assurance can strengthen internal management and reporting systems, as well as improve the quality of sustainability strategies and the selection of more relevant and measurable key performance indicators (KPIs). In the long term, despite requiring an initial investment, assurance can contribute to cost savings through better risk identification and mitigation, as well as increased operational efficiency.  

2. Initial Steps: Internal Preparation Before Seeking an Assurance Vendor

Before starting the search for an external assurance vendor, companies need to undertake a series of thorough internal preparations. This internal readiness is a critical foundation that will determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the assurance process later on. Without good preparation, companies risk facing a longer process, higher costs, and less optimal results.

• Understanding the Companys Assurance Needs: The first step is to clearly define the companys assurance needs. This includes determining the scope of assurance: which aspects of the sustainability report will be assured? Will it be the entire report, or only specific metrics and indicators such as Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, labor-related data, or community impact? Many companies, especially those just starting, choose to assure GHG emissions and a few other key metrics first.  

• Next, the company needs to decide on the desired level of assurance. There are two main levels:
  
  

• Limited Assurance: At this level, the assurer states that based on the procedures performed, nothing has come to their attention that causes them to believe that the information presented is not prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable reporting criteria. The process is relatively more concise, and the cost is generally lower than reasonable assurance, making it a common choice for companies new to the assurance process. The majority of companies globally currently still opt for limited assurance. 
  
  

• Reasonable Assurance: This is a higher level of assurance, where the assurer expresses an opinion that the sustainability information presented has been prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable reporting criteria. The process demands a deeper understanding of the companys business processes and internal control systems, and involves more extensive data verification and more detailed testing. Although more complex and expensive, reasonable assurance provides a higher level of confidence to stakeholders, and surveys show that investors have a greater preference for this level.  

In determining the scope and level of assurance, companies must consider the expectations of key stakeholders (especially investors and regulators), applicable regulatory requirements (if any), and the maturity level of the companys internal reporting system. The choice of assurance level essentially reflects the companys sustainability maturity and ambition. Limited assurance might be a pragmatic first step, but global market and regulatory demands are increasingly moving towards reasonable assurance. The decision to adopt reasonable assurance not only signifies greater confidence in internal data and systems but also sends a strategic signal about the companys seriousness in managing and reporting its sustainability performance. Companies aspiring to be leaders in ESG should start planning the transition to reasonable assurance.  

• Data Readiness and Internal Reporting Systems: The accuracy and reliability of ESG data are at the heart of a credible sustainability report. Therefore, companies must ensure the existence of a robust, centralized, and consistent ESG data collection system. In Indonesia, data limitations and reporting systems that are not yet integrated often pose significant challenges. 
  
  It is highly recommended for companies to conduct an internal audit first before engaging an external assurer. This internal audit aims to identify potential weaknesses in data collection systems, data validity, calculation methodologies, and the effectiveness of internal controls. By proactively identifying and addressing these issues, companies not only improve the quality of the information to be presented but can also simplify and streamline the external assurance process. This is a strategic investment that can reduce the time and cost of external assurance, while also demonstrating the companys seriousness to the assurance vendor. 
  
  Companies also need to prepare complete and clear documentation regarding data collection methodologies, assumptions used in calculations, and details of internal controls implemented to ensure data quality.  

• Setting a Budget: The cost of assurance services can be a significant consideration, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. If budget is a constraint, companies can consider allocating funds gradually, for example, by starting assurance on a more limited scope in the first year and gradually expanding it in subsequent years. It is important to understand the factors that influence assurance costs, such as the companys size and complexity, the chosen scope of assurance, the reporting and assurance standards applied, and the level of availability and quality of the companys internal data. 
  
  

• Building Internal Awareness: Support from top management and understanding from relevant internal teams are crucial. Internal education on the long-term strategic benefits of sustainability report assurance is necessary. When the internal team understands the value of assurance in enhancing trust, reputation, and even access to funding, this process will receive better support and priority.  

