"目前，已经有相当一部分上市公司在发布年报时参照之前的准则要求披露了可持续发展报告。"首都经 济贸易大学华侨学院院长、会计学教授李百兴表示，随着我国可持续披露准则体系的完善，可以预见， 今后会有更多的企业参照准则要求披露可持续发展信息。为了提高所披露信息的可信性，会有许多披露 可持续发展报告的企业聘请包括会计师事务所、咨询机构等独立第三方对所披露的可持续发展信息进行 鉴证，出具鉴证意见。在这种情况下，如果缺少统一的、专门的鉴证标准，在具体工作过程中会产生一 系列问题。此次《鉴证准则》正是为了解决上述问题而制定。 《鉴证准则》制定遵循的总体原则有以下3项：坚持以维护公共利益为宗旨，强调鉴证机构应当实施质 量管理，并遵守职业道德要求，保持独立性，高质量执行鉴证业务，切实发挥鉴证增信作用，维护公共 利益；突出可持续信息鉴证业务特点，针对当前可持续信息鉴证业务实践中面临的具体问题和需求，提 出明确、有针对性的要求并提供细化、可操作的指引，有效规范鉴证业务的执行，提高鉴证质量；坚持 立足国情和国际趋同。 为推动经济、社会和环境可持续发展，规范和指导会计师事务所等第三方中介机构开展可持续信息鉴证 业务，保证执业质量，近日 ...

鉴证机构是执行《鉴证准则》的主体，需要加快可持续信息鉴证能力建设，具体可从以下方面推进：一 是建立执行可持续信息鉴证的质量管理体系，明确相关人员责任，确保高质量执行鉴证业务；二是积极 培养和吸引具备环境、社会和治理等多元专业背景的人才，夯实开展业务的人才储备基础；三是持续加 强诚信建设，积极营造诚信文化氛围，遵守职业道德要求，筑牢诚信执业根基。 人民财讯1月27日电，中注协有关负责人就印发《可持续信息鉴证业务准则第6101号——基本准则(试 行)》答记者问表示，考虑到企业可持续信息披露尚处于起步阶段，能力建设、人才培养、完善内控体 系都需要一定时间，现阶段将《鉴证准则》定位为试行文件，不采取"一刀切"的强制实施要求，在实施 范围及实施要求作出规定之前，由执行可持续信息鉴证业务的机构自愿实施。未来将随着企业可持续披 露准则的实施，采取区分重点、试点先行、循序渐进、分步推进的策略。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent public consultation by the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for sustainable information assurance, marking a new phase of standardization and professionalism in ESG assurance activities in China [1][2]. Group 1: Challenges in Sustainable Information Assurance - The current sustainable information assurance practices in China face challenges such as fragmented standards, significant differences in methods and indicators among assurance institutions, and inadequate risk assessment capabilities [2][3]. - The consultation draft aims to address these shortcomings by proposing key measures to standardize the assurance process and improve quality control [2][3]. Group 2: Standardization and Quality Control - The consultation draft is expected to resolve the long-standing issue of fragmentation in the industry by establishing a unified standard for the assurance process, which includes clear procedures and documentation requirements [2][4]. - Assurance institutions are required to meet specific competency thresholds, ensuring that project partners possess sufficient expertise in sustainable information [4][5]. Group 3: Incorporating International Experience and Local Adaptation - The draft incorporates international frameworks while considering local regulatory contexts, emphasizing the dual materiality principle in sustainable information disclosure [3][6]. - It encourages companies to establish ESG management committees and hire multidisciplinary talent to enhance internal ESG management [3][5]. Group 4: Enhancing Assurance Quality - Assurance quality is prioritized, with institutions needing to strengthen their quality management and independence systems [5][6]. - The draft suggests a transitional period where assurance institutions may provide both consulting and assurance services, with strict independence requirements to follow [6][9]. Group 5: Anti-Fraud Measures - The importance of anti-fraud measures in sustainable information assurance is highlighted, with a focus on using technology and cross-department collaboration to strengthen fraud detection [7][8]. - The draft proposes establishing a robust mechanism for verifying non-financial data and ensuring compliance with disclosure standards [8][9]. Group 6: Accountability and Penalty Mechanisms - The need for a comprehensive accountability system for ESG information fraud is emphasized, suggesting a dual accountability approach for both fraudulent companies and assurance institutions [9][10]. - A two-way data reporting platform between third-party institutions and regulatory bodies is recommended to facilitate the identification of high-risk entities [9].

Core Viewpoint - The recent public consultation by the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for sustainable information verification, marking a new phase of standardization and professionalism in ESG verification in China [1] Group 1: Challenges in Sustainable Information Verification - Current challenges in China's sustainable information verification include fragmented standards, significant differences in methods and indicators among verification institutions, and inadequate risk assessment capabilities [2] - The consultation draft aims to address these issues by proposing key measures to fill the gaps and resolve related challenges [2] Group 2: Standardization and Quality Control - The consultation draft is expected to resolve the long-standing fragmentation issue in the industry by establishing standardized procedures and requirements for verification [2] - It emphasizes the need for quality control mechanisms and clear anti-fraud requirements to provide reliable institutional guarantees for the market [1][2] Group 3: Incorporating International Experience and Local Adaptation - The draft draws on international frameworks like ISSA 5000 while considering the local context of China's nascent sustainable information disclosure and verification practices [3] - It proposes detailed requirements for dual materiality assessment and expert competency evaluation, aligning with domestic regulatory frameworks [3] Group 4: Enhancing Verification Quality - The draft sets stringent requirements for verification institutions, including the need for project partners to possess adequate competency in sustainable information [4] - It highlights the importance of maintaining independence and quality management within verification processes [5] Group 5: Addressing Fraud and Data Verification Challenges - The identification of fraud remains a significant challenge in sustainable information verification, particularly due to the lack of standardized metrics for non-financial data [7] - The draft suggests implementing technological solutions and cross-departmental collaboration to enhance data verification and fraud detection [8] Group 6: Strengthening Accountability and Regulatory Mechanisms - The establishment of a robust accountability framework is crucial, with suggestions for dual accountability for fraudulent activities involving both companies and verification institutions [9] - A two-way data reporting platform is proposed to facilitate communication between verification institutions and regulatory bodies, enhancing the identification of high-risk entities [10]

Core Viewpoint - The release of the draft "Basic Standards for Sustainable Information Assurance Business" by the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants marks a new phase in the standardization of sustainable information assurance practices in China, aiming to ensure uniform quality standards for third-party intermediaries [1][2]. Group 1: Need for Unified Standards - The current sustainable information assurance practices in China are largely voluntary, with significant differences in quality management, professional ethics, and competency among various assurance providers [2]. - The lack of uniform standards leads to inconsistencies in execution procedures, conclusion formation, and assurance levels, hindering the full realization of third-party assurance value [2]. Group 2: Drafting Process and Principles - The draft was developed by referencing international standards and adapting them to China's specific context, following three core principles: maintaining public interest, highlighting the characteristics of sustainable information assurance, and leveraging international experience [2]. - The proposed standards will consist of basic standards, specific standards, and application guidelines, aligning with the corporate sustainable disclosure framework [2]. Group 3: Scope and Execution Requirements - The draft consists of four chapters with 225 articles, covering the entire process from business acceptance to report issuance, with clear objectives and detailed execution requirements [3]. - The standards apply not only to certified public accountants but also to all types of assurance providers, ensuring compliance with unified professional standards across the industry [3]. Group 4: Assurance Mechanisms and Quality Control - The draft establishes a dual assurance mechanism, addressing both reasonable and limited assurance requirements to cater to diverse information needs [4]. - Quality management and ethical standards are mandated to ensure the professionalism and reliability of assurance work, with the Institute committed to refining the draft based on feedback before final approval [4].