Let’s face it. Even here at Audit International, we understand Internal audit still suffers from some rather negative stereotypes. There are plenty of companies or units where internal auditors are not welcomed with open arms. Audit clients may view internal audit with suspicion, expecting a “gotcha” mentality or may feel like they are under surveillance.

Sure, it’s often undeserved and some of it comes with the territory, but we may even be perpetuating such negative views with the words we use. Words and phrases that internal auditors consider just a normal part of the profession’s vocabulary may actually be words that trigger negative reactions in our audit clients. And often, internal auditors don’t realize they are contributing to the hostility by using them.

Words matter and good internal auditors choose them carefully. But auditors are also as prone to using professional jargon as anyone. These are words that have become so commonplace that we might not think too much about what they really mean, especially to others. We all use them. Yet, how they might be interpreted may not be how we intended. So, what can we do about it?

Here are seven words that we should consider their meanings more closely and either use them more carefully or strike them from our vocabulary completely.

1. “Finding”
Most internal auditors call what we consider reportable (in writing and verbally) a “finding.” Think about that for a moment, though. It’s not as if the vast majority of our audit observations were hiding or lurking in some hard-to-discover, dark and foreboding place, and it took our best Indiana Jones skills to unearth them. Lo and behold, ah ha! We have a “finding.” The word relates a context of sleuthing and uncovering things that were hidden, perhaps intentionally.

So put yourself in the shoes of your audit clients. We come along and have all these “findings,” as if they weren’t doing their jobs and it took us to find these gems of reportable conditions. Worse yet, we are often reporting as “findings” what audit clients told us directly. How would you feel if someone walked through your house and told you at the end of their visit that they found the carpets needed vacuuming, the furniture needed to be dusted, and relayed a few other of their insufficient housekeeping “findings.” You’d likely be inclined to never invite them back.

Try using the words “observations,” “conclusions,” or “conditions,” rather than “findings.” You may find they work better in your organization. Audit clients will feel less like they are being accused of hiding information or that they didn’t see something that the auditors later uncovered.

2. “Weakness”
When we observe an issue, we also sometimes couch that issue by using another troubling word, “weakness.” We may not be able to avoid calling breakdowns in internal controls, as they relate to SOX-like work, “control weaknesses” if the controls are not working as they should (or at all). But we should avoid calling observations outside of controls “weaknesses,” if possible.

Think about it. You go into the manager’s office during an audit, and you say, “excuse me, if you have a few minutes I’d like to go over a few weaknesses that have come to our attention during our review of your area.” Expect immediate defensiveness. We might as well be criticizing their first-born by pointing out weaknesses in how the child looks or plays with others. The word connotes physical ineptitude and can strike a visceral blow to any manager’s ego.

Like weaknesses, “deficiencies” isn’t any better for all the same reasons. So, perhaps, try “opportunities,” or “matters for attention,” rather than “weaknesses.” Even “challenges” or “difficulties” will garner a better response from audit clients.

3. “Material”
While the term “material” has been part of auditing language forever and, although tough to really quantify, is an important and meaningful word. I mean, if it’s not material why look at it or consider it at all? We also have the SOX-related nomenclature of “material weaknesses” (which people want to avoid as best as possible). Look, if you tell someone something is “material” and it truly is agreed that it is “material,” that’s a big deal.

Yet when we tell someone who is the owner of something that we want to talk with them about a matter that is “material,” what would be the natural reaction of the person on the receiving end of that word? Disbelief, denial, and outright defensiveness are natural human reactions when told something is “material,” in a bad way, which affects them or their responsibilities. Think about being in the doctor’s office because you have not been feeling well. After a bit of consultation and tests, the doctor comes in the room and tells you that there is something “material” to discuss. You are likely to act with disbelief, denial, and defensiveness, naturally. The word conveys an urgency we might not intend. Do we really want our clients to react that way, now or in the future?

Note that “material” has an important legal context. The Securities and Exchange Commission defines “materiality” as anything a reasonable investor would deem relevant to their decisions about whether and how to invest. While it’s important to use this word carefully in this legal context, it’s also easy to adopt the word and use it outside this context, which can result in misusing it. Another problem with “material” is that it implies that everything else isn’t important or that other aspects of an audit client’s work are meaningless, which is not a great sentiment to convey.