3. Key Criteria for Evaluating Sustainability Report Assurance Vendors

Choosing the right assurance vendor is a strategic decision that will significantly impact the credibility of your sustainability report. Careful evaluation against several key criteria is essential. The emergence of new standards like ISSA 5000 is also beginning to change the vendor qualification landscape, with a greater emphasis on substantive competence in sustainability issues, not just a traditional audit profession background.

• Expertise and Experience:
  
  

• Understanding of Standards: The vendor must demonstrate a deep and current understanding of various international assurance standards. This includes established standards like the AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS v3) , International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 , and most crucially for the future, the International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000. An absolute understanding of the reporting standards used by the company is also essential, for example, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards , Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Standards , IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures) standards , as well as relevant local regulations such as POJK No. 51/2017. 
  
  

• Sectoral Experience: Materiality issues and ESG risks can vary greatly between industries. Therefore, choose a vendor with a relevant track record and experience in your companys industry sector. A vendor who understands the specific nuances of your industry will be able to provide a more valuable and in-depth assurance process, and identify risks and opportunities that are truly material. 
  
  

• Team Qualifications: Verify in detail the qualifications, professional certifications, and experience of the audit team that will be assigned to handle your companys report. Certifications such as GRI Certified Sustainability Professional , FSA (Fundamentals of Sustainability Accounting) Credential from the IFRS Foundation (formerly SASB) , or a CPA qualification with an ESG specialization are added values. It is important to note that the new ISSA 5000 standard is profession-agnostic. This means non-accountant practitioners with specific expertise in environmental, social, or governance fields can also perform assurance, provided they meet ethical and quality management standards that are equivalent or higher. This broadens vendor choices but requires companies to be more diligent in evaluating the vendors core competencies related to specific and relevant sustainability issues, not just general audit qualifications. Companies need to explore how vendors ensure their teams have a combined expertise in assurance execution AND specific subject matter expertise , especially if they involve external experts. Selection criteria should shift from merely "are they auditors?" to "do they have verified expertise in the sustainability aspects we report AND a robust assurance process according to ISSA 5000?". Team certifications become a key indicator of a vendors commitment to quality amidst evolving standards. This shows that the vendors team invests in continuous professional development and stays updated with the latest developments. 
  
  

• Reputation and Independence: Look for vendors with a solid and recognized reputation in the market. Check their track record, study case studies of previous projects, and ask for testimonials or references from their clients, especially those in similar industries. Independence is a fundamental pillar of assurance services. Ensure the chosen vendor has no conflicts of interest, whether actual or potential, that could compromise the objectivity and integrity of their opinion. 
  
  

• Assurance Methodology: Thoroughly understand the assurance approach and methodology the vendor will use. How do they plan the assurance process? How will they gather sufficient and appropriate evidence? How will data verification procedures and evaluation of internal control systems be conducted?. For standards like AA1000AS v3, the methodology will heavily focus on evaluating the companys adherence to the Accountability Principles (Inclusivity, Materiality, Responsiveness, and Impact). With the advent of ISSA 5000, its important to ask how the vendor will handle the concept of double materiality—assessing both the financial impact of ESG issues on the company and the companys operational impact on the environment and society more broadly. 
  
  

• Understanding of Local and Global Context: An ideal vendor not only understands international assurance standards but also has a good grasp of the sustainability regulatory context in Indonesia, such as POJK and other related guidelines. The ability to navigate between local regulatory demands and global expectations from international investors is a significant added value. 
  
  

• Cost and Value: Request transparent and comprehensive cost details from each vendor. However, do not make price the sole determining factor. Compare not only the total cost but also the scope of services offered, the depth of analysis promised, the quality of the team involved, and the overall added value the vendor can provide to your company.  

4. Vendor Selection Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

A systematic and structured vendor selection process will help companies find the partner that best suits their needs and expectations. This process is not just about choosing a service provider, but also an opportunity to deepen internal understanding of assurance and align expectations.

