Independent assurance report to ABF

We conducted our work in accordance with ISAE 3000¹. Our conclusions are based on the limited assurance application of the criteria outlined in the table above.

We conducted our engagement in compliance with the requirements of the IFAC Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the ‘Code’), which requires, among other requirements, that the members of the assurance team (practitioners) as well as the assurance firm (assurance provider) be independent of the assurance client, including not being involved in writing the Report. The Code also includes detailed requirements for practitioners regarding integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality and professional behaviour. KPMG has systems and processes in place to monitor compliance with the Code and to prevent conflicts regarding independence.

The directors of the group are responsible for preparing the Report and related web-text, and the information and statements within it. They are responsible for identification of stakeholders and material issues, for defining objectives with respect to sustainability performance, and for establishing and maintaining appropriate performance management and internal control systems from which reported information is derived.

Our responsibility is to express our conclusions in relation to the above scope. We conducted our engagement with a multidisciplinary team including specialists in corporate responsibility (‘CR’) assurance assurance approaches, stakeholder engagement, auditing environmental, social and financial information and with experience in similar engagements.

This report is made solely to the group in accordance with the terms of our engagement. Our work has been undertaken so that we might state to the group those matters we have been engaged to state in this report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the group for our work, for this report, or for the conclusions we have reached.

We planned and performed our work to obtain all the evidence, information and explanations that we considered necessary in relation to the above scope. Our work included the following procedures using a range of evidence-gathering activities which are further explained below:

For Scope 1 and 2 assurance, KPMG conducted the following:

• interviews with senior management and relevant staff at group level and four selected businesses to gain an understanding of the group’s risk management and CR strategy and policies for material issues and the related methodology for determining the material CR issues, including reviews of risk management maps and their implementation across the group during the 53 weeks to 18 September 2010. Businesses reviewed were selected on the basis of their perceived risk profile and contribution to the group;
• a high-level media analysis and an internet search for references to the group;
• visits to a selection of five sites in the UK and South Africa, and teleconferences with a further three sites in China, South Africa and Australia, to assess case studies against Reporting Principles for Defining Quality of reported information as set out in the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Version 3, which include: Balance; Clarity; Accuracy; Timeliness; Comparability; and Reliability.
• testing of key assertions contained in selected case studies and descriptions of CR risk management and stakeholder engagement through reviewing supporting documentation, conducting interviews with relevant personnel and evidence collection at corporate level and at a selection of local sites, covering internal and external documentation such as correspondence, minutes of meetings, reports, presentations and research and survey results;
• reading the Report to ensure there are no disclosures that are misrepresented or inconsistent with the findings of our work.

For Scope 3, KPMG assessed the work of Environmental Resources Management (‘ERM’) as described by the group in the Environment section here and the Our people section here.

KPMG’s assessment included:

• assessing the competence and objectivity of ERM in conducting its work;
• considering the appropriateness of the scope of its work;
• evaluating the findings of the work and discussing implications with its core team;
• further discussions with group management on issues impacting the scope of ERM’s assurance to obtain additional evidence where necessary and ensure appropriate presentation in the Report;
• assessment of the presentation of the selected health, safety and environment performance data in the Report to ensure consistency with our findings.

Note that KPMG’s review did not include reviewing the source data used by Environmental Resources Management; nor did we re-perform any of its work.

Based on the work performed and scope of our assurance engagement described above:

Assurance Scope 1: On the description of the risk management process:

• Nothing has come to our attention to suggest that the group’s description of the risk management process marked with the symbol Δ here is not a fair representation, in all material respects, of the process used by the group.

Assurance Scope 2: On the description of selected case studies:

• Nothing has come to our attention to suggest that the group’s description of case studies marked with the symbol Δ, in this Report, is not consistent, in all material respects, with the Reporting Principles for Defining Quality of reported information as set out in the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Version 3.

Assurance Scope 3: On the reliability of selected data:

• For tonnes of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes disposed, marked with the symbol Δ in this Report, no single methodology for collecting and recording data has been used by group operating sites. This resulted in insufficient evidence being available to us on which to form an opinion as to whether or not these values are fairly stated, in all material respects, in accordance with the definitions provided by the group at www.abf.co.uk/corporate-responsibility.aspx

• Except for tonnes of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes disposed, nothing has come to our attention to suggest that the performance data marked with the symbol Δ, in this Report are not fairly stated, in all material respects, in accordance with the definitions provided by the group atwww.abf.co.uk/corporate-responsibility.aspx

KPMG LLP (UK)
Chartered Accountants
London
9/11/2010

Assurance standards

1.International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3000: Assurance engagements other than Audits or reviews of Historical information, issued by the International Auditing and Accounting Standards Board.