Our auditor quiz is now closed after a month. The questions were based on existing international non-financial auditing standards, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) fraud identification/examination techniques and US Government Auditing Standards for non-financial audits. There were fewer respondents than we had hoped so we can’t extrapolate beyond our dataset. Even so, some notable trends did emerge.
Of those who responded, 47% were EHS auditors and 27% were CSR auditors. We had hoped more CSR auditors would have participated. Other information about the respondents’ backgrounds:
- 60% had no certification or “other”
- 50% have 10 years or less auditing experience
- 50% have 50 or fewer audits
- 13% have participated in more than 500 audits during their career
- 63% spend at least 75% of their time conducting audits
There were only 2 “passing” scores – i.e., greater than 70%. The average score was 49% – far lower than was expected.
Knowledge of standard terminology seems to be lacking, further reflected in poor scores for questions that embedded the terminology within them. For instance, only 30% correctly defined “audit criteria” as meaning the audit protocol. This likely led to 53% of respondents incorrectly answering that QA/QC reviews should include assessing the correctness of the “audit criteria used by the auditor.” QA/QC reviews of auditor working papers should look at how an auditor applied the audit criteria, not the inherent accuracy of the criteria (or audit protocol) used by the auditor. Indeed, only 10% correctly identified that none of the answer options are appropriate for QA/QC reviews.
Only 3% considered interviews better than document reviews when asked directly what type of evidence is strongest. Yet when the question was placed in a practical setting, 73% indicated they would rely on interviews over documentation. Only 26% correctly identified the evidence hierarchy (from strongest to weakest).
On a more positive note, 83% answered that they would decline to develop a document that they audited, meaning 17% did not view this as a conflict of interest. Frankly, we were disappointed that there was not a perfect score in identifying this to be an independence issue.
In answering the question listing possible common evidence problems, just over half (53%) correctly indicated that all of the answer options are common evidence problems.
Finally, 2/3 incorrectly answered that initial determinations of significance/materiality should be made after assessing evidence. It is possible that respondents did not read the question carefully and pick up the word initial.
Certainly more responses would have provided a better representation, but we think there are some valuable take aways from our limited data. Among them – the gap between EHS/CSR auditor knowledge and existing (and theoretically similar) non-financial audit standards may be larger than previously thought. As the importance – and liabilities – of sustainability/CSR audits grow, increased auditor training and competence seems warranted.