• Developing an Effective Request for Proposal (RFP): The RFP is a key document that communicates the companys needs to potential vendors. A well-designed RFP serves as a diagnostic tool, not just a price request. This document should clearly define the companys specific needs, including the desired scope of assurance (e.g., specific metrics or the entire report), the reporting standards used (GRI, SASB, IFRS S1/S2, etc.), the expected level of assurance (limited or reasonable), the anticipated project timeline, and the evaluation criteria that will be used to assess proposals. 
  
  Include specific questions designed to probe the vendors depth of understanding and capabilities. Ask about their experience with relevant assurance standards (AA1000AS, ISAE 3000, and particularly their readiness for ISSA 5000), their understanding of your companys industry dynamics, the qualifications and certifications of the assigned team, the assurance methodology to be applied, and their approach to crucial issues such as materiality determination (including double materiality if relevant), the use of experts, and managing potentially immature ESG data. It is also important to ask vendors to explain how they will ensure compliance with ethical standards and maintain independence throughout the assurance process. Responses to these questions will provide important qualitative data that goes beyond mere cost figures, offering insights into the vendors strategic fit. 
  
  

• Proposal Evaluation: Technical Aspects, Team Qualifications, Methodology, and Cost: After receiving proposals from vendors, conduct a comprehensive evaluation. The use of a weighted scoring matrix (vendor scoring matrix) is highly recommended to ensure objectivity and consistency in the evaluation process. This matrix allows the company to assign weights to each evaluation criterion according to its level of importance. 
  
  Evaluation criteria may include: the vendors understanding of the companys needs, the quality and suitability of the proposed methodology, relevant experience in the industry and with related standards, the qualifications and experience of the proposed team, project management approach, cost details and transparency, and the overall quality of the proposal and vendor responsiveness to the RFP. Technical evaluation should assess the extent to_which the vendor understands the companys business model, its operations, and the sustainability issues most material to the company and its stakeholders. The OECDs evaluation approach, which includes criteria such as relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, can also be adapted as a framework for evaluating assurance proposals. 
  
  Below is an example of a key checklist that can be adapted into a scoring matrix for evaluating assurance vendor proposals:
  
  Table 1: Example Key Checklist for Evaluating Assurance Vendor Proposals
  
  

Using such a matrix helps ensure that decisions are not based solely on price, but on a thorough evaluation of the vendors capabilities and suitability.

• Vendor Interviews and Presentations: Invite vendors on the short-list to give presentations and participate in Q&A sessions. This is a valuable opportunity to clarify points in their proposals, directly assess the communication and interpersonal skills of the vendors core team, and gain a better understanding of their work culture and project approach. 
  
  

• Reference Checks and Due Diligence: Never skip this step. Contact previous clients who have used the vendors services, especially those with profiles or needs similar to your companys. Ask specifically about their experiences, the quality of service received, the professionalism of the vendors team, their ability to overcome challenges, and whether they would recommend the vendor. Additionally, conduct basic due diligence on the vendors financial stability and general market reputation. 
  
  

• Contract Negotiation and Service Level Agreement (SLA): Once a vendor is selected, the next stage is contract negotiation. Ensure the contract clearly and comprehensively details the scope of work, expected deliverables, work schedule, cost details and payment scheme, confidentiality clauses (NDA), intellectual property rights (if relevant), and a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that governs service quality standards, response times, and potential penalties if standards are not met. 
  
  Involving various internal stakeholders in drafting the RFP and evaluating proposals can enhance collective understanding of what assurance is and what it entails. Discussions during proposal evaluations, especially when vendors present their methodologies, can serve as an educational tool for the internal team regarding the complexities and nuances of sustainability assurance. This process helps align internal expectations about what can and cannot be achieved through assurance, as well as the internal resources that need to be committed, thereby reducing the potential for disappointment later on.
  