So, perhaps, when you don’t really have to use the word “material” (or “significant” for that matter) in consultation or in writing, maybe consider some different language. Hey, there’s something important I want to run by you when you have a moment, and maybe we can write about the top matters for attention without calling them “material” (unless, of course, we must).

4. “Disclosed” or “Uncovered”

Like the word “finding,” the word “disclosed” (or the word “uncovered’) has a similar connotation. It’s as if the issue was hiding and no one knew about it or would ever find it without you, and your brilliance—the internal audit superhero with x-ray vision. OK, sometimes things were truly hidden, unintentionally or, worse yet, purposefully, and we did use our internal audit superpowers to uncover it and then we get to puff our chest and—cue music here—disclose it. But, come on, that’s rare.

Yet, we use the terminology all the time. For example, resulting from of our testing, it was disclosed that blah, blah, blah. Or, based on our review of the area, it was uncovered that yada, yada, yada. Now, if you’ve got sneaky and underhanded clients, who are going around hiding stuff from you that you truly uncovered and want to disclose to the world, then fine. But most clients don’t do that, and you want to collaborate with them in the future.

Imagine how you’d feel if the external team you hired to do your Quality Assurance Review (QAR) started telling everyone, verbally and in writing, what their work (and only their work) disclosed and uncovered in your internal audit department? How would you react to that? “Disclosed” implies that something was formerly a secret and now you are airing the dirty laundry out for the world to see.

So, maybe we need to back off the “disclosed” and “uncovered” language, at least a bit. Options might include, “along with management, we identified …,” “taking full stock of the evidence, it can be concluded that …,” “testing demonstrated that …,” or similar language. Just don’t use “revealed” instead. That’s just as bad.

5. “Entrance” and “Exit”
OK, you may need to bear with me a bit on this one.

We’re going to start an audit project, and our first meeting with the client is called, in many companies, an “entrance meeting.” Then, when we’ve concluded all our fieldwork, what do we call the last meeting with the client to wrap things up and ride off into the sunset to work on the audit report for weeks on end? The “exit meeting.” They are decent terms, descriptive of exactly what they are … our entrance (ugh, the auditors are here) and our exit (yes, they are leaving, let’s party).

Let me ask you this, though. Is this audit, the one you are doing an entrance into and an exit from, the first and last time you will ever see these folks? I sure hope you have an ongoing relationship and are interacting all year long, or at least on occasion. If that’s the case, there is no entrance and there is no exit because, like the song Hotel California, you may never leave. And, if you’ve done your relationship management right, they are happy about that.

The point is that “entrance” and “exit” are old-school terms from when we did things on a cyclical basis and may or may not come back. Back then, relationship-building was less important and audits had a fixed beginning and end. So, maybe we need to stop calling them “entrance meetings” and “exit meetings,” and just call them something else that isn’t so clinical and auditor sounding. Schedule your Project Introduction Meeting at the beginning and, maybe, your Project Wrap-Up Session at the end, or something like that. And, if you are well down the path of an agile implementation, all that entrance and exit stuff becomes moot anyway.

6. “Consulting”
Back in 1999, the Institute of Internal Auditors introduced the well-accepted and globally codified definition of Internal Auditing as: “An independent, objective assurance and consulting [emphasis added] activity designed to add value…” Back then, the word “consulting” was viewed positively. And, for internal audit to be positioned to not only provide assurance, but to also be viewed as a consultant? Well, to borrow a ’90s term, that would be “da bomb!”

But, somewhere along the way, the word “consulting” came to be viewed less positively, and we’ve started to insert the word advising to soften the term. Should we blame consultants for tarnishing a good word, and making people view consultants and, in turn, consulting, negatively? Perhaps, but that’s not the point.

We all want to be advisors, and the gold standard, the place to be, the coolest accolade, would be to be trusted and be an advisor. So, in our pursuit of being that vaulted trusted advisor, let’s drop the word consulting from our vocabulary, once and for all. Look, your clients might want to “consult” with you, but hopefully you are “advising” them.

