Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

ISAE 3000

ISAE 3000 (Revised), formally titled Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information, is an international standard issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) that specifies requirements and guidance for practitioners to perform and report on assurance engagements involving subject matters beyond historical financial data, such as sustainability reports, internal controls, and regulatory compliance.^[1] This standard enables the provision of reasonable or limited assurance to enhance the confidence of intended users in the subject matter information through systematic procedures and professional judgment.^[2] The revised version of ISAE 3000 was approved and issued by the IAASB on December 9, 2013, superseding the original 2008 standard to address evolving needs in non-audit assurance, including greater emphasis on clarity, applicability to diverse engagements, and alignment with the International Framework for Assurance Engagements.^[1] It became effective for assurance reports dated on or after December 15, 2015, and has since been adopted or adapted by various national bodies, such as the UK's ISAE (UK) 3000 effective from September 15, 2020.^[1]^[3] In scope, ISAE 3000 applies to both attestation engagements—where the responsible party evaluates the subject matter—and direct engagements—where the practitioner does so—excluding audits of historical financial statements, agreed-upon procedures, or reviews under other standards like ISRS.^[2] It covers a broad array of applications, including assurance over greenhouse gas statements, pro forma financial information in prospectuses, controls at service organizations, and non-financial reporting such as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.^[1]^[4] The standard requires suitable and available criteria for evaluation, ensuring transparency for users.^[2] Key requirements under ISAE 3000 include compliance with ethical standards like the IESBA Code of Ethics, application of professional skepticism, and obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence through procedures such as inspection, observation, and confirmation to support the assurance conclusion.^[2] Practitioners must plan engagements considering risks, materiality, and the responsible party's duties, while documenting work for at least five years.^[2] Reporting mandates a written assurance report with elements like the practitioner's conclusion, description of the subject matter, and any limitations, promoting consistency and reliability in assurance practices globally.^[2] This framework has proven vital for building trust in emerging areas like sustainability assurance, and has influenced the development of specialized standards such as ISSA 5000 (issued 2024, effective December 15, 2026). While ISAE 3000 remains applicable to a wide range of non-financial assurance engagements, it has been complemented by ISSA 5000 for general-purpose sustainability reporting.^[5]^[6]^[7]

Overview

Purpose and Scope

ISAE 3000 (Revised) establishes a foundational framework for practitioners to conduct and report on assurance engagements, distinct from audits or reviews of historical financial information, with the primary purpose of enabling the expression of a conclusion that increases the confidence of intended users in the subject matter information.^[1] The standard's objectives center on obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence to determine whether the subject matter information is free from material misstatement, based on applicable criteria, thereby enhancing the reliability of such information for users other than the responsible party.^[8] This approach ensures a structured, principles-based process that supports consistent application across diverse assurance contexts.^[1] The scope of ISAE 3000 (Revised) encompasses all assurance engagements outside the purview of International Standards on Auditing or International Standards on Review Engagements, applying to a wide array of subject matters such as financial performance, non-financial disclosures, compliance, and physical characteristics.^[8] It addresses two principal forms: attestation engagements, in which the practitioner evaluates subject matter information prepared by a responsible party against suitable criteria to form an opinion, and direct engagements, where the practitioner directly measures or evaluates the underlying subject matter against the criteria and assumes responsibility for the resulting information.^[1] This broad applicability allows the standard to serve as the basis for specialized assurance standards while accommodating engagements involving single financial statements, specific elements, or prospective information.^[8] Effective for assurance reports dated on or after December 15, 2015, ISAE 3000 (Revised) covers representative subject matters including pro forma financial information, greenhouse gas statements, and sustainability or non-financial reports, promoting high-quality assurance practices that align with ethical requirements for independence and competence.^[1] By focusing on these elements, the standard facilitates the evaluation of information that supports decision-making in areas beyond traditional financial reporting.^[8]