  

5. Common Mistakes to Avoid When Choosing an Assurance Vendor

The process of selecting an assurance vendor for your sustainability report is a crucial step that can determine the credibility and impact of your report. Avoiding some common mistakes can save time, money, and ensure you find the right assurance partner. Often, errors in vendor selection stem from a lack of internal preparedness and a strategic understanding of the purpose of assurance.

• Over-Focusing on the Lowest Price: One of the most common mistakes is making price the primary determining factor. The cheapest offer may seem financially attractive, but it can often compromise service quality, the depth of the assurance process, or the experience level of the assigned audit team. An overly low assurance fee might reflect a narrow scope of work, a less rigorous methodology, or insufficient time allocated to thoroughly understand your business. Remember that assurance is an investment in credibility. 
  
  

• Underestimating Vendors Understanding of Specific Industries: Each industry sector has unique ESG challenges, risks, and materiality issues. A vendor lacking sufficient understanding and experience in your industry may struggle to identify sustainability risks and opportunities that are truly key and relevant. This can result in a superficial assurance report that provides little strategic added value. 
  
  

• Ignoring the Importance of Independence and Potential Conflicts of Interest: Independence is the cornerstone of credibility in any assurance process. Be sure to meticulously check whether potential vendors have relationships or affiliations that could create conflicts of interest, either actual or perceived, which could potentially compromise the objectivity of their assessment. 
  
  

• Not Thoroughly Verifying Auditor Team Qualifications and Experience: The quality of assurance services heavily depends on the competence, expertise, and experience of the individuals on the audit team. Dont just be impressed by the big name of the vendor company; dig deeper into the specific qualifications, certifications (e.g., related to GRI, SASB, or understanding of ISSA 5000), and track record of the team members who will handle your project. 
  
  

• Unclear or Too Narrow Scope of Assurance: Ensure that the scope of assurance is very clearly defined in the proposal and contract. An unclear scope can lead to misunderstandings and unmet expectations. A scope that is too narrow, while potentially cheaper, may not provide the level of confidence expected by your key stakeholders.
  
  

• Insufficient Reference Checks: Skipping or performing cursory reference checks is a major mistake. Speaking directly with previous clients can provide invaluable insights into the vendors actual performance, service quality, team professionalism, and ability to handle challenges. 
  
  

• Ignoring Compatibility of Work Culture and Communication: The assurance process is a partnership that requires close collaboration and communication between the companys team and the vendors team. Significant differences in work culture or communication styles can hinder project smoothness and even cause frustration. 
  
  

• Not Considering Vendors Adaptability to Evolving Standards: The landscape of sustainability reporting standards and assurance standards is rapidly evolving, such as with the introduction of ISSA 5000. Choose a vendor that demonstrates a commitment to continuous learning, staying abreast of the latest developments, and being able to adapt to these changing standards. 
  
  Also, be wary of the risk of "greenwashing," which may not only come from the reporting company but also implicitly from the assurance vendor. Although standards like ISSA 5000 aim to increase rigor , companies must remain critical. Vendors promising an assurance process that is too easy, too fast, or seems to lack challenge to the companys assumptions and data should be viewed with suspicion. Choosing a vendor with high integrity and a robust methodology is key to avoiding this risk and ensuring the assurance received truly adds value.  

6. The Future of Sustainability Assurance: Trends and Evolving Standards

The landscape of sustainability reporting and assurance is dynamic, continuously evolving driven by increasing stakeholder expectations, technological advancements, and the evolution of global standards. Understanding these trends is important for companies to prepare themselves and choose an assurance vendor relevant to the future.

• Increased Demand for Reasonable Assurance: As ESG reporting practices mature and stakeholder demands, especially from investors, intensify, the demand for reasonable assurance is expected to continue rising. This higher level of assurance provides greater confidence than limited assurance. Some regulators in advanced jurisdictions have even begun to indicate or mandate a transition to reasonable assurance for certain aspects of sustainability reports. 
  
  

• Evolution of Global Assurance Standards: ISSA 5000 and IESSA: One of the most significant developments is the introduction of ISSA 5000 (International Standard on Sustainability Assurance) by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). This standard is designed to be a comprehensive, standalone global standard for assurance on sustainability information.  

