3 Tips for Conducting Internal Compliance Audits
Internal compliance audits are a crucial component of any organization's risk management strategy. This article presents expert-backed tips to enhance the effectiveness of these audits, focusing on key areas such as fostering a proactive compliance culture and leveraging technology. By implementing these insights, companies can streamline their audit processes, build trust, and ensure robust compliance practices.
- Foster a Proactive Compliance Culture
- Build Trust and Leverage Technology
- Standardize Checklists and Prioritize Evidence Collection
Foster a Proactive Compliance Culture
What's your top tip for conducting internal compliance audits? What's one area you focus on to ensure audit effectiveness?
My top tip for conducting internal compliance audits is to focus on creating a culture of proactive compliance rather than reactive box-ticking. A successful audit doesn't just look for violations--it evaluates how embedded compliance is in daily operations. That's why I prioritize employee engagement and policy awareness as a key area of focus.
During an audit, I examine whether staff actually understand the "why" behind compliance procedures and whether they feel empowered to report issues without fear. This includes reviewing training records, anonymous feedback, and internal reporting systems.
Another critical element is data traceability. Every action in a compliance framework should be auditable. So I ensure there is clear documentation of decisions, controls, and responses to past risks. This not only strengthens the audit's reliability but also positions the company better for external regulatory inspections.
Finally, I approach internal audits not as punitive exercises but as tools for continuous improvement. Framing the process this way increases cooperation across departments and yields more candid, actionable results.
Build Trust and Leverage Technology
There is a distinct difference between internal and external audits, and recommendations for both.
For internal audits, I have found it helpful to remind those being audited that I am there to help them; we're on the same team. To diffuse the adversarial nature of audits, I make it clear that my job is not to make anyone look bad, but rather to help them shine. This is where I leverage the "What's in it for me?" principle. I do not include only discrepancy findings in my reports, but I start with highlighting strengths. That way, those responsible for the work that is audited can refer to my unbiased audit reports for their employee evaluations. This helps with interview transparency, which improves the quality of the audit.
A risk analyst is also likely to have more access available on a given network or environment when conducting internal audits. With this in mind, the risk analyst should obtain at least read-only access to as many systems tied to the control framework as possible. For example, if the risk analyst has read access to Tenable scans, allow Tenable to answer questions about whether vulnerability scanning/patching is taking place. A risk analyst is better off using system/network/cloud tools to answer control questions, rather than taking the word of a subject matter expert with a potential for bias or human error.
When it comes to external audits, the stakes are higher, but there is still a tactic to diffuse an adversarial environment. I still start by referencing strengths, and I also make it clear that my job is to find possible vectors of exploitation before a real adversary finds them. While external audit findings can result in negative impacts, these impacts are still not nearly as detrimental as a system or network compromise, a major unplanned outage, or other types of negative impacts that audits are designed to detect. A proactive defense is always better than a reactive defense.
Secondly, the axiom popularized by President Reagan, "Trust but verify," is the rule of thumb for any audit. Simply answering "Yes" or "No" is not sufficient for most audit checklists. Each answer should include a narrative, and when a question is answered "N/A," there needs to be a justification with solid reasoning. Additionally, answers carry more weight when accompanied by sufficient evidence, such as reports, screenshots, configuration files, examples of settings, logs, and the like. An audit is only as good as its evidence.
Standardize Checklists and Prioritize Evidence Collection
What I believe is that the most effective internal compliance audits start with clarity and consistency in scope and documentation. Without a well-defined structure, audits can become superficial or miss key risk areas entirely.
My top tip is to establish a standardized audit checklist tailored to each department or regulation (like GDPR, SOC 2, or POSH), and update it regularly based on previous findings and changes in regulations. This ensures that every audit covers both mandatory requirements and operational realities.
One area I always focus on is evidence collection and traceability. Whether it's access logs, training records, or policy acknowledgments, the ability to track and verify compliance with documented proof is what gives the audit real credibility. This also makes it easier to follow up, close gaps, and show auditors or stakeholders that the organization is taking compliance seriously—not just ticking boxes.
