Written representations

An assessor may want proof of something management already said. One way to get that proof is to ask for it in writing. This written proof is called a written representation.

The workbook tells the assessor to ask for these. The assessor asks management for them. Where it makes sense, the assessor also asks those in charge of governance. The ask covers material issues found during the assessment. The workbook treats this as evidence the assessor needs.

But the workbook is just as clear about the limits. A written representation is not enough evidence on its own. It does not replace the assessor's own checking. Getting a signed note from the people being assessed does not change how much other proof the assessor must still gather. It does not change whether management actually met its duties.

The workbook's own words (Chapter 5, section 5.9): "The social impact assessor should request written representations from management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance on material social impact assessment issues. Although written representations provide necessary audit evidence, they are not sufficient or appropriate by itself. Written representations do not affect the nature or extent of other audit evidence that the social impact assessor obtains about the fulfilment of management's responsibilities, or about specific assertions."

Two conditions, read together:

Where this sits. Written representations are requested as part of the Social Impact Assessment Engagement (section 5.9), the same element of the engagement that also covers the three-party relationship and communication with Board members or Trustees on the assessment's scope and timing.

Illustrative engagement; figures are made up.

An assessor reviewing Prerna Trust's ₹90 lakh nutrition programme asks the trust's programme director for a written representation confirming that all 14,000 beneficiary records shown to the assessor are complete, and that no material cases of double-counting exist.

The director signs the representation. The assessor still independently cross-checks a sample of 500 records against village-level attendance registers, and finds 22 discrepancies, a rate the assessor judges immaterial, but only after actually checking.

Had the assessor accepted the signed representation alone, without the independent sample check, that would have breached the workbook's own rule: the written representation is necessary evidence, but it is never, by itself, sufficient.

Chapter 5 (Social Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessors), section 5.9 (Social Impact Assessment Engagement), requires the assessor to obtain written representations from management and governance on material issues, while stating plainly that they are not sufficient evidence on their own. Expect a question testing whether written representations alone can satisfy an assessor's evidence requirement. They cannot.

• "Necessary" does not mean "sufficient." The workbook uses both words deliberately. Written representations are required, but never enough by themselves.
• They are obtained from management, and where appropriate, those charged with governance, not from beneficiaries or field staff.
• They do not reduce the assessor's other evidence-gathering duties. Getting a signed statement does not shrink the sampling, verification or field work otherwise required.
• Do not confuse written representations with the assessor's own engagement file — the engagement file stores the assessor's working papers and evidence; written representations are one specific type of evidence obtained from the client, not the assessor's own documentation.