Our recommendations for choosing an OTI for a clear, fluid, and credible audit.

For a long time, non-financial audits were perceived as a subject reserved for large companies. Today, the reality is quite different.
CSRD, a mission-driven company, GES balance sheet, CSR indicators, ESG reporting… companies of all sizes now have to demonstrate the reliability of their non-financial data, sometimes within very short deadlines. And on the ground, the same concern is recurring everywhere.
“How can we prevent this audit from becoming a gas plant?”
Collecting scattered data, Excel files that are impossible to maintain, evidence that is difficult to find, teams that are called in at short notice, a lack of understanding of the level of required standards… many companies are discovering that the difficulty lies not only in the regulations themselves.
The real challenge is often elsewhere: successfully building an audit process that is understandable, traceable, and reproducible.
In this context, the choice of the OTI becomes a structuring decision.
And contrary to some common misconceptions, the difference is not solely determined by regulatory qualifications.

What exactly does an OTI do?

An Independent third-party body (OTI) Intervenes to verify the authenticity, consistency and traceability of non-financial information published by a company. Depending on the case, this verification may concern:

• a CSRD reporting;
• ESG or CSR indicators;
• a quality of mission-driven company;
• a GHG balance;
• a transition plan;
• certain environmental or social commitments.

The objective of an audit is not to judge a company’s strategy or to punish an organization because it is not “perfect”. The verification work consists primarily of assessing:

• the consistency of the methods used;
• the reliability of the data produced;
• the ability to explain the assumptions made;
• the existence of evidence and traceability processes.

This is an essential point. Many companies still imagine that an extra-financial audit requires immediately comprehensive and impeccable data.
In reality, collection difficulties, estimates or methodological limitations exist in almost all organizations, especially for complex topics such as Scope 3 or social indicators. The central question often becomes: “Is the company able to explain clearly, documented and coherently how its data were produced?”

Why do audits become “gas chambers”?

The problem usually does not stem from the verification itself. It comes from the fact that many companies still approach ESG issues as isolated projects, when they are based on complex and cross-cutting information flows. On the ground, the same situations recur regularly.

A scattered collection of data

The useful information is distributed among several services:

• purchases;
• HR;
• finance;
• exploitation;
• quality;
• logistics;
• energy;
• suppliers.

The result: teams sometimes spend more time searching for the data than analyzing it.

An indicator may seem consistent… until the moment when the exact origin of the figure has to be found. Invoices, ERP exports, supplier questionnaires, calculation methodologies, internal supporting documents: when the evidence is not organized from the outset, the verification phase quickly becomes time-consuming.

Many companies still centralize their indicators in evolving Excel files. This sometimes works at startup. But as obligations increase, versions multiply, calculations become less readable, and historical traceability becomes more difficult.

• In many organizations, responsibilities remain poorly defined.
• Who validates the data?
• Who documents the hypotheses?
• Who arbitrates the differences?
• Who keeps the evidence?

Without clear governance, preparing for an audit mobilizes teams in an emergency.

When an organization prepares a CSRD audit, a mission-based company audit, or an verification of CSR indicators, it is not only looking for an organization authorized to carry out a mission.
She is primarily looking for a framework of work that is understandable. And this is often where the difference lies. All the market players operate within a demanding regulatory framework. But the expectations of companies today focus on other issues.

1. Clearly understand what will be expected

One of the main sources of stress comes from ambiguity. Many companies don’t know:

• what level of evidence to prepare;
• how to document an estimate;
• what limitations must be explained;
• how certain assumptions will be appreciated;
• This is a normal difficulty or a real point of blockage.

When the process lacks clarity, the audit can quickly be perceived as a succession of unexpected back-and-forths. Conversely, a clear verification framework often makes preparing the audit considerably more fluid.

2. Avoid documentary chaos

The objective is not simply to produce indicators. The real challenge is often to be able to:

• to retrieve the information;
• explaining its origin;
• justify the assumptions made;
• maintain consistency over time.

In other words: make the data auditable. This is particularly true for:

• the Scope 3 data;
• social indicators;
• the provider's data;
• the transition plans;
• the corporate objectives with a mission.

Companies are therefore primarily looking for methods that make traceability simpler and more reproducible from one year to the next.

3. Make the audit sustainable for the teams

One of the most common blind spots concerns operational costs. An extra-financial audit can trigger:

• the CSR departments;
• the DAFs;
• HR;
• the purchases;
• the field teams;
• the general directorates.

