 |
TO THE BOARD AND STAKEHOLDERS
OF LANDCOM:
Landcom commissioned URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) to undertake
a stakeholder-engaged independent assurance program of
this Sustainability Report 2004 (the “report”).
The audit team was multi-disciplinary comprising of economic,
environmental and social specialists, and included a series
of external stakeholder interviews.
All team members were deemed competent in accordance with
the URS Assurance Principles, and their expertise and
qualifications communicated to Landcom. The report presents
Landcom’s sustainability performance over the period
1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004. Landcom was responsible for
the preparation of the report and this statement represents
the auditor’s independent opinion. URS was not responsible
for preparation of any part of this report. The audit
team based in URS Melbourne has not undertaken any other
commissions for Landcom. |
|
| ASSURANCE OBJECTIVE |
| The objective of the assurance process is to provide
the Board and stakeholders of Landcom with an independent
opinion on the credibility of the report, and underlying
systems, process and competencies that deliver the relevant
information. |
|
Assurance Process
Our approach to assurance provision has been aligned with
the AA1000 Assurance Standard and assurance provisions
of the Global Reporting Initiative’s 2002 Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines. |
|
| The assurance engagement was undertaken in August
2004. The process involved: |
|
| – interviewing key external stakeholders regarding
their views on Landcom’s responsiveness to stakeholders
and material sustainability issues faced by Landcom. Accordingly,
the assurance process was stakeholder-engaged; |
|
| – a review of Landcom’s key sustainability
strategies, policies, objectives, management systems,
measurement and reporting procedures, background documentation
and data collection and reporting procedures; |
|
| – a review of the report for any major anomalies; |
|
| – an overview of the embeddedness of Landcom’s
key social and environmental policies; |
|
| – a series of interviews with key personnel, including
external consultants and contractors, responsible for
data provision, collating and writing various parts of
the report in order to ensure selected claims were discussed
and substantiated; |
|
| – the examination of the aggregation and derivation
of, and underlying evidence for, over 150 selected data
points and statements made in the report; and |
|
| – a review of selected external media sources
relating to Landcom’s adherence to its sustainability
policies. |
|
| In addition, the scope incorporated reviewing reported
performance against the three principles of the AA1000
Assurance Standard: materiality, completeness and responsiveness.
|
|
| ASSURANCE LIMITATIONS |
| – Our scope of work did not involve verification
of financial data, other than that relating to environmental,
social or broader economic performance. |
|
| OUR OPINION |
| Based on the scope of the
assurance process, the following represents URS’
opinion. |
|
| – The level of data accuracy presented within
the report is considered high, but some additional improvements
to data management are recommended to reduce potential
for minor anomalies. Data trails selected were easily
identifiable and traceable, and the personnel responsible
were able to reliably demonstrate the origin(s) and interpretation
of data. |
|
| – The statements made in the report appropriately
reflect environmental, social and economic performance
achieved during the period. |
|
| Overall, the auditor is satisfied that the report is
a fair and accurate representation of the organisation’s
environmental, social and economic performance. Landcom
has also taken on board recommendations made by URS in
2003. Our opinion is based on the conclusions drawn from
the assurance process, details of which are provided below. |
|
Conclusions
– Accuracy of reported information:
The findings of the assurance program provide confidence
in the reporting processes established. The examination
of selected data points and statements made in the report
resulted in URS identifying a low percentage of minor
inaccuracies in the reported information. The identified
inaccuracies were satisfactorily amended by Landcom prior
to publication of the report. |
|
| – Materiality: Issues material to stakeholders,
as identified during URS’ stakeholder engagement
process, and through other internal processes have been
considered and communicated within the report. |
|
| – Completeness: The report represents a complete
account of organisational performance. URS completed a
GRI review for Landcom, which found that the Landcom indicators
cover a significant breadth of sustainability issues faced
by the sector. |
|
| – Responsiveness: The responsiveness to stakeholder
concerns at Landcom is considered high. URS’ external
stakeholder survey as part of this assurance process found
that stakeholders were content with the level of communication
by Landcom, and generally regarded the organisation to
be a leader in its field in sustainability. |
|
| – Recommendations: URS has provided suggestions
for reporting improvement in some areas, including improving
some data management practices, reviewing the sustainability
indicators and increasing their coverage, and extending
the stakeholder engagement process to include internal
stakeholders. These have been outlined in a more detailed
management report presented to Landcom. |
|
On behalf of the audit team
31 August 2004
Melbourne, Australia |
|
 |
|
