Key Takeaways
1. The "Audit Explosion" signifies a cultural shift towards formalized verification.
The power of auditing is the vagueness of the idea and to comprehend the audit explosion it matters less what different audit practices ‘really are’, the endless agony of definitions, than how the idea of audit has assumed such a central role in both public and private sector policy.
Beyond mere checking. While humans constantly monitor each other, the "audit explosion" in the UK since the late 1980s represents a profound cultural shift. It's not just about more checking, but a widespread adoption of "audit" as a solution to diverse problems, extending far beyond traditional financial contexts into areas like:
- Environmental management
- Medical practice
- Education
- Value for money (VFM) in public services
Programmes vs. Technologies. This phenomenon is best understood through the lens of "programmes" (normative ideals and policy objectives) and "technologies" (concrete operational tasks). The "idea" of audit, with its inherent vagueness, allows it to be readily imported into various policy arenas, promising accountability and control, even if its technical capabilities are only loosely coupled to these grand aspirations.
A pervasive idea. The widespread use of the "audit" label is not accidental; it's a strategic act that transforms activities into valuable services and mobilizes commitment. This suggests that the audit explosion is less about an objective increase in monitoring and more about the pervasive influence of a particular style of formalized accountability, shaping how society perceives and addresses its problems.
2. Financial Auditing's "Essential Obscurity" fuels its enduring power.
Ultimately financial auditing requires that the judgements of auditing experts are trusted.
Paradox of influence. Financial auditing, despite its influential role as a model for other audit practices, operates on an "essentially obscure" epistemic foundation. Its output—an opinion on "true and fair" financial statements—is difficult to quantify or observe directly, leading to a persistent "expectations gap" where the public often expects fraud detection, while auditors emphasize opinion on financial statements.
A dialectic of failure. The history of financial auditing is marked by a "dialectic of failure," where corporate collapses and scandals trigger demands for reform and new guidance. However, these reforms often intensify proceduralization and codification, which, while appearing to address concerns, ultimately preserve the auditor's discretion and the inherent ambiguity of what an audit truly produces. This allows the system to absorb shocks without fundamental self-doubt.
Inscrutable markets. The "essential obscurity" of the audit product means that its value is not easily demonstrable through clear, output-based criteria. Instead, auditing thrives in "inscrutable markets" where reputation, image management, and trust in professional judgment become paramount. The "expectations gap" paradoxically serves as a resource, maintaining the perceived value of auditing without requiring full transparency of its capabilities.
3. New Public Management and Regulatory Shifts Drive Audit Demand.
Audit has become a benchmark for securing the legitimacy of organizational action in which auditable standards of performance have been created not merely to provide for substantive internal improvements to the quality of service but to make these improvements externally verifiable via acts of certification.
Reinventing governance. The audit explosion is deeply rooted in transformations in how organizations are governed, particularly through the rise of the "New Public Management" (NPM). This paradigm, borrowing from private sector ideals, emphasizes:
- Cost control and financial transparency
- Decentralization and autonomization of public services
- Creation of quasi-markets and performance indicators
Indirect control. NPM and evolving regulatory styles favor indirect, distant forms of intervention, pushing control deeper into organizational structures. This creates a demand for auditing to connect internal organizational arrangements to public ideals. Audit becomes a crucial tool for the "hollowing out of the state," enabling central agencies to monitor performance without direct, heavy-handed intervention.
Value for Money (VFM). VFM auditing, encompassing economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, exemplifies this shift. Public sector audit bodies like the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Audit Commission have expanded their roles, not just verifying existing performance but actively shaping and installing "auditable accounts" and management systems. This managerial turn, also seen in corporate governance (e.g., Cadbury Code) and environmental regulation, makes internal control systems a central object of public scrutiny and certification.
4. Audits "Work" by Abstracting to Management Systems and Risk.
The system provides an organizational reality on which audits can act and are therefore possible.
Making the "un-auditable" auditable. Audits are made to "work" by transforming complex realities into auditable objects. This involves three key operational dimensions:
- Sampling: Historically, auditors moved from 100% checks to selective testing, rationalized by statistical sampling and later by risk-based approaches. This allowed for efficiency gains while maintaining the appearance of comprehensive assurance.
- Reliance on Specialists: Auditors "black box" the expertise of others (e.g., actuaries, surveyors, engineers). Professional guidance allows auditors to rely on specialists' competence and objectivity, rather than directly verifying their complex work. This creates chains of trust, making otherwise unauditable areas (like brand valuation) indirectly verifiable.
- Management Systems: The most significant shift is the focus on internal control systems as the primary auditable object. Quality assurance schemes (like BS 5750, ISO 9000, EMAS) codify this, meaning auditors verify the system for managing quality or environmental impact, rather than directly assessing the substantive output or environmental performance itself.
The logic of auditability. This abstraction to systems solves crucial economic and epistemic problems for auditing. It provides a standardized, manageable "organizational reality" that can be consistently audited across diverse contexts. The verifiable assertion shifts from complex, substantive outcomes to the functioning of the management system, making auditing possible even in highly ambiguous fields.
