However, many organizations are caught in a prescriptive, reactive, and reductive trap where audits,

Operational Compliance” they often think of it in the same way as “Operational Risk” - a siloed function to audit

introduced by old-factory thinking, reactive behaviours, and traditional training, inspection, and audits

Compliance often imagines non-conformance or audit findings as low hanging fruit or more specifically We look for them using audits, we pick them from the ground and take corrective action to pick them from rather than all commitments Relying on best efforts rather than best results Focusing on Inspection / auditing

Make sure we pass the next audit. This isn't a character flaw. It's a role definition.

This will, of course, be verified by internal and external audits. Organizations might be in compliance today or at the time of their last audit.

full compliance with all legal and regulatory obligations measured by conformance as evidenced by zero audit regulations, and standards ( state them here) with an ultimate goal of zero breaches verified by third party audit Instead of audit being the primary function, compliance assurance, risk and performance management will

They audit and validate that obligations are being met.

They might even have all the boxes checked and able to pass an audit.

Compliance often becomes a labyrinth of obligations, commitments, controls, audits, processes, and many Regularly audit your management program to identify and remove obligations (internal or external) that with existing compliance areas, consider modifying your current fulfillment systems to accommodate the additional

how to identify risks embedded in quality, health and safety, and environmental programs may require additional changes to risk management: Risked-based thinking requires companies be proactive instead of waiting for audit You cannot audit your way to better compliance.

Conformity demonstrated continuously rather than reconstructed before an audit.