SEARCH

certified management systems like ISO 27001, SOC 2, and PCI DSS—with technology platforms designed for audit safety, security, sustainability, privacy, quality, ethical, and regulatory outcomes—not just support audits

The role of internal audit in assessing and providing assurance on culture is discussed, with the report presenting insights from a survey of internal audit leaders. A significant number of senior internal audit executives have not been asked by the board or audit committee However, the report does not raise (but it should) the question of whether the audit function should the very thing that the report asks internal audit to change.

Evidence of these processes is demonstrated by audits conducted by internal functions which may include The primary mechanism by which this is done is through the audit function. In fact, for many companies, the words compliance audit, and even GRC are used interchangeably. Unfortunately, when compliance only has an audit “hammer” everything looks like a nail which increases the tendency to "double down" on audits.

If you're ready to move beyond audit check-boxes and embrace the power of probabilistic thinking, this Assurance As a compliance engineer with over 30 years in the field, I've seen how limited single-point, audit-based Beyond Single Points with Bayes Despite these uses of probability, most programs still rely on periodic audits and risk-based assessments into a unified view Update assurance continuously rather than waiting for audit

predefined rules, roles, and responsibilities that are documented, communicated, and enforced through audits Transparent and Observable : Ensuring that AI systems and their governance mechanisms are explainable and auditable Continuious Algorithmic Auditing : Conduct continuous audits of AI algorithms to assess their fairness

Organizations declare their compliance by attestation, verified by internal audits, and confirmed by external audits. operational approach is hard to find when you believe you are already “In Compliance”, confirmed by audits

themselves trapped by a siloed, reactive, and divided practice reinforced by years of prescriptive rules and audits We’re too busy putting in controls, auditing, and working on corrective actions to be proactive.

Use of Audits The use of periodic audits as the primary compliance control is all too common and has By design audits provide evidence of what has happened. Audits work best when organizations are mostly “in-compliance.” Audits cannot correct what has already happened. Are audits enough to provide the assurance that stakeholders require?

The path of " necessary evil " is fraught with uncertainty and is driven by inspections and audits. Even with the multitude of action items that come from these audits, you cannot "react" your way to better can take the road less traveled, and be in the company of those that want more than just to pass an audit

appropriate risk, and legal and regulatory requirements are properly met as evidenced primarily through audits Fundamentally, GRC started as a way to: Avoid Prosecution, Prevent Loss, and Audit and Control The primary emphasis from a systems and process perspective has been on the audit function to verify The focus on audits parallels similar approaches applied to quality, safety and environmental programs This audit-based approach will exact a heavy burden on organizations.

This may be enough to pass an audit but is not enough to effectively manage the risks due to: asset,

This isn't hard to imagine when excessive audits and controls are put in place as a reaction to a serious incident or serious audit findings. This produces better results than inspecting and auditing for conformance afterwards. The lack of prescription, while a good thing, is viewed negatively because it's more difficult to audit As a consequence, auditors can no longer tell organizations what to do and neither should they.