Efficiency and credibility. By focusing on systems and risk, auditing can claim efficiency gains and maintain credibility, even if it becomes more remote from the actual operations it purports to oversee. This approach allows auditing to be exported to new arenas, as the system itself becomes the "auditable performance," a surface designed for external verification and certification.
5. Auditing Actively Constructs "Auditable Performance" in Organizations.
In the audit society the power to define and institutionalize auditable performance reduces evaluation to auditing.
Beyond mere description. Auditing does not simply describe pre-existing performance; it actively shapes and constructs "auditable performance." This means that organizations are compelled to define their objectives and measure their activities in ways that align with audit methodologies, often prioritizing what is easily quantifiable and verifiable over more nuanced or complex aspects.
The "auditable surface." The drive to create auditable performance measures leads to a focus on:
- Outputs over outcomes: Audits tend to gravitate towards measuring immediate service activities (outputs) rather than the broader, often harder-to-measure, impacts or consequences (outcomes).
- Process over substance: The quality of a management system for monitoring performance often becomes the primary focus, rather than the substantive quality of the service or product itself.
- Standardization: Performance measures are designed for replicability and consistency, even if this means simplifying or distorting local complexities.
Evaluation vs. Auditing. This trend represents a systematic shift from the logic of "evaluation" (which seeks to understand cause-and-effect and complex outcomes) to the logic of "auditing" (which focuses on verification against predefined standards). In this hierarchy, the administrative objectivity of auditable measures often dominates, reducing the scope for broader, more qualitative evaluation.
6. Audits Can Lead to "Decoupling" or "Colonization" of Organizational Life.
Systems of administration, control and evaluation, however technical they may appear, are also expressions of a series of underlying beliefs and values.
Two extreme effects. The imposition of auditing and auditable performance measures can have profound, often unintended, consequences for organizations, oscillating between two extremes:
- Decoupling: Organizations may create "buffer" units or engage in "ritualistic compliance" to manage external audit processes, effectively insulating core activities from genuine change. Audits become ceremonial, producing comfort and legitimacy without deeply impacting operational efficiency or effectiveness.
- Colonization: Audit values and practices penetrate deep into the organization's core, reshaping mentalities, incentives, and perceptions of significance. This can lead to a "hard managerialism" that displaces professional autonomy and traditional values, potentially resulting in "fatal remedies" where the audit process undermines the very performance it seeks to enhance.
Case studies in tension. Examples from higher education and medicine illustrate this tension:
- Academics: Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) and teaching quality audits create incentives for specific publication types, devalue other academic activities, and lead to bureaucratic burdens, sometimes resulting in "McDonaldization" of universities.
- Doctors: Medical audits, initially peer-led and learning-focused, face increasing managerial encroachment, leading to anxieties about routinization, cost-cutting, and the erosion of clinical autonomy.
Strategic adaptation. Auditees are not passive; they adopt strategies ranging from active resistance and "inverse decoupling" (co-opting evaluation into existing practices) to strategic compliance. The outcome—whether decoupling or colonization—depends on the interplay between external pressures, internal professional cultures, and the power dynamics within the organization.
7. The "Audit of Audit" Reveals the Limits of Process-Based Quality.
The bureaucratic excesses about which small practitioners complained were reflected in new markets in which they could buy standard working papers and advisory publications on how to manage a visit from the JMU.
Guarding the guards. The logic of auditability extends even to auditors themselves, leading to the "audit of audit." In the UK, the Joint Monitoring Unit (JMU) inspects the quality of financial auditing firms. This process, however, highlights the inherent limitations of a purely process-based approach to quality.
Focus on systems, not outcomes. The JMU primarily inspects firms' quality assurance systems—their internal controls for ensuring compliance with auditing standards—rather than directly assessing the substantive quality or effectiveness of the audits performed. This means:
- Documentary appearances are vital: Auditors are incentivized to produce neat, compliant working papers, even if this means "writing up the audit as finished" rather than genuinely finishing it.
- Bureaucratic overhead: Small firms, in particular, complain about the disproportionate costs and "red tape" associated with demonstrating compliance to the JMU, often leading to the purchase of "off-the-shelf" compliance solutions.
The paradox of quality. This "audit of audit" reveals a paradox: while other sectors are pushed towards outcome-based performance measurement, the quality of financial auditing itself is assessed in terms of process, because the ultimate outcome (assurance) remains epistemically obscure. This reinforces the idea that audit quality is defined by conformity to agreed procedures, rather than by demonstrable improvements in the underlying financial reality.
8. Auditing Reports Prioritize "Comfort" Over Democratic Dialogue.
Most audit reports are labels in the sense discussed above. They do not so much communicate as ‘give off’ information by virtue of a rhetoric of ‘neutrality, objectivity, dispassion, expertise’.
