We have studied carefully wine competition governance, both in SA and abroad. We conclude that corporate governance is typically not high on the agenda of wine challenges and best practice is not often showcased. Vested interests can blur the boundaries of independence and integrity, and make opaque that which should be transparent and clear.
The Top 100 SA Wine Challenge is compelling in that the judging process and judges themselves are distinct and separate from the business. Judges have a professional responsibility to discharge. They are paid a professional fee for fulfilling their judging responsibilities.
At the request of the organisers of the Top 100 SA Wines Challenge for 2012, we evaluated the attached list of Top 100 SA Wines with regards to their correct identification and recording as such, for inclusion in the Top In order for us to express an opinion on the correct indentification and recording of these wines on this list, we have carried out certain procedures, which are summarised as follows:
1. We obtained information from the challenge organisers with regards to the processes to be followed during the tasting, scoring and evaluation of wines entered into the challenge. We also held discussions with judges and competition personel to obtain further information in this regard.
2. We physically observed part of the initial tasting of wines by judges to determine whether judging was taking place as per the methodology and protocol explained to us. At this time we also observed the performance of the tasting director and his staff with regards to ensuring that the competition was being carried out as a blind (unsighted) competition. During our attendance we also obtained sample copies of judges scoresheets for later evaluation when collating results.
3. We obtained a master list of all entrants into the challenge, and randomly selected certain wines, which we processed through the judging, scoring and evaluation systems to determine whether they qualified as Top 100 SA Wines or not. We have not reviewed the entry procedures.
4. On a test basis we selected a sample of wines that achieved Top 100 SA Wine status, together with a sample that did not qualify as Top 100 SA Wines. These wines were then followed through the various stages of the competition from initial tasting to compilation of the final winning wines list to confirm their status.
Organiser's Responsibilty
The organiser's are responsible for the presentation of the Top 100 SA Wines Challenge for 2012. This includes
designing, implementing and maintaining the necessary procedures to ensure that an objective, independent
and profesional rating of all the South African wines that have been entered for the 2012 Challenge.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion whether the Top 100 SA Wines were correctly identified and recorded
as such for 2012, after reviweing, observing and testing the processes followed in making this determination.
We planned and performed our audit in order to obtain reasonable assurance as regards our opinion. This involved performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the competition and the processes followed by judges and competition staff. The procedures followed were dependent on our professional judgement.
We believe that the audit evidence we obtained was sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Audit Opinion
Our procedures revealed nothing which caused us to believe that the Top 100 winning wines were not correctly
identified and recorded as such in respect of the 2012 Challenge.
We advise that our procedures were limited to those summarised above, and had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported.
Restriction on Use of the Auditor's Report
Our report is solely for the purpose set out in the first paragraph of this report, and is not to be used for any
other purpose.
