Questões de Concurso Sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 17.407 questões
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Based on the information provided by the text, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).
( ) An inquisitive mind is germane to those engaged in auditing.
( ) Bringing out a verifiable estimate on skepticism can be done in no time.
( ) On no account should professional skepticism be brushed aside when focusing on audit quality.
The statements are, respectively:
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting
Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.
What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.
Embarking on the ESG journey
Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.
They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.
Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.
As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.
Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.
Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf
Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting
Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.
What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.
Embarking on the ESG journey
Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.
They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.
Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.
As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.
Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.
Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf
Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting
Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.
What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.
Embarking on the ESG journey
Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.
They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.
Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.
As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.
Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.
Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf
Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting
Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.
What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.
Embarking on the ESG journey
Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.
They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.
Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.
As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.
Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.
Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf
Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting
Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.
What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.
Embarking on the ESG journey
Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.
They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.
Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.
As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.
Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.
Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf
( ) One of the hurdles of ESG issues is that they have been restricted to a single group of experts.
( ) There has been such a great demand for publicizing government efforts towards ESG that reports have become accurate and systematized.
( ) Part of the internal auditor’s job is to be knowledgeable enough in the area of ESG so as to be able to provide solid guidance to those in charge of the administration.
The statements are, respectively:
Judge the following item, based on the previous text.
According to the text, the speculations about extraterrestrial
life started in the late 1800s due to canal-like features
observed on Mars.
Judge the following item, based on the previous text.
The War of the Worlds was a radio drama that told the real
story of an invasion from Mars, panicking countless people.
Considering the previous text, judge the following item.
Although there is a movement of people ditching their
smartphones in order to have what they think is a better life
quality, millions believe digital technology is essential to
everyone’s lives.
Considering the previous text, judge the following item.
In the sentence ‘They are blunting cognition and impeding
productivity’ (ninth paragraph), the pronoun ‘They’ refers to
the “nine out of 10 people in the UK who own a
smartphone” (seventh paragraph).
Considering the previous text, judge the following item.
It was when Dulcie Cowling was in the park with her two
kids that she took her decision to ditch her smartphone and
then she told her family and friends about it after Christmas.
Considering the previous text, judge the following item.
People who are giving up on their mobile devices believe
they were spending too much time with being connected and
they were missing their real lives because of that.
Considering the previous text, judge the following item.
In the sentence (thirteenth paragraph) “Yet, while some
worry about how much time they spend on their handset, for
millions of others they are a godsend.”, the word “Yet” is
synonymous with However.
Considering the previous text, judge the following item.
According to the text, handsets are essential for people
because sometimes healthcare, education and social services
are offered only through smartphones.
Concerning the previous text and its linguistic aspects, judge the following item.
According to the text, in Spain there are villages that were
very important cities during the time of the American Wild
West.
Concerning the previous text and its linguistic aspects, judge the following item.
Rafael Molina owns one of the most famous film sets in the
history of Western movies.
Conheça nossos planos