History and Development

The International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 was issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), operating under the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), to establish a foundational framework for assurance engagements distinct from audits or reviews of historical financial information. Issued in December 2003, the original ISAE 3000 addressed the expanding demand for standardized assurance on diverse subject matters, providing practitioners with principles-based guidance applicable across various non-financial contexts.^[9]^[1] The development of the original standard emerged from the recognition of limitations in existing auditing frameworks, which were primarily oriented toward financial statements, prompting the IAASB to create a more versatile tool for assurance on broader topics. This process involved extensive consultation with stakeholders, including regulators, professional bodies, and users, to ensure the standard offered clear requirements and enhanced applicability to non-traditional subjects like controls and performance metrics. Feedback emphasized the need for flexibility while maintaining rigorous professional standards, resulting in a document that promoted consistency in assurance reporting globally.^[9]^[10] A minor revision was issued in March 2008.^[11] Building on the International Framework for Assurance Engagements, ISAE 3000 provided essential building blocks for subsequent standards. The 2013 revision, approved by the IAASB in December of that year and effective for reports dated on or after December 15, 2015, incorporated updates to conform with the clarified International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), improving structure and consistency. These revisions also responded to evolving needs by filling guidance gaps in areas such as sustainability reporting, ensuring the standard's relevance amid growing demands for assurance on non-financial disclosures.^[12]^[13]^[14]

Key Concepts

Core Definitions

ISAE 3000 (Revised) establishes foundational terminology for assurance engagements, ensuring clarity in the roles, processes, and elements involved. An assurance engagement is defined as an engagement in which a practitioner expresses a conclusion designed to enhance the degree of confidence of the intended users other than the responsible party about the outcome of the evaluation or measurement of a subject matter against criteria.^[15] This definition underscores the practitioner's role in providing independent assurance on non-financial or other specified subject matters, distinguishing it from audits or reviews of historical financial information.^[15] The subject matter information refers to the outcome of the measurement or evaluation of the underlying subject matter against the criteria, representing the information resulting from applying those criteria.^[15] It serves as the focal point of the assurance report, where the practitioner assesses whether it is free from material misstatement.^[15] Criteria are the benchmarks used to evaluate or measure the underlying subject matter, including relevant benchmarks for presentation and disclosure where applicable.^[15] For an assurance engagement to be feasible, these criteria must be suitable—meaning they are relevant to the subject matter, complete in coverage, reliable, neutral, and understandable to intended users—thus defining the scope of the evaluation.^[15] The responsible party is the party responsible for the underlying subject matter, or the party that has agreed to provide a written assertion about compliance with specified requirements.^[15] This entity prepares the subject matter information and grants the practitioner access to necessary evidence, but it cannot be the sole intended user.^[15] A practitioner is the individual or individuals conducting the engagement, typically the engagement partner, other team members, or the firm as applicable, who apply assurance skills and techniques to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence.^[15] The practitioner must maintain independence and professional competence throughout the process.^[15] Intended users are the individual(s) or organization(s), or group(s) thereof, that the practitioner expects will use the assurance report, which may include parties beyond those directly addressed in the report.^[15] The report's usefulness depends on meeting the information needs of these users, who rely on the conclusion for decision-making.^[15]

