INDEPENDENT ASSURANCE REPORT

To Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg

We have been engaged to perform a limited assurance engagement on the description of the necessary materiality analysis for a sustainability report and selected issues of the Corporate Responsibility Report 2014 of the Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, (hereinafter: the Company), for the business year from January, 1st to December, 31st 2014.1 The sustainability information, which were selected by the Company and reviewed by us, are marked with the following symbols (   ) in the Sustainability Report.

Management’s Responsibility

  • The company’s Board of Managing Directors is responsible for the accurate preparation of the Sustainability Report in accordance with the criteria stated in the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4 of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

This responsibility includes the selection and application of appropriate methods to prepare the Sustainability Report and the use of assumptions and estimates for individual sustainability disclosures which are reasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, the responsibility includes designing, implementing and maintaining systems and processes relevant for the preparation of the report.

Our Independence and Quality Control

We have complied with the independence and other ethical requirements of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA-Codex), which is founded on fundamental principles of integrity, objectivity, pro-fessional competence and due care, confidentiality and professional behavior.
The firm applies International Standard on Quality Control 1 and accordingly maintains a comprehensive system of quality control including documented policies and procedures regarding compliance with ethical requirements, professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Practitioner’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express a conclusion based on our work performed as to whether anything has come to our attention that causes us to believe that:

  • the marked () description of the materiality analysis is necessary for a sustainability report to determine its content and the boundaries of its aspects is not in accordance with the criteria “Stakeholder Inclusiveness”, “Sustainability Context”, “Materiality” and “Completeness” of the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4 and that they were not used during the Sustainability Report’s preparation,
  • the management approaches marked with (  and  ) in the Sustainability Report are not in accordance with the requirements of the standard disclosures G4-DMA of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4 or that
  • the quantitative information marked with ( and  ) in the Company’s Sustainability Report for the business year 2014 , is in material aspects not in accordance with the criteria “Completeness”, “Comparability”, “Accuracy”, “Clarity”, “Timeliness” and “Reliability” of the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4.

It was not part of our engagement to review any additional information outside the scope of the given information or statements.
We also have been engaged to make recommendations for the further development of the sustainability management and the sustainability reporting based on the results of our assurance engagement.
We conducted our work in accordance with the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000. This Standard requires that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the assurance engagement, under consideration of materiality, in order to provide our conclusion with limited assurance.
In a limited assurance engagement the evidence-gathering procedures are more limited than for a reasonable assurance engagement and therefore less assurance is obtained than in a reasonable assurance engagement.
Within the scope of our work we performed amongst others the following procedures concerning the materiality analysis, management approaches and key data – for the aspects that are marked by a check (   ) in the Sustainability Report.

  • Inquiries of personnel responsible for the preparation of the report regarding the process to prepare the reporting of sustainability information and the underlying internal control system;
  • Understanding the Company regarding to its sustainability organizational structure, stakeholder dialogue and development process of the sustainability program;
  • Recording of the systems and processes for collection, analysis, validation and aggregation of sustainability data and their documentation on a sample basis;
  • Performance of site visits as part of the inspection of processes for collecting, analyzing and aggregating selected data at:
    • Skoda Auto a.s., Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic;
    • Volkswagen do Brasil Indústria de Veículos Automotores Ltda., Anchieta, Brazil;
    • FAW-Volkswagen Automotive Company Ltd., Changchun, China
    • Volkswagen Group China, Peking, China
  • Analytical procedures on relevant data;
  • Comparison of corresponding data in the Company‘s Consolidated Financial Statements 2014;
  • Gaining further evidence for selected data of the report through inspection of internal documents, contracts and invoices.

Conclusion

Based on our limited assurance engagement, nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that
  • the marked ( ) description of the materiality analysis, which is necessary for a sustainability report to determine its content and the boundaries of its aspects, is not in accordance with the criteria “Stakeholder Inclusiveness”, “Sustainability Context”, “Materiality” and “Completeness” of the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4 and that they were not used during the report’s preparation,
  • the management approaches marked with (  ) in the Sustainability Report are not in accordance with the requirements of the standard disclosures G4-DMA of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4 or that
  • the quantitative information marked with ( and ) in the Company’s Sustainability Report for the business year 2014 is in material aspects not in accordance with the criteria “Completeness”, “Comparability”, “Accuracy”, “Clarity”, “Timeliness” and “Reliability” of the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Vol. 4.

Emphasis of Matter - Recommendations

Without qualifying our conclusion above, we make the following recommendations for the further development of the Company’s sustainability management and sustainability reporting:

  • For a materiality analysis according to the G4 standard it is necessary to further improve the analysis of consequences for the defined topics in order to enable a stronger focus on the material aspects.

Without limiting the above conclusion, we advise the following recommendations for further improvement of the selected organizational management approaches:

  • More structured presentation of the material management approaches in the report.

Without limiting the above conclusion, we advise the following recommendations for further improvement of the selected organizational key figures:

  • Further standardization and formalization of processes and controls for data collection
  • Explicit differentiation between the Volkswagen Group and the Volkswagen brand in the Sustainability Report
  • Further increase of the coverage of key figures that are used for presenting the Volkswagen Group’s perspective

Hannover, 7th April, 2015

PricewaterhouseCoopers
Aktiengesellschaft
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Frank Hübner
Wirtschaftsprüfer

Michael Conrad
Wirtschaftsprüfer