• Objective of ISSA 5000: To enhance the consistency, quality, and credibility of sustainability assurance globally, with rigor equivalent to financial statement audits.  

• Key Characteristics of ISSA 5000:

• It is framework-agnostic, meaning it can be applied to sustainability information prepared under various reporting frameworks (e.g., GRI, SASB, IFRS S1/S2, ESRS).  

• It is profession-agnostic, allowing various types of practitioners (both accountants and non-accountants with relevant ESG expertise) to perform assurance, provided they comply with ethical and quality management standards that are equivalent or higher.  

• It covers both limited assurance and reasonable assurance.  

• It emphasizes the importance of the double materiality concept, i.e., assessing the impact of sustainability issues on the company (financial) and the companys impact on the environment and society (impact).  

• This standard is scheduled to be effective for assurance engagements for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2026. 
  
  

• To complement ISSA 5000, the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) is also developing IESSA (International Ethics Standards for Sustainability Assurance), which sets specific ethical and independence standards for sustainability assurance practitioners. 
  
  

• The implication for companies is the necessity to understand these new standards and their impact on the assurance process and vendor selection criteria. ISSA 5000 is expected to be a catalyst for the professionalization and global standardization of sustainability assurance practices. Before ISSA 5000, assurance practices often used the general ISAE 3000 or the more specific but not universally adopted AA1000AS, leading to variations in practice. ISSA 5000, designed specifically for sustainability, aims to create a consistent, high-quality global baseline. Its profession-agnostic nature, while still demanding adherence to strict ethical and quality standards, will encourage increased competency among various types of assurance providers. This is expected to enhance overall market confidence. 
  
  

• Increased Focus on Value Chain Disclosures (Scope 3 GHG Emissions): Investors and regulators are increasingly focusing on Scope 3 GHG emissions (indirect emissions in the companys value chain) and other sustainability issues related to suppliers and customers. This adds complexity to the reporting process and, consequently, its assurance. 
  
  

• The Role of Technology in the Assurance Process: Technology plays an increasingly important role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the assurance process.

• Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI has significant potential to analyze massive volumes of ESG data, identify anomalies or unusual patterns, and automate parts of the audit process, thereby increasing efficiency and depth of analysis.  

• Blockchain: Blockchain technology offers the potential to enhance transparency, traceability, and integrity of ESG data. Its immutable nature can create a highly reliable audit trail, useful for verifying claims in supply chains or carbon trading. 
  
  

• The adoption of these technologies is not just about efficiency; it also has the potential to disrupt traditional assurance models. Blockchains ability to provide transparent and immutable records could, in some cases, reduce reliance on manual third-party verification for certain data aspects. This could shift the assurers role to focus more on validating the technology systems themselves and interpreting data, rather than manual data checking. Companies need to start considering a vendors technological readiness as a selection criterion, and vendors, in turn, must invest in these competencies to remain relevant.
  
  

• Integration of Financial and Sustainability Reporting: With the emergence of standards like IFRS S1 and S2, which emphasize the disclosure of financially relevant sustainability information connected to financial reports, there is a strong push towards more integrated reporting. This trend will naturally influence the approach and scope of assurance in the future, requiring assurers to have a more holistic understanding.
  
  

7. How BATS Consulting and BATS Sustainability Assurer Can Help You

Navigating the complexities of sustainability reporting and its assurance process requires expertise and experience. BATS Consulting, along with its assurance affiliate, PT Keberlanjutan Menjaga Bumi (branded as BATS Sustainability Assurer), offers a range of services to support your company on this journey.

• BATS Consultings Advisory Services for Preparing Assurance-Ready Sustainability Reports: BATS Consulting is here to assist organizations throughout the entire ESG reporting cycle, from the initial stages of data collection and performance metric analysis to the preparation of comprehensive, high-quality sustainability reports. We focus on aligning your report with recognized international standards such as GRI Standards and SASB Standards, as well as other relevant frameworks suited to your industry and stakeholder needs.  