Types of Engagements

ISAE 3000 classifies assurance engagements based on two primary dimensions: the level of assurance provided and the format of the engagement. The level of assurance refers to the degree of confidence conveyed in the assurance conclusion, while the format distinguishes between how the practitioner interacts with the subject matter. These classifications ensure that engagements are tailored to the needs of intended users while maintaining professional standards.^[1] The standard defines two levels of assurance: reasonable and limited. In a reasonable assurance engagement, the practitioner aims to reduce engagement risk to an acceptably low level through sufficient appropriate evidence, resulting in a high level of confidence, though not absolute. The conclusion is expressed positively, such as "in our opinion, the subject matter information is fairly stated." In contrast, a limited assurance engagement involves less extensive procedures, reducing engagement risk to a moderate level, and the conclusion is expressed negatively, such as "nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe the subject matter information is materially misstated." These levels allow flexibility in responding to varying user needs for reliability.^[16]^[1] Engagements under ISAE 3000 can take one of two formats: attestation or direct. Attestation engagements, the more common type, involve the practitioner expressing a conclusion on subject matter information prepared by a responsible party against suitable criteria, such as reports on the effectiveness of controls at a service organization. The responsible party measures or evaluates the underlying subject matter, and the practitioner independently assesses it. Direct engagements, which are less frequent, occur when the practitioner directly measures or evaluates the underlying subject matter and presents the resulting information in the assurance report, without reliance on an external responsible party for preparation. This format is adapted as necessary to the engagement circumstances.^[16]^[1] Central to all engagements is the concept of engagement risk, defined as the risk that the practitioner expresses an inappropriate conclusion when the subject matter information is materially misstated. This risk is influenced by factors such as the nature of the subject matter, the volume and quality of evidence obtainable, and inherent uncertainties, and it guides the selection of assurance level and procedures. The practitioner must assess and address this risk to achieve the engagement objective.^[16]^[1] For an engagement to proceed under ISAE 3000, certain preconditions must be met. These include the existence of suitable criteria for evaluating the subject matter, which are available to intended users; the responsible party's acknowledgment and acceptance of its responsibilities for the subject matter and related internal controls; and the practitioner's ability to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence, including access to all necessary information from the responsible party. Additionally, the engagement must have a rational purpose, ensuring it addresses a genuine need for assurance. Failure to satisfy these preconditions precludes acceptance of the engagement.^[16]^[1]

Requirements

Ethical and Quality Control

The practitioner performing an assurance engagement under ISAE 3000 must comply with relevant ethical requirements, including those prescribed by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, or equivalent requirements that are at least as stringent.^[15] These requirements are founded on five fundamental principles: integrity, which demands honest and straightforward conduct; objectivity, requiring impartiality and avoidance of bias; professional competence and due care, ensuring services are performed diligently with appropriate skills; confidentiality, protecting information obtained during the engagement; and professional behavior, upholding the profession's reputation through adherence to laws and avoidance of actions that discredit it.^[17] For reasonable assurance engagements, independence is particularly emphasized as a cornerstone of objectivity, encompassing independence of mind (actual unbiased judgment) and independence in appearance (perception by a reasonable third party).^[15] At the firm level, quality control is governed by the International Standard on Quality Management (ISQM) 1, which replaced ISQC 1 effective for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2022, and applies to firms performing assurance engagements. ISQM 1 mandates a system of quality management designed to provide reasonable assurance that engagements comply with professional standards and regulatory requirements, encompassing key elements such as leadership responsibilities for quality, relevant ethical requirements (including independence), acceptance and continuance of client relationships and engagements, human resources (including competence), engagement performance, and monitoring. The engagement partner is responsible for implementing these policies on the specific engagement, ensuring supervision, review, and consultation where necessary to maintain quality.^[15] Practitioner competence is a core ethical and quality requirement, stipulating that the engagement partner and team collectively possess the necessary professional skills, knowledge, and experience in assurance methodologies, as well as in the underlying subject matter and applicable criteria, to perform the engagement effectively.^[15] This may involve extensive training, practical application, or engagement of experts for specialized areas, with the firm required to assess and assign resources accordingly under ISQM 1 to mitigate any self-interest threats arising from inadequate capabilities. Independence threats must be identified, evaluated, and addressed throughout the engagement using the IESBA Code's conceptual framework. Common threats include self-interest (e.g., financial incentives), self-review (e.g., assurance on the firm's own work), advocacy (e.g., promoting the responsible party's interests), familiarity (e.g., long-term relationships leading to undue trust), and intimidation (e.g., pressure from the responsible party).^[17] Safeguards, such as firm policies, independent reviews, rotation of personnel, or external consultations, are applied to eliminate or reduce these threats to an acceptably low level, as judged by a reasonable and informed third party; if safeguards are insufficient, the practitioner must decline or withdraw from the engagement.^[15] These measures ensure the integrity of the assurance process and the credibility of the resulting report.^[1]

Acceptance and Planning

The acceptance and continuance of an assurance engagement under ISAE 3000 require the practitioner to evaluate several critical factors to ensure the engagement can be performed effectively and ethically. The practitioner shall accept or continue an engagement only when the preconditions for an assurance engagement are present, ethical requirements including independence are complied with, the practitioner and engagement team collectively possess the appropriate competence and capabilities, and the terms of the engagement have been agreed upon with the engaging party.^[18] This evaluation includes assessing compliance with ethical requirements as outlined in relevant codes, such as those from the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA), and confirming the integrity of the principal(s) or those charged with governance to mitigate risks like fraud or non-compliance.^[18] Additionally, the practitioner must verify access to the responsible party and sufficient evidence, as well as obtain the responsible party's acknowledgment of its responsibilities for the subject matter and the preparation of the subject matter information in accordance with the applicable criteria.^[18] Preconditions for the engagement form a foundational assessment to confirm the engagement's suitability. The practitioner shall establish whether the preconditions for an assurance engagement are present, including that the subject matter is appropriate, the criteria are suitable, and the responsible party accepts responsibility for the subject matter and its measurement or evaluation.^[18] Suitable criteria are those that are relevant, complete, reliable, neutral, and understandable, enabling consistent evaluation by intended users. If preconditions are not met, the practitioner shall discuss the matter with the engaging party and shall not accept the engagement unless required by law or regulation; in such cases, the practitioner may need to disclose the limitation in the assurance report.^[18] This assessment is based on preliminary knowledge of the engagement circumstances and helps ensure the engagement aligns with its intended purpose and scope.^[18] Planning activities in ISAE 3000 involve developing a structured approach to guide the engagement's execution. The practitioner shall plan the engagement so that it will be performed in an effective manner, including establishing an overall engagement strategy that addresses the scope, timing, and resources needed, followed by a detailed engagement plan specifying the nature, timing, and extent of procedures.^[18] The strategy considers the characteristics of the engagement, such as its objectives and the intended users, while the detailed plan accounts for identified risks of material misstatement and materiality considerations to focus procedures on areas of higher risk.^[18] Planning is an iterative process, allowing for revisions as new information emerges, and includes coordination among team members, involvement of experts if necessary, and communication with the engaging or responsible party on significant matters.^[18] A key element of planning is obtaining an understanding of the subject matter and engagement circumstances. The practitioner shall obtain a sufficient understanding of the subject matter and its environment, including the responsible party's processes for preparing the subject matter information, to identify and assess risks of material misstatement and design appropriate procedures.^[18] This understanding encompasses the nature of the subject matter, applicable criteria, potential sources of misstatement (such as complexity or measurement uncertainty), and relevant internal controls, particularly in reasonable assurance engagements where control risk evaluation is required.^[18] For limited assurance engagements, the focus is on areas where material misstatement is likely, while ensuring the overall understanding supports judgments about evidence needs and engagement risks.^[18]

Evidence Gathering

In ISAE 3000, sufficient appropriate evidence refers to the information obtained by the assurance practitioner to support the conclusion on the subject matter information, enhancing the confidence of intended users other than the responsible party.^[16] Sufficiency relates to the quantity of evidence, while appropriateness encompasses its quality, determined by relevance and reliability in the context of the engagement.^[16] The practitioner must design and perform procedures to obtain such evidence, evaluating its overall sufficiency and appropriateness by considering all relevant information gathered, including from the responsible party's processes.^[16] The quantity required increases with higher assessed risks of material misstatement and decreases with higher-quality evidence, though poor quality cannot be offset solely by greater volume.^[16] The procedures for gathering evidence under ISAE 3000 include inspection of records or documents, external confirmations, observation of processes, inquiry of knowledgeable persons within the responsible party or external sources, reperformance of control procedures, analytical procedures to identify inconsistencies or trends, and evaluation of the subject matter's compliance with established criteria.^[16] These procedures are tailored to the nature, timing, and extent needed to address the assessed risks, with the scope being more limited in limited assurance engagements compared to reasonable assurance ones.^[16] For instance, in evaluating compliance, the practitioner assesses evidence against the criteria and performs additional procedures to resolve any identified inconsistencies.^[16] Evidence from independent external sources, such as confirmations, is generally considered more reliable than internal sources.^[16] When using experts, whether internal or external, the engagement team in an ISAE 3000 assurance engagement must assess the expert's professional competence, capabilities, and objectivity to ensure the work contributes appropriately to the evidence base.^[16] This involves evaluating the expert's qualifications, experience, and any threats to independence, such as relationships with the responsible party, through direct inquiries if the expert is external.^[16] The practitioner agrees with the expert on the nature, scope, and objectives of the work, including specific assumptions and methods, to align it with the engagement's requirements.^[16] Ultimately, the practitioner retains sole responsibility for the assurance conclusion and the evaluation of the expert's findings, without dividing accountability.^[16] Materiality in ISAE 3000 is determined within the specific context of the subject matter information, the applicable criteria, and the needs of the intended users, guiding the planning, performance, and evaluation of the engagement.^[16] It involves considering both quantitative thresholds, such as magnitude relative to benchmarks, and qualitative factors, like the nature or circumstances of potential misstatements that could influence users' decisions.^[16] The practitioner applies the same materiality level for reasonable and limited assurance engagements serving the same users and purpose, though the procedures to detect misstatements vary by assurance level.^[16] Risks of material misstatement are responsive to this materiality, ensuring procedures focus on areas where misstatements could exceed it.^[16] Responses to assessed risks in ISAE 3000 require the practitioner to identify and assess risks of material misstatement in the subject matter information, then design and perform procedures directly responsive to those risks.^[16] For reasonable assurance, this includes obtaining evidence on the operating effectiveness of relevant controls if necessary to reduce risk to an acceptably low level, while limited assurance relies on primarily substantive procedures without mandatory control testing.^[16] The practitioner understands and considers the responsible party's processes and controls over the preparation of the subject matter information, incorporating them where appropriate to inform risk responses.^[16] If new risks emerge during the engagement, additional procedures are performed to address them.^[16]

Reporting Standards

The reporting requirements under ISAE 3000 (Revised) mandate that the practitioner issue a written assurance report that contains a clear expression of the assurance conclusion about whether the subject matter information is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable criteria.^[1] This report communicates the results of the engagement, drawing on the evidence obtained to support the conclusion.^[1] The assurance report must include specific elements to ensure transparency and completeness. These comprise: a title that clearly indicates it is an independent assurance report, such as "Independent Practitioner's Report"; an addressee, typically the engaging party or intended users as specified in the engagement terms; a description of the subject matter information, the underlying subject matter, and the applicable criteria; a statement on inherent limitations of the assurance engagement, including those related to the nature of the subject matter or the criteria; the responsible party's responsibilities for preparing the subject matter information and applying the criteria, alongside the practitioner's responsibilities; a summary of the work performed, which is more detailed in limited assurance engagements; a statement that the engagement was performed in accordance with ISAE 3000 (Revised); a statement on compliance with relevant ethical requirements, including independence; the practitioner's conclusion; and the date and place of the report, with the date not earlier than the last evidence obtained.^[1] The practitioner's conclusion in the report is either unmodified or modified, based on the evaluation of the evidence gathered. An unmodified conclusion states that the subject matter information is free from material misstatement, expressed positively for reasonable assurance (e.g., "In our opinion, the subject matter information is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable criteria") or in a negative form for limited assurance (e.g., "Nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the subject matter information is not prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable criteria").^[1] Modified conclusions include qualified (for material but not pervasive misstatements or scope limitations), adverse (for material and pervasive misstatements), or a disclaimer (for insufficient appropriate evidence due to circumstances beyond the practitioner's control).^[1] When modified, the report must describe the matter giving rise to the modification and its impact on the conclusion.^[1] The level of assurance—reasonable or limited—must be explicitly indicated through the form of the conclusion and the description of procedures performed, distinguishing the higher risk reduction and more comprehensive evidence in reasonable assurance from the moderate procedures in limited assurance.^[1] Reports are always required in writing and must reference ISAE 3000 (Revised) to affirm compliance with its requirements.^[1]

Common Applications

ISAE 3000 is frequently applied to provide assurance on the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls, particularly in scenarios where organizations seek to demonstrate robust governance over non-financial processes. In Type 1 engagements, practitioners evaluate the suitability of the design and existence of controls at a specified date, offering assurance that the control framework is appropriately structured to meet objectives.^[4] Type 2 engagements extend this by also testing the operating effectiveness of those controls over a period, typically confirming through substantive procedures that controls function as intended to mitigate risks.^[19] These applications are common in sectors like information technology and operations, where stakeholders require independent verification of control environments beyond financial reporting.^[20] A prominent use of ISAE 3000 involves assurance on sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, addressing the growing demand for credible non-financial disclosures. Practitioners apply the standard to verify metrics such as greenhouse gas emissions, where engagements focus on the completeness, accuracy, and compliance of reported data with established criteria like those from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.^[1] It is also used for broader ESG statements, including corporate social responsibility reports that detail labor practices, diversity initiatives, and ethical supply chain management, enhancing stakeholder trust in voluntary or regulatory-driven disclosures.^[21] This application has gained traction amid increasing regulatory mandates, such as the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, where ISAE 3000 provides a flexible framework for limited or reasonable assurance levels.^[5] Following the IAASB's approval of ISSA 5000 on November 5, 2025 (effective December 15, 2026), sustainability assurance engagements will transition to this dedicated standard.^[22] Compliance engagements under ISAE 3000 offer assurance on an entity's adherence to specific laws, regulations, or internal policies, particularly where non-financial outcomes are at stake. These engagements verify that processes align with criteria such as data protection regulations or industry-specific guidelines, providing reports that confirm the absence of material non-compliance.^[4] For instance, organizations in regulated sectors like healthcare or finance use ISAE 3000 to assure compliance with privacy standards, evaluating controls and evidence to support claims of regulatory alignment.^[23] Such applications help mitigate reputational and legal risks by delivering independent validation tailored to the engagement's defined subject matter. In the context of service organizations, ISAE 3000 is often combined with ISAE 3402 to provide assurance on controls at outsourcing providers, extending beyond financial impacts to non-financial aspects like data security and operational integrity. This combination allows for comprehensive reports that describe the service organization's system and opine on control effectiveness, benefiting user entities reliant on third-party services.^[1] For example, cloud service providers may engage under ISAE 3000 to assure availability and confidentiality controls, complementing ISAE 3402's focus on financial reporting controls.^[24] This approach is widely adopted in outsourcing arrangements to foster transparency and trust among clients.^[25] ISAE 3000 also supports assurance on pro forma financial information, particularly in transactions like mergers or initial public offerings, where ISAE 3420 builds upon it to evaluate the compilation process against applicable criteria. Practitioners provide reasonable assurance that the pro forma adjustments are properly applied and presented, ensuring the information illustrates the effects of the transaction as if it had occurred earlier.^[1] These engagements are common in prospectuses, where they verify compliance with regulatory requirements for illustrative financial statements, aiding investors in assessing potential impacts.^[26] By focusing on the underlying assumptions and calculations, ISAE 3000 enhances the reliability of such forward-looking information without constituting a forecast. ISAE 3000 (Revised) provides a general framework for assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information, serving as the foundational standard for several specialized IAASB pronouncements. ISAE 3402, Assurance Reports on Controls at a Service Organization, builds directly upon ISAE 3000 by requiring practitioners to comply with both standards when performing engagements on the description of a service organization's system and the suitability of the design and effectiveness of its controls. This integration ensures consistency in ethical requirements, quality control, and evidence gathering while addressing the unique aspects of service organization reporting, such as Type 1 and Type 2 reports.^[1]^[2] Similarly, ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements, applies ISAE 3000's principles to environmental reporting by mandating compliance with the general standard alongside its specific guidance on evaluating greenhouse gas assertions, which can involve either reasonable or limited assurance levels; ISAE 3410 is to be withdrawn upon the effective date of ISSA 5000. ISAE 3420, Assurance Engagements to Report on the Compilation of Pro Forma Financial Information Included in a Prospectus, also supplements ISAE 3000, requiring adherence to the core framework for procedures related to the compilation and presentation of pro forma information, thereby enhancing investor confidence in securities offerings without overlapping into full financial audits. These specialized standards were amended concurrently with the revision of ISAE 3000, effective for reports dated on or after December 15, 2015, to promote uniformity in assurance practices.^[1]^[2] In response to evolving needs in sustainability reporting, the IAASB approved International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000 on November 5, 2025, effective for assurance reports dated on or after December 15, 2026. ISSA 5000 establishes general requirements for performing and reporting on sustainability assurance engagements, applicable to any sustainability-related subject matter (including greenhouse gas emissions), and will supersede the application of ISAE 3000 (Revised) for such engagements while leading to the withdrawal of ISAE 3410. It builds on the principles of ISAE 3000 but provides tailored guidance for sustainability information, supporting both limited and reasonable assurance to meet regulatory and stakeholder demands globally.^[22] In contrast, ISAE 3000 explicitly excludes engagements covered by the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), which focus on audits of historical financial information and typically provide reasonable assurance on financial statements, whereas ISAE 3000 accommodates a broader range of subject matters and assurance levels, including limited assurance. This distinction in scope allows ISAE 3000 reports, particularly those under ISAE 3402, to serve as supporting evidence in ISA 402 audits of entities using service organizations, bridging non-financial assurance with financial audit needs without supplanting the ISAs.^[1]^[2] ISAE 3000 is complemented by International Standard on Quality Management (ISQM) 1 (previously ISQC 1), which establishes firm-wide responsibilities for maintaining a system of quality control applicable to all assurance engagements, including those under ISAE 3000. Compliance with ISQM 1 is mandatory, covering aspects such as leadership, ethical requirements, acceptance and continuance of clients, human resources, and engagement performance, thereby ensuring that ISAE 3000 engagements are conducted within a robust quality environment; conforming amendments to reference ISQM 1 were effective for engagements beginning on or after December 15, 2022.^[1]^[2]^[27]

References

[1]
International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 ...
Dec 9, 2013 · This revised assurance standard deals with assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of historical financial information.
[2]
[PDF] ISAE 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or ...
This standard is effective for assurance engagements where the assurance report is dated on or after. December 15, 2015. ISAE 3000 (Revised) gives rise to ...
[3]
ISAE UK 3000 | ICAEW
Mar 10, 2021 · What's the effective date of the new UK standard? ... ISAE (UK) 3000 is effective for assurance reports dated on or after 15 September 2020.
[4]
International Standard for Assurance Engagements 3000 (ISAE 3000)
Mar 24, 2025 · ISAE 3000 is generally applied for audits of internal control, sustainability and compliance with laws and regulations.
[5]
Assurance opinions on ESG metrics under ISAE 3000 (Revised)
ISAE 3000 (Revised) establishes the basic principles and procedures to support the performance of assurance engagements other than audits or reviews of ...
[6]
[PDF] IAASB STAFF PUBLICATION – ISSA 5000 FAQ - NET
Therefore, ISAE 3000 (Revised) will no longer be applicable for sustainability assurance engagements after the effective date of ISSA 5000. 1. International ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[7]
[PDF] IAASB-2020-Handbook-Volume-2.pdf - IRBA
International Standards on Auditing, International Standards on Assurance Engagements,. International Standards on Review Engagements, International Standards ...
[8]
[PDF] AUASB Board Meeting Summary Paper
Apr 16, 2012 · than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information which was issued in 2005 by the. IAASB. Currently the IAASB are revising ISAE 3000 ...
[9]
[PDF] ISAE 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other Than Audits ...
Proposed ISAE 3000 recognizes that an assurance engagement may be either an attestation engagement or a direct engagement. Definitions for both types of ...
[10]
Evaluating the Use of International Standards for Assurance ...
Prior to the approval of the revised ISAE 3000, ISAE 3410 was approved in March 2012 and became effective for assurance reports dated on or after September 30, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
International Framework for Assurance Engagements | ICAEW
Sep 6, 2024 · The Framework is worth reading because it sets out the high-level principles that lead to the guidance developed in more detail in ISAE 3000 ( ...
[12]
IAASB Enhances Standard for Assurance Engagements
Dec 9, 2013 · IAASB today released an updated and enhanced International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE), titled ISAE 3000 (Revised).
[13]
[PDF] International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) April ...
We support the IAASB's efforts in revising ISAE 3000 to conform to the clarity drafting conventions and to incorporate essential concepts from the Assurance.
[14]
None
Below is a merged response that consolidates all the information from the provided segments into a single, comprehensive summary. To maximize detail and clarity while retaining all information, I will use a table in CSV format for the definitions, followed by a section for the useful URLs. This approach ensures a dense representation of the data while maintaining readability and completeness.
[15]
[PDF] Assurance Engagements other than Audits or Reviews of Historical ...
Any service that meets the definition of an assurance engagement is not a consulting engagement but an assurance engagement. ... ISAE 3000 (Revised)”) may.
[16]
2020 Handbook of the International Code of Ethics for Professional ...
Feb 18, 2021 · The 2020 handbook of the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants replaces the 2018 edition and includes the following changes.
[17]
[PDF] Handbook of International Quality Management, Auditing, Review ...
International Standards on Auditing, the International Standard on Auditing for Audits of Financial Statements of Less Complex Entities,. International Standard ...
[18]
IT & Specialised Assurance - Deloitte
... internal controls for a given period of time (generally one year). ISAE 3000 audit statements. The ISAE3000 reports are similar to ISAE3402 reports in the ...<|separator|>
[19]
[PDF] Step-by-step Guide - ISAE 3000 Compliance. - Securance
ISAE 3000 is a International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) report which provides assurance over outsourced processes.
[20]
Using ISAE 3000 (Revised) in Sustainability Assurance Engagements
Jun 30, 2021 · A comprehensive standard that applies to non-financial information assurance engagements, which includes environmental, social and governance (ESG), or ...Missing: text PDF
[21]
ISAE 3000 Type 2 Report (FINMA) - Google Cloud
The International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 is a standard which is applied for audits of internal controls, sustainability and ...
[22]
Service Organization Controls Report - ISAE 3000 with Reference to ...
An ISAE 3000 report can be prepared to focus on controls specific to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy.
[23]
International Standards for SOC 1 & SOC 2: ISAE 3000 & ISAE 3402
Jun 8, 2021 · ISAE 3402, which falls under ISAE 3000, is specific to service organization engagements. When comparing these standards to the different SOC ...
[24]
Standards and guidance - Audit and Assurance - ICAEW
Jul 29, 2024 · Deals with reasonable assurance engagements undertaken by a practitioner to report on the responsible party's compilation of pro forma financial ...