7. “Satisfactory”
Often, we as auditors don’t want to overcommit, and use words that might get us into trouble later if something is determined to be different than our work concluded. There is just so much we can evaluate and then we must draw a conclusion and move on. So, we settle on words like “satisfactory,” even if things are notably better than the word implies. From an internal audit perspective, we are hedging out bets. We don’t want to be overly flowery with praise, and just conclude something is either “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” or “unsatisfactory.”

Put yourself on the other side of the table. Let’s say, for instance, you’ve worked hard at something, gone the extra mile, and made sure it was done exceptionally well. Then, someone comes in, looks it over, and decides that things seem “satisfactory.” Ouch, gut punch! You put in a ton of effort, expected to get an “A” grade, and the professor gives you a “C.” That’s kind of deflating.

Let’s not forget that the word “satisfactory” means acceptable or good enough, but not outstanding or great. Yes, there are reasons to fall on the crutch of concluding, placing our highest auditor grade on something, that it is “satisfactory.” But, perhaps, if we can avoid it, we take the risk, rely on our work, and conclude that something better than a measly “satisfactory.” Don’t be afraid to say if something is exceptional, great, works well, or exceeds the requirement.

The Last Word
There is a lengthy list of good reasons, justifications, and rationalizations for why we use the words we do as internal auditors. Many of them have stood the test of time. Many are in use, and still exist, because we are hearing the world through our own ears, and not our clients’.

If we stop for a minute, and consider what these words sound like and what they actually mean, and the impressions they may leave on the ears of our clients who hear them, perhaps they are not the best words to use. Perceptions are reality, and if you want to change perceptions, maybe one way to do that is to change our vocabulary. In other words, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

Audit International believe effective communication of information on risks associated with hazards and control measures, is an essential and integral component within the risk assessment process. The fundamental goal to communicate the outcome of your risk assessment thereafter to the rest of the organization, contributes to the health and safety of your (peer) employees.

A risk assessment is usually executed by you as a safety professional, being part of the safety department of an organization. For you, the outcome of the risk assessment is often quite clear and simple to follow. However, struggles do arise to communicate about risk outside the safety department. How do you communicate to different organizational levels effectively? How do you make sure everyone in your organization is not only aware of, and but also understands the risks they are dealing with? Audit International have these tips.

In this short blog, we will focus on the Communication and Consultation step. You must communicate about your risks and its treatment, but how do you handle this? If you communicate too much no one will know what to listen to nor remember it. If you communicate too little, no one will understand the context or details of the information. Use the tips below to overcome such struggles.

Tips for effective risk communication:
1. Have a common ground
Before talking about risks, people need to understand the basic concepts of safety. Do not assume that everyone is on the same page regarding risks. Define concepts clearly to avoid confusion. Make sure that there is a common definition of risk established, so employees manage risk based on the common concept and view of what constitutes as risks. Inform your organization about the nature of the risk management and why you are doing it.

2. Make sure everyone can understand
As you communicate to different levels and departments in de organization, it is convenient to tailor your message to the one who receives the message. One of the goals for risk communication is to provide meaningful, relevant, and accurate information in clear and understandable terms. Be aware that these criteria can be different for people on the operational work floor than for higher management. Adjust your information to your target audience, so everyone in the organization knows their role in managing the risks they face. This will help you filter the information effectively.

3. Consider the form of communication
How often do you want to communicate to your colleagues? Depending on which colleagues, this could be every day, every week, monthly, or yearly. If the frequency is yearly, writing a report will not be too much trouble. If the frequency is weekly, writing a report will likely be too time-consuming to create and read. It won’t be long before your employees are demotivated which will likely lead to less clear communication – or worse, confusing communication! Think about other ways of communication, such as videos, posters, or interactive means. A one-sided communication strategy is likely to be less effective.

4. Build a sense of inclusiveness and ownership
You know that managing risk is not a one-person job. This process involves different departments and colleagues. It is impossible to manage risk effectively if there is no communication and consolation with each colleague that is involved – with each stakeholder. To optimize the communication and consultation you need to make sure that each stakeholder understands, knows and agrees what is expected from them in relation to the management of risk.

By communicating on risk management, you will involve your colleagues and create inclusiveness and ownership. Ownership is important, because let’s face it: risks that are not owned are often not managed. Clarity on personal responsibilities is very important to prevent incidents from happening. There is no need to have accidents that could have been prevented through effective communication between stakeholders.

Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

As the threat of climate change mounts, Audit International know that businesses must take steps to counter its damaging effects. This is in order to meet ambitious government Net Zero targets, which aim to halve emissions in a little over a decade.

The promising news is that the majority of organisations now understand that sustainability must be made a priority when it comes to devising their overall strategy.

However, companies are often left in the dark as to how best to report on their ESG credentials in a way that’s impactful and means something to shareholders and other stakeholders. It’s clear that what’s needed is a uniform set of standards for measurement and reporting, just as there is for financial performance. This is particularly prevalent in the Accounting sector, where calls are increasingly being made to introduce universal and transparent ESG standards.

However, the world of sustainability reporting is a confusing and often disparate mass of names and frameworks. They include the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

The good news is that a forerunner has emerged that promises to offer a single source of truth when it comes to ESG reporting. It is called the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The ISSB will do for sustainability reporting what the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) does for financial reporting. That is, develop standards for companies to report their performance to investors. Both will be under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation umbrella.

Where did the new framework originate and what exactly is it?

Created at 2021’s COP26, ISSB will provide a global baseline for high-quality sustainability reporting that supports the work being done in the US by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the European Union (EU)’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

The ISSB is focused on ‘single materiality’ or the ESG information that drives valuation and matters most to investors. This is also the focus of the SEC and so the mandates are consistent. In contrast, the CSRD has a broader ‘double materiality’ mandate, which means it will cover information of interest to stakeholders, even if it is not of interest to investors. Linking the two is the concept of ‘dynamic materiality’, meaning that more light can be shed on ESG issues – such as climate change – moving forwards.

The ideal outcome is that ISSB becomes a global standard which integrates the work of all previous standards and frameworks focused on investor needs. Ideally, the SEC and EU can use its standards. The EU can then top these standards up with those covering double materiality. As dynamic materiality makes these relevant to investors, the ISSB can then take over responsibility for the standard setting process.

How can ISSB success be achieved?

The corporate community has a key role to play in ensuring the success of the ISSB. Investors are increasingly demanding information on a company of interest’s sustainability performance. At the same time, companies are increasingly being accused of greenwashing their sustainability reporting by making it appear more environmentally sound than it is.

Having standards, with proper audits, addresses both issues. That said, it’s important to note that standards aren’t targets for issues like carbon emissions or diversity and inclusion. Rather, they provide credible information on the reporting done by a company on its progress in achieving whatever targets it decides to set, if any.

While ensuring that ISSB is a success, companies can also take steps to secure their own long-term viability. The first way is to participate in the standard setting process. As with financial standard setting, exposure drafts for proposed standards will be published in the public domain. Companies need to join investors in providing their input, including constructive critiques. If a company has an opportunity to participate in any advisory councils and working groups or share its views in comment letters, it should make the effort to do so.

The second approach is to proactively adopt these standards. There will be an inevitable lag between when the standards are published and the country in which the company is headquartered making them mandatory. However, those who wait will likely lose out.

As some companies quickly adopt ISSB’s standards, investor pressure will mount for others to follow suit so they can compare companies’ performance and do their own analysis. Failure to report won’t give a company the benefit of the doubt. Rather, investors will likely assume the worst, all to the possible detriment of the company’s stock price.

Ultimately, the ISSB will make life better for any company which cares about having a sustainable, long-term corporate strategy. Therefore, companies should give their full support to make these standards the best and most accurate they can be.

​“Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

A recent study revealed that 82% of finance and business leaders must comply with sustainability requirements or ESG regulations. Even without mandatory regulatory standards in place, Audit International would bet their bottom dollar that more companies would voluntarily take on sustainability initiatives and thus, produce ESG reports.

Why? Because more stakeholders are looking.

The number of parties with vested interests in ESG performance has dramatically increased. The tendency is to think of investors as the sole consumer, judge, and jury of ESG reports, but that’s changing, especially as other stakeholders find themselves subject to ESG expectations.

So, who’s really looking at your ESG reports? And why do they care?

Investors
Let’s start with the obvious: investors! Today’s investors want to ensure their money supports organizations that align with their values. Increasingly, those values are moving further and further away from brown stocks. Investors are leaning away from companies that might risk damaging the environment, operate with inequities, or are vulnerable to corruption.

