The Reassurance Network audit can be read here: http://www.ethicalprimark.co.uk/downloads/tns-reaudit-rep-10dec08.pdf . I agree with your comments about the apparent reporting process, and its interesting to note where this report and the BBC investigation overlap.

Do I understand correctly, that you’d advocate that ISAE3000, part of the ISO9000 framework, or something similar be used by companies when selecting their auditors: that is they aren’t so qualified/certified they shouldn’t be used?

I wonder whether anyone else has experienced similarly flaccid assurance reports? If so how do you believe the process could be tightened up?

1) Did the assurance actually intend to cover some of those malpractices that have subsequently been uncovered – and to what level of assurance? This to understand whether there is course to complain about Reassurance Network; and

2) Many assurance providers are much too generous with their words in their reports with way too little substance of work done – they will say they have done a lot and provide a lot of positive words in the assurance statement, or just really comment on some good practice and some practice they recommend to be improved (which doesn’t really give much assurance, but just some insight) – but if you really try to understand what they have done, you will find that they have certainly not done enough to support whatever assurance they are trying to express in their statement. Essentially, the assurance is not objective evidence-based assurance (as required by e.g. ISAE 3000), but rather intuitive and so-called ‘expert-driven’ opinion.

Has Reassurance Network done this in the Primark case? I don’t know, but to stay in the assurance jargon ‘Based on the Reassurance Network statements I’ve reviewed in the past, I would not be surprised if this is the case’. However, I should at the same time say that making this conclusion is unprofessional, because I’ve not reviewed their work and statement in relation to Primark – essentially, I don’t know, so have no relevant evidence to make any conclusion -but I’d not be surprised if this is so…

Finally – I should also say, that this comment is purely made on my own account and not in any way a statement or comment on behalf of my employer or any other entity.

The dynamic between “sustainable practices” and “the bottom line” is a relationship which has yet to be explored and fully investigated.

For instance, if you take John Elkington’s “Cannibals with Forks” at face value then a corporation ought to give equal weight to employee and community issues, environment issues, and financial issues.

However I know of one airline which makes £300 after tax and costs for each hour a jet is in the sky but donates only £6.50 to community/environmental causes per air hour [2008 figures]. How is does this promote sustainability?