It seems like all anyone is talking about nowadays is AI, and Audit International want to know “Can AI enable compliant electronic communications at scale?”

Internal auditors and risk & compliance teams play a critical role in ensuring that organisations are compliant with relevant regulations and policies. However, with the proliferation of electronic communication platforms, the greater embeddedness of electronic communications in our day-to-day work, and the increasing complexity of regulatory requirements, the job of internal auditors and risk & compliance teams has become more challenging.

Over the past decade, we have seen the use of electronic communication in business evolve to the point where we cannot imagine working without it. At the same time, the recent years have seen electronic communication, such as emails and instant messages, increasingly be at the core of regulatory investigations and compliance breaches, with examples all across the media. While electronic communication has transformed the way we work, it also exposes companies to a series of risks that can result in regulatory fines and litigation, causing significant reputational damage and financial loss.

A key challenge is that employees are generally relied upon to observe regulations and corporate policies in their day-to-day communications. Yet they typically receive little support beyond an initial training on compliant communication and are held responsible when things go wrong. The average office worker sends 10,000 emails per year, and it only takes one mistake to get them and their company into trouble. Moreover, traditional compliance training is reactive and simply does not prevent all the breaches that can occur. This is where technology can be leveraged to assist employees in their day-to-day work and, in the long run, create a stronger work culture.

Fortunately, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are now making it possible to achieve proactive compliance at scale through real-time risk prevention, which can make the job of both employees and risk & compliance teams easier and more effective. One of the key advantages of using AI is that it can help to reduce the burden of manual compliance monitoring tasks, enabling internal auditors and risk & compliance teams to focus on higher value-added activities. By leveraging AI technologies like natural language processing and machine learning, it is now possible to monitor electronic communications at scale, analysing them for potential compliance issues in real time and assisting users to mitigate potential risks before they occur. This can help to streamline compliance management processes, enabling risk & compliance teams to more efficiently manage compliance and minimise the risk of costly violations.

Another advantage of using AI is that it can help to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of compliance monitoring. Traditional compliance monitoring methods often involve manually reviewing vast quantities of data, which can be time-consuming and error-prone. By contrast, AI can analyse data in real time, automatically flagging potential compliance issues and providing actionable insights to internal auditors. This can help organisations to stay ahead of evolving regulations and minimise the risk of compliance violations.

AI can also help improve the quality of compliance monitoring by enabling internal auditors and compliance teams to more effectively identify and address compliance issues. By analysing electronic communications for potential compliance risks, AI algorithms can help pinpoint areas of concern in real time, enabling internal auditors to focus their efforts on the most critical compliance issues. This can help to prioritise compliance monitoring efforts and ensure that internal auditors and compliance teams are able to take a more targeted and effective approach to compliance management.

The use of AI can therefore help organisations achieve proactive and continuous compliance at scale. It can help shift the focus from reactive responses to compliance breaches towards proactive compliance through real-time risk prevention. As AI technologies continue to evolve, we can expect to see more innovative solutions emerging in this space, enhancing the capacity and supporting the critical work of internal auditors and risk & compliance teams.

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

At Audit International, we understand auditing organizational culture is a challenging area for internal audit. Culture is dynamic, and regularly changing. Successful auditing of culture requires a holistic approach across the internal audit function covering the development of internal auditor skills, adjustment to audit methodology, and buy-in from the business regarding the value insightful culture auditing can bring.

In this first article of a three-part series, Audit International examine and discuss the various factors for successfully auditing and influencing culture in your organization.

What is organizational culture, and why does it matter?
Before looking at how you audit culture, it’s necessary to first have a good understanding of what you mean by culture and why it’s important to organizational success.

The classic definition is around the phrase coined by Charles Handy, “the way things are done around here”. While helpful for us to gain insights into auditing culture, we need to unpack this further. Culture is about the interaction between values and behaviors and how these are seen in the organization’s activities and interactions with the range of stakeholders it has (e.g., employees, customers, suppliers, and society).

Top ten tips:
Given the fact that you are reading this article, hopefully you are already convinced that internal audit has a role to play within the organization when it comes to assessing culture. You may already be on this journey delivering cultural insights through your work to your Board, or you may simply be interested in learning more about how to begin this journey. Whichever stage you find yourself, the following top 10 tips will provide you with some initial and practical thoughts that provide a view on culture and the direction needed to influence both management and the Board.
1 – Identify your cultural levers
2- Reputation, Identify whether the organizations actions and messaging, internal and external, are aligned
3- Leadership, Do they own and manage the culture?
4- People Management, Is desired culture integrated into people-management activities?
5- Identify key processes and access alignment.
6- Auditing culture, is this holistic approach being considered by a wide range of stakeholders?
7- Be sure that you consider both design and operating effectiveness.
8- Don’t go for a grand plan.
9- Collaborate with your business colleagues, independence is a mindset.
10- Upskill all auditors at all levels.

In the coming second and third articles of this three-part series on auditing culture, Audit International will take a closer look and provide a more in-depth examination of each of these suggested ten tips. These follow-up articles will offer examples and provide opportunities to more successfully audit and influence the culture at your organization.

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”

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 are stating the main Risks and Actions companies are putting on their 2023 internal audit plans. The past year concentrated attention and shone a spotlight on the increasing fragility of organizations. With a complex set of risks manifesting simultaneously, audit committees are prioritizing some of the most serious implications resulting from the ongoing war in Europe and a triple squeeze of supply chain, workforce and inflation pressures.

According to data from Gartner’s 2023 Audit Plan Hot Spots report, which identifies the key risks and recommended actions for Audit to benchmark their efforts against in the coming year, 81 percent of Chief Audit Executives polled have cyberthreats on their agenda to cover in audit activities over the next 12-18 months, with an additional 13 percent tentatively planning to do so. Even in a year with a high number of varied and seemingly imminent risks facing organizations, cyberthreats remained an agenda topping item for Audit Committees and senior executives as the drivers of the risk shifted from a generalized focus on inadequate security controls to specific need to prepare for highly sophisticated state-sponsored cyberthreats and new cyber breach disclosure requirements. Even as some risks remain perennial threats, shifting drivers can change the nature of the risk and need for updated mitigation and coverage plans.

Cyberthreats, however, are not the only vulnerability an organization faces in an increasingly fragile world. In developing this year’s report, the need for Audit to support their organizations through rethinking their approach to resilience in the face of growing fragility became evident as a key theme underlying several top organizational risks. These risks are generally under-covered in audit plans for 2023, in some cases less tangible and immediate than the category of risks that have been urgently prioritized as a result of the headline events of this year.

Resilience-related risks are manifesting with real world and high-velocity consequences all the same, and Audit needs to understand the risk indicators, urgency drivers and the right questions to ask the business to ensure that rethinking resiliency is on the agenda in 2023.

Below I review three such risks and strategies for Audit on how to approach them.

Climate Degradation
Nearly six in ten CAEs have no specific plans to provide assurance over climate degradation next year. This in and of itself is a key risk indicator for most organizations, as a failure to refresh business continuity plans related to climate risks puts an organization at higher risk for a key infrastructure failure and related loss of productivity among other risks.

While CAEs generally express limited confidence in their climate coverage plans, rethinking resilience means going beyond sustainability reports and identifying vulnerable assets. Audit departments need to incorporate in their plans the inevitability of increasingly severe weather events and mitigation strategies for the loss of key infrastructure, both their own and that of key third parties, such as suppliers.

Culture
Even more challenging for Audit is culture, traditionally a key source of resilience for many organizations that now is fraying under the weight of new working models (hybrid/remote), social and political polarization and a general lack of connection felt by employees who are reporting witnessed misconduct at rates 30 percent lower than pre-pandemic.

Despite such challenges, only 16 percent of CAEs are revisiting culture in light of shifting sociopolitical expectations of their workforce, investors and the media for next year, and just 10 percent report they are highly confident in providing assurance in this area. Internal Audit needs to push the business on reassessing how employee expectations and engagement are monitored in a hybrid and remote world, while policies related to political and social issues need to be formulated now and not in real time during a crisis.

Organizational Resilience
Ultimately, rethinking resilience means covering organizational resilience as a dedicated risk that is part of the audit coverage plan. Organizational resilience, broadly defined, is an organization’s ability to withstand shocks. This is likely to become ever more important in the face of new and ongoing geopolitical tensions, which can abruptly trigger a set of interconnected but differentiated risks to manifest simultaneously. While refreshing scenario planning and mitigating against change fatigue are necessary steps in this process, building true organizational resilience requires a view into the interconnected risks facing an organization and developing resilience-related initiatives across the enterprise.

With less than half of CAEs definitely planning to cover organizational resilience next year and just 32 percent highly confident in providing assurance specifically on matters of resilience, it’s clear there is more work to do in establishing this as a top audit priority. Chief Audit Executives can regain momentum by launching activities that encourage collaborative discussions between business units on interrelated risks and reviewing plans to address change fatigue within their organizations at a time when events over the past two years have likely dramatically diminished capacity in this area.

While these resilience-related risks feel less tangible and urgent than mitigating against “clear and imminent” dangers like supply chain vulnerabilities and state-sponsored cyberthreats, they are important and increasingly acute risks in their own right. Viewing them through the lens of rethinking what it means to be a truly resilient organization can be a useful framework for starting the right conversations within the Audit Committee and formulating effective coverage in next year’s audit plans.

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”

With businesses facing the strongest economic headwinds in years, the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors is urging internal auditors to embrace data analytics to navigate more risky, uncertain, and volatile times ahead.

To support their call to action the Chartered IIA, a professional organization for internal auditors in the U.K. and Ireland, in partnership with AuditBoard has published a new report “Embracing data analytics: Ensuring internal audit’s relevance in a data-led world.” The report is aimed at encouraging internal auditors to fully embrace data analytics in the age of systemic risk.

The aftermath of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now a recession has all magnified and exacerbated a multitude of business-critical risks. These major risk events are having compounding downstream effects on supply chains, inflation, growth, costs, Forex rates, cybersecurity, and workplace mental health. Creating an adverse business risk environment of a kind not seen for decades. Making it challenging for boards to keep pace with the myriad of risks they now face.

“Data is key for organizations to navigate more risky times ahead and it is key for the future of internal audit. Understanding what the data shows about risk resilience in today’s complex environment will help ensure organizations’ success. We urge businesses and internal audit to embrace data analytics,” says John Wood, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors.

However, in these challenging times harnessing and embracing the power of data analytics can enable internal audit to deliver faster and more incisive insights on fast moving risks, that boards can then act upon swiftly. Helping organizations to quickly identify, manage, and mitigate emerging risks during rapidly evolving situations.

Needs Improvement
The report is based on a survey of 298 internal audit executives from the private, public, and third sectors across the UK and Ireland. The survey revealed:

60% of internal audit functions are already using some for of data analytics, an additional 7% having advanced to AI. However, this still leaves a third yet to adopt data analytics.
The top three risk areas for using data analytics are financial (62%), fraud (17%), and legal and compliance (6%).
The top three benefits of using data analytics include greater level of assurance (48%), 100% audit coverage (21%) and enhanced efficiency (14%).
The top three barriers to fully embracing data analytics include lack of skills (49%), lack of resources (24%) and lack of time to implement (12%).
Only 17% expressed concern that internal auditors could be replaced by robots in the future. Instead, data analytics and AI can free up internal auditors’ time to focus on strategic and systemic risks that could be coming down the track.

The report makes several recommendations for boards and internal audit, including:

– Boards and internal audit should ensure that senior management has defined the organization’s top five risks, and that the data support this view and is correct and reliable.
– Boards and internal audit should ensure that the organization has its own data strategy in place.
– Boards should work with internal audit to identify what data is available to improve risk assurance, and how data analytics could be applied to this data to improve assurance coverage across the organization.

– Boards and internal audit should work together to champion a data analytics culture and promote a data-first mindset.
“Given the warp speed at which risks can emerge and wreak havoc, embracing data-analytics is non-negotiable for boards and internal audit if they are to stay on top of the multitude of risks that organizations are now wrestling,” says Richard Chambers, Senior Internal Audit Advisor of AuditBoard, and former President of the Global IIA. “Data analytics enables faster and higher quality assurance for boards to then act on. In stormy economic times a data-led approach has never been more urgent.”

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”