While sustainable investing is value-based for many investors, it’s also the safer, more lucrative investment in many cases.

A study by Nordea Equity Research reported that, over three years, companies with high ESG ratings outperformed the lowest-rated companies by as much as 40%.

A Bank of America Merrill Lynch study found that firms with a healthier ESG record yielded higher three-year returns. They were also more likely to become high-quality stocks, less likely to experience significant price drops, and less likely to go bankrupt.

All this to say, an ESG score isn’t just a number. It indicates to investors that your company is a proactive, forward-thinking entity that will satisfy the investor’s need for ROI and their conscience.

Internal stakeholders
Many stakeholders within a business can benefit from ESG performance data.

For example:

Sales and marketing can use ESG data to showcase a company’s sustainability performance in their efforts to entice new customers.
IR and PR teams can tout ESG successes to improve the company’s reputation.
HR reps can use social data to attract talent.
Finance teams and chief executives can use ESG insights to improve profitability, contain costs, identify new business opportunities, and recognize areas of investment and divestment when ESG data is connected to financial performance.
Organizations can put ESG performance data to work in many ways. Regarding business value, ESG reports can give every department leverage in furthering the growth and goodwill towards an organization.

ESG scoring bodies
A good ESG score is a golden ticket to a favorable ESG reputation. To receive one, you’ll have to complete surveys or create reports designed by third-party providers, who then calculate ESG scores based on the metrics and ESG performance you reported. Like a credit score or a bond rating, an ESG score demonstrates your company’s ability to meet its ESG commitments, performance, and risk exposure.

Notable ESG scoring organizations are Bloomberg ESG Data Services, Sustainalytics, ESG Risk Ratings, JUST Capital, MSCI, Refinitiv, Dow Jones Sustainability Index Family, and RepRisk.

Banks and financial institutions
Banks, capital markets, and wealth managers are moving towards ESG agendas. This is not just an ethical move but one of demand, risk, and reward.

In terms of demand, millennials lean significantly towards sustainable investments. A survey by EY found that millennials are twice as likely to invest in a fund or stock if social responsibility is a component of the value creation narrative. (Might I remind you millennials are the demographic soon to be society’s primary wealth holders.)

In terms of risk, the liability to banks is two-fold. First, banks are subject to the same sustainability scrutiny as other businesses — customers want to bank with sustainably responsible banks. And second, banks face similar challenges to investors: lending to companies that aren’t sustainable could also pose threats to their business. Will a coal mine be able to repay its debts when sustainable alternatives take over? While banks might not be in this scenario just yet, in the future, it’s possible that businesses could see requests for funding denied if they don’t prove to be sustainable enough.

In terms of reward, again, we see companies with strong ESG performing better than those with weak ESG. An analysis completed by global investment manager BlackRock found that up to 88% of sustainable funds outperformed their non-sustainable counterparts between January 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. Why would a wealth manager allocate funds to an unsustainable stock when a more sustainable and equally (if not more) profitable alternative exists? Why choose to lose/win when you could choose to win/win?

Regulators
Incoming! A stampede of regulations is making its way into the ESG reporting arena. Two regulations of note are:

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD)

In February 2022, the European Commission published a draft of the CSDD. If passed, the CSDD would require companies to disclose the impacts of their operations on human rights and the environment.

The US’s new climate-related disclosures

In March 2022, the SEC proposed expansive new climate-related disclosures related to greenhouse gas emissions, climate risks, transition plans, and governance.

Sullivan and Cromwell LLP has a great round-up of the latest (up to May 2022) ESG regulatory advancements here. The bottom line: ESG is being written into everything from litigation to financial institutions, disclosure and governance, and law. While your particular flavor of ESG regulation will be subject to your jurisdiction and industry, you can bet on increased regulatory scrutiny coming your way soon.

Consumers
B2C companies find themselves with a consumer who cares about their product, how it’s made, and who’s making it. Recent PWC research found that:

Consumers aged 17 – 38 years are almost twice as likely to consider ESG issues when making purchasing decisions than others.
Over half of consumers surveyed said that a company’s purpose and values played a role in their purchasing decisions.
49% of consumers and 66% of millennials use the internet to learn more about a company’s ESG practices before buying a product or service.
From this, we can conclude a few things. The future of the sales will be dependent on ESG performance. And consumers aren’t satisfied with marketing promises — they want the ESG evidence, and your reports will be front in center of their investigations.

Everyone’s looking at ESG
Don’t make stakeholders struggle to seek out your ESG performance. By using a corporate performance management approach to ESG reporting, you can tell your sustainability story, disclose according to multiple new and evolving frameworks, and connect financial outcomes, operational activities, and ESG performance to ensure sustainability is always tied to doing good for the earth, people, and your bottom line.

“Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.

If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
– Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
– US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
– info@audit-international.com”

Here at Audit International, we have always been on the lookout for clever ways to describe internal audit’s role in an organization.

Elevator speeches are fine when you have 60 seconds to describe the value your profession brings to an uninformed bystander. However, an elevator speech doesn’t hold a candle to a well-crafted sound bite that will leave a lasting impression.
One of our favorites used to be “internal audit is the brakes that allows the organization to drive faster.” The reasoning behind this analogy is that brakes are a critical component in a vehicle. To be sure, they are used to prohibit a vehicle from moving. But more importantly, brakes are crucial to maintaining control of a vehicle. Of course, well-resourced, independent internal audit functions add little value if they impede an organization’s ability to take risks and achieve results. But they add value when, like brakes on a car, they empower management and the board with information to slow down or stop if critical risks lie ahead.
Over the years, Audit International have come to view the “internal audit-as-brakes” analogy to be a bit outdated. It envisions internal audit as being primarily control-focused. Today, internal audit provides much greater value than merely a set of brakes. After all, a vehicle with an outstanding braking system can still end up in the wrong place. Brakes are great for stopping or slowing down. However, they do little to help change course. Internal audit in the 2020’s must be help create – not just protect value!
We believe a more powerful analogy is that internal audit is a critical component of an organization’s navigation system. Consider the value of a modern navigation system. Once the departing and arriving locations are entered, a navigation system provides timely and crucial feedback on the progress of the journey. The friendly voice provides turn-by-turn advice on reaching the destination. It recognizes when a turn has been missed, and quickly alerts the driver to “make a legal U-turn.” It can be programmed to recommend routes that are faster, less congested, or avoid tolls. Some alert the driver when the speed limit is being exceeded, or the vehicle is being taken on unsafe roads.
Much like the navigation system in a vehicle, internal audit shows its powerful value by:
• Providing assurance that the organization is progressing on the course charted by management and the board.
• Providing recommended corrective actions when the organization is off course (please make a legal U-turn).
• Identifying risks in advance (much like a navigation system warns of an accident or road congestion ahead).
• Alerting management and the board of compliance risks/failures (think excessive speed).
• Providing assurance that the organization has “arrived at its destination.”
To succeed, organizations in the 21st century must manage risks – both internal and external, whether related to finance, operations, strategy, technology, regulations, or reputation. While organizations are raising the bar on effective risk management, executives face extraordinary headwinds spawned by a turbulent environment in which risks materialize virtually overnight. In the past five years, we’ve faced the most extraordinary global pandemic in more than a century, more global financial turmoil, cybersecurity breaches that even target our infrastructure, corporate failures, and more. In the immediate future, we are facing the prospect of severe supply chain disruptions, inflationary pressures not seen in 40 years, and likely more nasty surprises from COVID-19. Relying on a good braking system will be inadequate to navigate the hills and valleys that lie ahead. Instead, organizations need strong navigation systems with well-resourced and independent internal audit functions fully integrated to succeed.
Granted, Audit Internationals updated analogy may be oversimplified. Strong internal audit functions add value in a multitude of ways, and we are never more critical that management and the board in navigating risks that our organizations face. However, I find it is useful to think through analogies such as this one so that I can better articulate internal audit’s role in ways that everyone can understand.
We welcome your thoughts.

“Audit International are specialists in the recruitment of Auditors and various Corporate Governance Professionals including Internal Audit, Cyber Security, Compliance, IT Audit, Data Analytics etc across Europe and the US.
If you would like to reach out to discuss your current requirements, please feel free to reach us via any of the following:
Calling
• Switzerland 0041 4350 830 59 or
• US 001 917 508 5615
E-mail:
• info@audit-international.com”