When responsibilities are poorly distributed or requests arrive late, teams feel that they are being made to suffer by the project. Conversely, a structured audit that is clear and readable significantly reduces internal tensions.

The often overlooked criteria when choosing an OT

Many companies naturally compare:

• the references;
• the sectors of activity;
• the deadlines;
• the prices.

These elements are obviously important. But in practice, the difficulties encountered during audits often stem from other factors, which are much less visible at first.

The ability to make expectations understandable

An audit rarely becomes complex solely because of standards. It becomes complex when the teams do not understand clearly:

• what is expected;
• at what time;
• in what format;
• with what level of detail.

The quality of the initial framing is therefore decisive.

The stability of the interlocutors

An extra-financial audit often involves several months of work. The continuity of the exchanges and the gradual knowledge of the organization play an important role in the fluidity of the process. When the interlocutors change regularly, companies often have to re-explain their methods, constraints, or data histories.

The ability to work with imperfect but explainable data

Very few companies today have a fully stabilized ESG system. The issue is therefore not solely the “perfection” of the data. The challenge is often the ability to:

• explain a methodology;
• documenting an approximation;
• to make a calculation;
• identify limits;
• demonstrating coherent logic.

This is particularly true during the first years of compliance.

The readability of the audit process

Companies often dread audits because they fear a succession of unpredictable requests. When the steps are clear:

• framing;
• collection;
• documentary review;
• exchanges;
• finalization;

The preparation usually becomes more relaxed.

What the extra-financial audits really look at

Contrary to some common misconceptions, audits are not solely based on the volume of indicators produced. The points of attention often include:

• the consistency between the data and the methods used;
• the traceability of the calculations;
• the ability to retrieve the supporting documents;
• the documentation of the assumptions;
• the reproducibility of the processes;
• the governance of data.

In other words: an organization that is able to explain its reasoning clearly is often better prepared than an organization that has a large amount of data but is poorly structured.

CSRD, a mission-driven company, GES report: different realities but the same problem

Regulatory frameworks differ. But companies often face the same difficulties.

In CSRD

The main difficulty generally concerns:

• the Scope 3 ;
• the provider data ;
• the multiplication of indicators;
• the coordination between departments.

For companies with a mission

The subject often becomes more sensitive in terms of reputation. Companies must be able to demonstrate:

• consistency between the mission and the actions;
• the existence of monitored indicators;
• the reality of the governance arrangements.

For GHG inventories

The difficulty often lies in:

• the collection of data;
• the stability of the emission factors;
• the justification of the assumptions;
• the ability to build a credible transition plan.

In all cases, the central theme remains the same: how to build reliable, explainable, and traceable information without disrupting the company.

Three essential ideas to remember before choosing an OTI

1. An extra-financial audit is not solely a regulatory issue

It is first and foremost a matter of data organization. The companies that have the least difficulties are rarely the ones that have the largest number of indicators. They are often those that know how to:

• document their methods;
• to recover their evidence;
• explain their hypotheses;
• structure their governance.

2. The fluidity of the process is as important as technical expertise

Regulatory qualifications are a prerequisite for the market. But in the operational reality, companies primarily seek:

• of readability;
• of stability;
• of clarity;
• a method that is understandable;
• a sustainable process for the teams.

An audit rarely becomes a “gas chamber” because of a single indicator. It becomes one when the organizational structure and the flow of information are not sufficiently structured.

3. The early years often serve to build a sustainable system

Many companies believe they need to reach a level of maturity immediately. In practice, the first campaigns often serve to:

• identify vulnerable areas;
• clarify responsibilities;
• gradually make the data more reliable;
• structure the traceability;
• improving the processes year after year.

The objective is not just to “conduct an audit”. The main challenge is to build a system that can remain consistent, understandable, and usable over time.

In conclusion

The CSRD audits, the audits of CSR indicators or the controls related to companies with a mission They do not become complex solely because of regulations. They become difficult when data is scattered, responsibilities are unclear, or expectations remain misunderstood. Today, companies primarily seek:

• readable processes;
• clear traceability;
• explainable methods;
• a sustainable organization for the teams.

The choice of an OTI is therefore not limited to a question of compliance. It is also about choosing a verification framework capable of making the audit clearer, more fluid and more reproducible over time. Because a useful non-financial audit is not the one that produces the most complexity. It is the one that allows the company to better understand, structure and secure its information without turning the process into a gas factory.

Do you want to discuss the structuring of your data or the preparation of your verification? Contact us!