• We can also help your company build robust ESG data collection systems and, if necessary, guide the implementation of internal audits. This step is crucial to ensure your reports readiness before undergoing external assurance, in line with industry best practices. Beyond mere report preparation, BATS Consulting provides strategic guidance to integrate sustainability principles into your companys core business model, ensuring that sustainability is not just a report, but also part of your operational DNA and long-term strategy.  

• Sustainability Report Assurance Services by PT Keberlanjutan Menjaga Bumi (BATS Sustainability Assurer): To meet the need for independent verification, PT Keberlanjutan Menjaga Bumi, operating under the brand name BATS Sustainability Assurer, is an entity specifically dedicated to providing sustainability report assurance services.  

• Global Standards Expertise: BATS Sustainability Assurer has a strong foundation in globally recognized assurance standards. We possess expertise in the AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS) , which focuses on evaluating adherence to Accountability Principles such as Inclusivity, Materiality, Responsiveness, and Impact, thereby providing holistic assurance oriented towards effective sustainability performance. Furthermore, we have an in-depth understanding and readiness to apply future standards like ISSA 5000 , ensuring that our assurance methodology aligns with the latest international best practices and is relevant to the evolving global assurance landscape.  

• Understanding of Indonesian Regulatory Context: In addition to mastering global standards, as an entity operating in Indonesia and serving Indonesian clients, BATS Sustainability Assurer has a profound understanding of local regulatory nuances, including POJK No. 51/2017 and SEOJK No. 16/2021. This ensures that the assurance services we provide are not only credible in international eyes but also relevant and compliant with applicable provisions in Indonesia.

• Experienced Professional Team: Our services are backed by a competent professional team with relevant qualifications and robust experience in the field of sustainability and assurance practices.  

• Tailored Approach: We offer assurance services that can be customized to the specific needs of each company, whether its limited assurance or reasonable assurance, and for various reporting scopes, from specific metrics to the entire sustainability report.
  
  

• The affiliation between BATS Consulting as a report preparation consultant and BATS Sustainability Assurer as an assurance service provider (which maintains its independence) can create unique value synergy for clients. Although these two functions are performed by different entities to guarantee independence—an absolute prerequisite for assurance credibility—the deep understanding BATS Sustainability Assurer has of the report preparation process (thanks to its proximity to BATS Consultings expertise) can inform a more efficient and effective assurance approach. This can lead to a smoother assurance process, better communication, and sharper, more relevant improvement recommendations for clients, without compromising the actual or perceived independence of BATS Sustainability Assurer.
  
  The primary advantage of BATS Sustainability Assurer lies in the combination of readiness for the latest global standards like ISSA 5000 and a deep understanding of the Indonesian local context. At a time when many Indonesian companies still face basic challenges in sustainability reporting and assurance , we are able to bridge that gap. We help companies not only meet local requirements like POJK but also prepare them to meet global expectations from international investors and best practice standards.
  
  

• Commitment to Enhancing Transparency, Credibility, and Accountability: Both BATS Consulting and BATS Sustainability Assurer share a common commitment to helping companies improve the quality of their sustainability reporting. Our goal is to build stronger trust with stakeholders and encourage more responsible and sustainable business practices in Indonesia. 
  
  

• Additional Services: To support the completeness and accuracy of data in your sustainability report, BATS Consulting also offers other related services, such as Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions calculation.  

Choosing the right external assurance vendor is a critical step in your companys sustainability journey. This decision will not only affect the credibility of your report but also stakeholder perception of your ESG commitment.

We invite you to discuss further how BATS Consulting can assist you in preparing an assurance-ready sustainability report, and how our affiliate, BATS Sustainability Assurer (PT Keberlanjutan Menjaga Bumi), can provide credible assurance services in line with the latest global standards.

Visit Our Website:

www.bats-consulting.com

www.sustainabilityassurer.bats-consulting.com