Labels, not dialogue. Despite programmatic claims of enhanced accountability and transparency, most audit reports function as "quality labels" or "certificates of comfort" rather than instruments for public dialogue or critique. Financial audit reports, for instance, are standardized and cautious, communicating little specific detail about the audit process itself.
Ambiguous signals. These labels often provide "negative assurance" or "empty reporting," as seen in the Cadbury Code's compliance statements, where directors report on having reviewed internal controls, but not necessarily on their effectiveness. This vagueness means that the reports "give off" an impression of control and legitimacy, but do not facilitate informed public debate or challenge.
A substitute for democracy. The pressure to produce comfort means that auditors are reluctant to issue critical or "qualified" reports, which are often seen as a last resort. This tendency to stabilize institutional images rather than provoke inquiry suggests that auditing, in its current form, can act as a substitute for genuine democratic accountability, fostering "downward accountability" (to resist external scrutiny) rather than true "upward accountability" to stakeholders.
9. The Audit Society Reflects a Shift from Inspection to Systemic Self-Control.
The telling difference between an auditing and inspecting style of control concerns the substitution of internal for external agencies of inspection where the external inspector or auditor checks the system for self-inspection.
Beyond traditional surveillance. The audit explosion does not simply equate to a "surveillance society" focused on individual coercion. Instead, it signifies a more nuanced transformation in monitoring style, moving from direct "inspection" to a focus on "systemic self-control." While inspection often involves direct observation and clear escalatory options, auditing increasingly targets the management systems that organizations use for self-inspection.
Internalizing inspection. This shift is driven by a "responsive regulation" philosophy that seeks to delegate control down into organizations, trusting in their capacity for self-governance. External auditors or inspectors then become "second-order" monitors, checking the effectiveness of these internal self-inspection systems. This blurs the lines between internal and external control, as organizations are encouraged to build "trustworthiness" into their very structures.
Epistemic dependence. This transformation, however, comes with a trade-off: a potential loss of "epistemic independence" for the external monitor. When auditors primarily check systems for compliance, rather than directly observing substantive performance, they become more dependent on the auditee's own representations and internal control culture. This can compromise the auditor's ability to identify problems independently, making the audit process more collaborative but potentially less critical.
10. Auditing Paradoxically Requires and Erodes Trust.
By creating guardians of trust, we foster all kinds of ancillary certifications or guarantees of trustworthiness . . . that are readily manipulated yet are now essential to principals who have abdicated their distrust to these new guardians.
A second-order trust relationship. Auditing emerges from a context where trust is lacking, yet it paradoxically requires trust to function. It acts as a "second-order trust relationship," policing the trust placed in agents by principals. However, this creates an "inflationary spiral" where society places uncritical trust in the efficacy of audit processes themselves, displacing trust from individuals and organizations to abstract "guardians of trust."
The self-fulfilling prophecy of distrust. The underlying assumption of distrust that often drives audit processes can be self-fulfilling. When teachers, doctors, or managers are subjected to intense auditing, it can erode existing professional trust and lead to strategic, less trustworthy behavior. This creates organizational pathologies, where the very quality of service intended to be enhanced is damaged by the "anxious preoccupation with how one is seen by others."
Trusting the unknowable. Auditors themselves must be trusted, despite the "essential obscurity" of what they produce. They rely on management representations, internal control cultures, and other specialists. This means that institutionalized trust is increasingly "vested, not in individuals but in abstract capacities," resting on "vague and partial understandings" of the audit's knowledge base. The audit society, therefore, is not simply a distrusting society, but one that systematically trusts the audit process to restore trust, often without critical evaluation of its own effects.
11. The "Risk of Auditing" Lies in its Delusional Promise of Control.
The risk of audit is not simply that it does not work and leads to fatal remedies, although one can assemble evidence for this. Rather, it is that, in the process of continuous movement and reform which it generates, it is also impossible to know when it is justified and effective.
A cosmetic practice. The audit explosion, driven by a "politics of fear and anxiety," risks becoming an "institutionalized delusion." Auditing, as a "style of processing risk," normalizes a particular approach to management that can be "cosmetic," hiding real dangers and replacing them with the financial risk faced by auditors themselves. This leads to an "industry of empty comfort certificates" that may not genuinely address underlying problems.
Fatal remedies and information pathologies. Auditing can lead to "fatal remedies" where its incentive effects on auditees (e.g., "creative compliance," "inspection overload") undermine original goals. It can also contribute to "information pathologies," where reliance on formal systems screens out informal intelligence, as seen in financial crises where warning signs were known outside official channels.
Beyond empirical knowledge. The fundamental problem is that auditing has insulated itself from systemic inquiry and empirical knowledge about its own effects. It operates on a "constant programmatic affirmation of its potential," making it difficult to know when it is truly justified or effective. This "learned ignorance" means that society invests heavily in rituals of verification without a clear understanding of their actual impact, potentially fragmenting responsibility for dangers rather than genuinely managing them.
Last updated:
