This guidance concerns conflict of interest (COI) issues for registered greenhouse and energy auditors. It is not legal advice or a substitute for legal advice on legislative requirements. Auditors are encouraged to seek their own legal advice on their obligations under relevant legislation and to use their own professional judgement.
Conflict of interest is defined in regulation 6.49 of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008 (NGER Regulations):
A conflict of interest situation exists in relation to an audited body at a particular time if, because of circumstances that exist at that time:
In a perceived COI situation, a reasonable person, with full knowledge of all relevant facts and circumstances, would conclude that the auditor may not be capable of exercising objective and impartial judgement in relation to conducting an audit.
Ensuring that COI issues do not impact on an audit is fundamental to the audit process. If an auditor does not deal with a COI appropriately, then the auditor’s objectivity and impartial judgement are open to doubt. This undermines the credibility of the audit. This is why the NGER Regulations set out extensive obligations for greenhouse and energy auditors for dealing with COI and other independence issues. In particular, auditors are to be aware of the requirements set out in subdivisions 6.6.3 to 6.6.5 of the NGER Regulations. These are legislative requirements that greenhouse and energy auditors
Dealing properly with COI issues is not easy. There are many circumstances that can prevent an auditor from resolving a COI issue satisfactorily. Auditors must successfully deal with:
An auditor may also be afraid of the consequences of dealing with COI issues. This could include losing a client or disappointing others. For example, if a team member was to disclose that they had a financial interest or personal relationship with an audit client.
Auditors must cope with such pressures and ensure they deal with COI issues properly.
Auditors have an overarching requirement to be independent from the audited body. More on this concept can be found in Independence Guide published by the Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board Limited (APESB), Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, CPA Australia and the Institute of Public Accountants. The guide describes the concept as:
Independence is linked to the five fundamental ethical principles all auditors must follow. These are also detailed in the Independence Guide from APESB. These principles are:
A COI issue is a threat to an auditor’s objectivity. It may also undermine the auditor’s ability to uphold the other principles, but the clear threat is to objectivity.
Conflict of interest and independence are related but different concepts. It is fundamental to audits that an auditor is independent of the audited body. In order for an auditor to be independent, they must deal with COI issues appropriately and sufficiently. However, independence includes other aspects as well, for example auditor rotation. The legislative requirements on auditor rotation are listed in regulation 6.59 of the NGER Regulations.
The audit standards set out a conceptual framework for dealing with COI issues. This framework involves three steps:
When using this framework, the audit standards require auditors to:
The first step is to identify the facts and circumstances that might constitute a conflict of interest. These include professional activities, interests and relationships.
The framework focuses on five threats to an auditor’s independence. If an auditor does not deal appropriately with any of these threats, then it represents a competing interest or loyalty — a conflict of interest. The threats are:
The self-interest threat is that financial or other interests may influence an auditor’s judgement or behaviour. It is a common one. Examples of this threat include:
This is the threat of not appropriately evaluating the results of a previous judgement or activity the auditor, or another individual within their audit firm, performed, and the auditor relies on those results when forming a judgement as part of performing the audit. Examples of this threat include:
Under this threat, an auditor will be too sympathetic to the interests of an audited body, or too accepting of their work — the auditor’s objectivity is compromised. This may result from a long or close relationship with the audited body or another relevant person. Examples of this threat include:
This is the threat that an auditor will be deterred from acting objectively because of actual or perceived pressures, including attempts to exercise undue influence over them. An example of this threat is:
In this threat, an auditor will promote an audited body’s position to the point that the auditor’s objectivity is compromised. An example of this threat is:
To effectively identify threats to independence, auditors also need to know the risk factors that may lead to a COI issue not being identified, and also the factors that may lead to their own judgement being impaired or influenced.
One of the most effective safeguards can be to seek the advice of others that are not directly involved in the situation. This not only helps the auditor understand perspectives that may be different to their own, it also helps ensure their decision making is objective and free from these influences and biases.
So, when faced with these decisions, it can be helpful for an auditor to ask themselves:
The second step is to evaluate whether the threat of a COI issue is at an ‘acceptable level’. This is a level at which the auditor using the reasonable and informed third party test would likely conclude that they comply with the fundamental ethical principles.
This test is a consideration by the auditor about whether a reasonable and informed third party would reach the same audit conclusions as the auditor did. This is on the basis of the third-party having access to all the relevant facts and circumstances that the auditor knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, at the time the conclusions were made.
The reasonable and informed third party does not need to be an auditor but would possess the relevant knowledge and experience to understand and evaluate the appropriateness of the auditor’s conclusions in an impartial manner.
Examples of reasonable and informed third parties may include regulators — such as employees of the Clean Energy Regulator — board members, senior members in business or public practice or investors.
The consideration of qualitative and quantitative factors is relevant to an auditor’s evaluation of issues, as is the combined effect of multiple issues, if applicable. If multiple issues are identified they are evaluated in aggregate, even if the issues are individually insignificant.
Other examples of factors relevant to the audited body and its operating environment that may impact on the evaluation of the level of a threat can be found in APES 110
Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including Independence Standards) (APES 110).
If a COI issue is evaluated as not being at an acceptable level, the final step in the conceptual framework is to address the issue by eliminating or reducing it to an acceptable level by:
Depending on the facts and circumstances, an issue might be addressed by eliminating the circumstances causing the COI issue. However, in some situations declining or ending the audit may be the only way to address the issue as the circumstances creating it cannot be eliminated and safeguards are not capable of being applied to reduce the issue to an acceptable level.
APES 110 defines safeguards as actions, individually or in combination, that an auditor can take that effectively reduces issues to an acceptable level.
The auditor must conclude whether overall the actions they have taken eliminate or reduce the issues to an acceptable level, including reviewing significant judgements made or conclusions reached and using the reasonable and informed third party test.
Dealing appropriately and sufficiently with a COI issue is not enough. How it was dealt with needs to be recorded on the audit file.
The audit file should have clear documentation of significant decisions and judgements in the audit. Decisions around conflicts of interest are likely to involve significant judgement. In dealing with a COI issue, the audit file needs to include evidence of:
All of these points are important, but particularly the last one. Also, it is vital that these pieces of evidence are signed and dated at the appropriate time.
There is a range of legislation and audit standards that auditors need to know, understand and use when dealing with COI issues:
Greenhouse and energy auditors are required to comply with the legislation — both the NGER Regulations and the Audit Determination. The Audit Determination (section 2.5) also requires audit team leaders to ensure that an audit is carried out and reported on in compliance with the auditing standards.
Subdivisions 6.6.3-6.6.5 set out legislative requirements regarding COI and other independence issues.
In particular, regulation 6.47 sets out requirements for registered greenhouse and energy auditors in regard to COI issues. These include:
Note the emphasis in the regulations on the timing of the audit team leader becoming aware of a COI situation and the deadlines this sets.
The NGER Regulations detail a number of requirements around COI and independence, apart from those listed above. These include subdivisions 6.6.4 and 6.6.5, which impose particular requirements on audit team leaders.
Section 2.4 — Independence and conduct declaration. Before agreeing to the terms of engagement for the audit, the audit team leader must sign an independence and conduct declaration and give it to the person who appoints the audit team leader to carry out the audit.
Declarations are for:
Regulation 6.50 of the NGER Regulations defines ‘professional members of the audit team’ as any:
Peer reviewers are usually not considered members of the audit team. However, as per Regulation 6.50 they are considered, for audits conducted under schemes the agency administers, to be ‘professional members of the audit team’. The requirements for independence and conduct declarations therefore apply to them.
Auditing Standard ASQC 1
Quality Control for Firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of Financial Reports and Other Financial Information, Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services Engagements (ASQC 1). The key points from this standard are:
Standard on Assurance Engagements ASAE 3000 Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information (ASAE 3000) is the key audit standard used in audits under schemes the agency administers. A couple of key points to note from this standard are:
Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including Independence Standards) is the key guidance document for ethical behaviour by professional accountants. All greenhouse and energy auditors are to follow the stipulations of APES 110 when they conduct audits under schemes the agency administers. The exception to this is that legislative requirements take precedence over APES 110.
Quality Control for Firms (APES 320) sets the obligations for accounting firms to establish and maintain a quality control system. It supplements ASQC 1.
APES 320 highlights the need to have policies and procedures around communicating independence requirements to personnel and around the identification and evaluation of circumstances and relationships that may be threats to independence.
There are six key principles for greenhouse and energy auditors in dealing with COI issues:
There are a number of actions auditors need to undertake to ensure they are properly prepared to deal with COI issues:
(Note that the AUASB has issued two new standards that have an operative date of 15 December 2022, and which replace the current ASQC1. These are ASQM1
Quality Management for Firms that Perform Audits or Reviews of Financial Reports and Other Financial Information, or Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements, and
ASQM2 Engagement Quality Reviews.)
About The Clean Energy Regulator
Carbon Farming Initiative
Carbon Pricing Mechanism
National Greenhouse And Energy Reporting
Renewable Energy Target
Emissions Reduction Fund
Our Systems And Their Resources
Clean Energy Markets
Data and information
Subscribe to email updates
Information Publication Scheme
Freedom of Information
The Clean Energy Regulator is a Government body responsible for accelerating carbon abatement for Australia.