Responses categorized to resolve the most cited issues.
The International Internal Audit Standards Board (IIASB) has analyzed the feedback received on the draft Global Internal Audit Standards™ during the public comment period. Nearly 19,000 specific comments came from 1,612 completed surveys. Additionally, the IIASB reached out to individuals and stakeholder groups through presentations and meetings and accepted letters. Although the data showed only low levels of disagreement with the new standards (ranging between 6 and 16 percent on various sections), the IIASB duly considered all input received.
Under the guidance of chairman Naohiro Mouri, CIA, and immediate past chairman J. Michael Peppers, CIA, QIAL, CRMA, the 21 Standards Board members and four special advisors, representing 21 countries, have met regularly since June to evaluate the data and formulate revisions.
The most frequently recurring comments of concern included:
- An increased usage of the word “must,” making the Standards seem too prescriptive.
- Unclear requirements for external quality assessments.
- The applicability of the Standards to public sector and small internal audit functions.
- Missing or vague terminology in the Purpose of Internal Auditing.
- Requirements for 20 hours of continuing professional education and specific competencies for all internal auditors.
- Requirements for board actions stated too directly and missing responsibilities for senior management.
- Unclear distinction between internal audit mandate and the internal audit charter.
- Confusion about appropriate measures of internal audit performance.
- The applicability of requirements to both assurance engagements and advisory engagements.
- Requirement for internal auditors to make recommendations related to findings.
- Perceived requirement of “ratings” and “rankings” for findings and conclusions.
- Requirement for a statement of conformance or nonconformance in final engagement communications.