{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["audit review"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'audit review' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=audit+review","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"client-000721","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/client-000721","title":"Audit of Bodycote PLC – climate change-related trends and risks","publisher":{"name":"ClientEarth","organization":"clientearth"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2018-09-05","source_url":"https://www.clientearth.org/media/3a5otyah/letter-to-deloitte-regarding-bodycote-plc-audit-ce-en.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"ClientEarth has challenged Deloitte LLP's audit of Bodycote PLC's 2017 Annual Report, asserting that the report contains material misstatements due to the omission of climate change and low carbon transition risks. ClientEarth contends that as an energy-intensive industrial manufacturer, Bodycote is materially exposed to these risks, yet the Annual Report only provides mandatory greenhouse gas emissions disclosures and a general corporate responsibility discussion. The organization argues that Deloitte, despite being a supporter of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and possessing institutional expertise on climate risks, failed to apply professional scepticism and judgement under International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). Specifically, ClientEarth suggests Deloitte breached ISA (UK) 200, 315, and 720 by not ensuring the strategic and directors' reports were prepared in accordance with legal requirements regarding the description of principal risks and future business trends. ClientEarth has submitted a complaint to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and requested that Deloitte explain its processes for integrating climate-related knowledge into its audit programmes.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000721#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Bodycote PLC's 2017 Annual Report failed to provide an adequate description of principal risks, main trends affecting future performance, and long-term viability by omitting references to climate change or the low carbon transition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000721#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"ClientEarth asserts that Deloitte LLP's audit report incorrectly stated that the strategic and directors' reports were prepared in accordance with legal requirements and contained no material misstatements.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000721#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Deloitte possesses institutional expertise and public commitment to climate risk disclosure through its support of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which ClientEarth argues should have been applied to the Bodycote audit.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000721#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"ClientEarth identifies specific breaches of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), including the failure to exercise professional scepticism (ISA (UK) 200), failure to understand business risks (ISA (UK) 315), and failure to identify material inconsistencies in 'other information' (ISA (UK) 720).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000721#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate change","energy transition","greenhouse gas emissions","climate finance","industrial manufacturing"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal analysis","audit review"]},{"id":"client-000727","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/client-000727","title":"Audit of Balfour Beatty PLC – climate change-related trends and risks","publisher":{"name":"ClientEarth","organization":"clientearth"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2018-09-05","source_url":"https://www.clientearth.org/media/q03d1onj/letter-to-kpmg-regarding-balfour-beatty-plc-audit-ce-en.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"ClientEarth has notified KPMG of its intent to complain to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) regarding the audit of Balfour Beatty PLC's 2017 Annual Report. ClientEarth argues that Balfour Beatty failed to provide an adequate description of principal risks, main trends, and long-term viability by omitting the impacts of climate change and the low carbon transition. The letter asserts that KPMG, despite its public support for the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and its own institutional expertise, failed to apply professional scepticism and judgement as required by International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). ClientEarth specifically questions KPMG's processes for ensuring climate knowledge is integrated into audit programmes and how it identifies material inconsistencies or misstatements in strategic and directors' reports.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"ClientEarth contends that Balfour Beatty PLC's 2017 Annual Report contains material misstatements because it fails to substantively discuss risks or trends associated with climate change or the low carbon transition, despite the company's material exposure as an international infrastructure and construction business.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"ClientEarth argues that KPMG failed to identify these omissions in its audit report, where it stated that it had not identified material misstatements in the Strategic report and the Directors' report and that they were prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 2006.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The document highlights a contradiction between KPMG's public positioning as a supporter of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and its apparent failure to apply this expertise to the Balfour Beatty audit.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"ClientEarth asserts that under ISA (UK) 200, KPMG was required to exercise professional scepticism and judgement, which should have involved applying its institutional knowledge of climate risks to the audit process.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The letter claims that under ISA (UK) 315, KPMG should have considered climate change and the low carbon transition as part of its required understanding of Balfour Beatty's industry, regulatory, and external factors.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"ClientEarth argues that under ISA (UK) 720, KPMG failed to identify material inconsistencies or misstatements by omission in the 'other information' sections of the annual report.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"client-000727#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["climate change","energy transition","climate risk management"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["audit review","legal challenge"]}]}