Output of Technology explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Paragraph R5320.11 requires a sustainability assurance provider intending to use the output of technology for a sustainability assurance client to determine whether that use is appropriate for the intended purpose. Paragraph R5320.10 imposes the same test on using the work of an expert, and paragraph 5320.11 A1 lists eight factors that decide the technology question.
Two parallel requirements
| R5320.10 — the work of an expert | R5320.11 — the output of technology | |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Intending to use the work of an expert in the course of undertaking a professional activity | Intending to use the output of technology in the course of undertaking a professional activity for a sustainability assurance client |
| Requirement | Determine whether the use is appropriate for the intended purpose | Determine whether the use is appropriate for the intended purpose |
| Factors | 5320.10 A2 — two factors | 5320.11 A1 — eight factors |
The identical wording is deliberate. The Code treats a machine's output and a human expert's work as raising the same ethical question: the practitioner is relying on something produced outside their own competence, and must decide whether that reliance is appropriate for the purpose at hand.
Using the work of an expert
Paragraph 5320.10 A2 gives two factors:
- The reputation and expertise of, and the resources available to, the expert.
- Whether the expert is subject to applicable professional and ethics standards.
The Code adds that such information might be gained from prior association with, or from consulting others about, the expert. The second factor is the sharper one in sustainability assurance, where many technical specialists — engineers, ecologists, climate scientists, social auditors — are not members of a professional body with an ethics code at all. That does not bar their use; it means the practitioner cannot assume an external ethics framework is doing any work and must take that into account.
Paragraph R5300.11 deals with using the non-assurance work of another practitioner, and paragraph 5300.11 A1 expressly excludes the work of an external expert from its scope. The expert question is governed here, by R5320.10. Note also that 5300.11 A1 directs the reader to "Section 5390" for external experts — a section that does not appear in the Volume III contents. Where the two provisions overlap in wording, R5320.10 is the one actually present in the volume.
Using the output of technology: the eight factors
Paragraph 5320.11 A1 lists the factors to consider. They divide naturally into three groups.
What the technology is being asked to do
- The nature of the activity to be performed by the technology.
- The expected use of, or extent of reliance on, the output of the technology.
Whether it can be understood and has been proven
- Whether the practitioner has the ability, or access to an expert with the ability, to understand, use and explain the technology and its appropriateness for the purpose intended.
- Whether the technology has been appropriately tested and evaluated for the purpose intended.
- Prior experience with the technology, and whether its use for specific purposes is generally accepted.
How it is governed and what goes into it
- The firm's oversight of the design, development, implementation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, updating or upgrading of the technology.
- The controls relating to its use, including procedures for authorising user access and overseeing such use.
- The appropriateness of the inputs, including data and any related decisions, and decisions made by individuals in the course of using the technology.
The Code does not stop at the data. It names "any related decisions, and decisions made by individuals in the course of using the technology". Every configuration choice — which emission factor set, which allocation basis, which materiality threshold, which gap-filling rule — is a decision inside the tool, and its appropriateness is part of whether the output may be used at all. A tool that is sound and correctly operated can still produce output that is inappropriate for the purpose because of a configuration decision nobody recorded.
Can the practitioner even find out?
Paragraph 5320.12 A1 adds a candid final consideration covering both experts and technology:
"When a sustainability assurance provider is considering using the work of experts or the output of technology, a consideration is whether the practitioner is in a position within the firm to obtain information in relation to the factors necessary to determine whether such use is appropriate."
This addresses the junior or peripheral practitioner who is handed a tool or an expert report and has no standing to interrogate either. The Code's answer is not that the factors can be skipped; it is that the practitioner's position within the firm to obtain the necessary information is itself part of the analysis — and if the information cannot be obtained, the determination required by R5320.10 and R5320.11 cannot properly be made.
How this connects to the rest of Part 5
- Objectivity (R5112.1) names technology as a source of undue influence or undue reliance.
- Paragraph 5300.6 A2 lists the technology threats — insufficient data, inappropriate technology, insufficient expertise to use and explain it, and a self-review threat where the firm designed or developed the technology.
- Paragraph 5300.7 A6 gives the firm-level mitigants — corporate oversight and internal controls, third-party assessments of quality and functionality, and regular training.
- Paragraph 5120.12 A2 names automation bias as a cognitive risk in its own right.
Section 5320 is where those threads become an acceptance-stage decision: before the output of technology is used at all, its appropriateness for the intended purpose has to be determined.
Practical checklist
- Make the R5320.11 determination before the tool is relied on, and record it.
- State the intended purpose precisely; appropriateness is judged against that purpose, not in the abstract.
- Confirm someone on the engagement — or an accessible expert — can understand, use and explain the technology.
- Ask whether the tool has been tested and evaluated for this purpose, and whether such use is generally accepted.
- Document the configuration decisions made inside the tool and who made them.
- For an expert, check reputation, expertise, resources and whether they are subject to professional and ethics standards.
- If you are not in a position to obtain the necessary information, escalate rather than proceed (5320.12 A1).
Common mistakes
- Assessing the tool once, firm-wide, and never against the specific intended purpose.
- Treating a well-known vendor as evidence of appropriateness.
- Testing the data but not the configuration decisions made in using the tool.
- Assuming a technical expert is bound by an ethics code.
- Relying on output nobody on the engagement can explain.
- Confusing R5320.10 with R5300.11, which expressly excludes external experts.