What Do Auditors Really Look For?
With the increasing regulatory and assurance requirements placed on organizations ranging from certification frameworks such as SOC 2 to evolving regulatory expectations like DORA and NIS2, business continuity management has become more scrutinized than ever, with greater emphasis on evidence, governance, and demonstrable operational resilience.
Despite the growing maturity of business continuity management frameworks, one recurring observation remains consistent across many organizations: the relationship between BCM practitioners and auditors is often misunderstood, and at times, misaligned.
I have attended numerous meetings with both internal and external auditors, and I have observed that there is sometimes a noticeable gap between BCM professionals, acting as the second line of defence, and auditors. This naturally leads to the question: what do auditors really look for? Are they seeking a deep practical understanding of BCM in order to identify gaps between theory and real-life implementation? Or are they primarily focused on producing audit findings that, from their perspective, help reduce those gaps while also fulfilling their responsibility as auditors?
Based on practical experience, I have found that this gap often arises from the absence of a clear, well-documented BCM methodology that is consistently followed by the BCM team, as well as the lack of alignment between this methodology and what is implemented in practice. In addition, there is often insufficient connection to established good practices, which should serve as the foundation of any approach regardless of industry or organizational context.
Auditors typically require a clear reference framework that enables them to understand the organization's continuity arrangements. They need structured, transparent, and well-justified responses without exaggeration or defensiveness.
Viewing auditors as part of the governance framework is essential, as they play a key role in ensuring compliance with internal policies and verifying that controls are effectively implemented to maintain operational continuity and prevent gaps.
Adherence to good practices and international standards enables the BCM function to achieve several key outcomes: it helps the first line of defence better understand the purpose and value of business continuity, supports more accurate and meaningful analysis particularly in business impact analysis and business continuity planning, reduces the gap between theoretical design and practical execution, and enables a more effective and transparent audit process based on mutual understanding between auditors and BCM practitioners.
There are several practical lessons that BCM professionals can consider in facilitating a smoother and more productive audit process:
- Avoid unnecessary defensiveness. If an auditor raises a finding and there is insufficient evidence or a strong rationale to challenge it, focus on understanding the gap and developing corrective actions rather than defending the current state. A constructive approach can often help reduce the severity of a finding from major to minor or even support its closure in future reviews.
- Support your responses with documented evidence. Auditors rely on facts rather than assumptions. Ensure that your responses are backed by approved BCM policies, procedures, previous audit reports, business impact analyses, business continuity plans, test reports, and documented approvals from business owners.
- Use good practice and international standards as your primary point of reference. These standards provide a structured and recognized methodology covering all aspects of BCM. They offer a common framework that can be adapted across organizations of different sizes, industries, and levels of maturity while ensuring consistency and credibility.
- Remember that auditors are not the opposition. The relationship between BCM professionals and auditors should be viewed as complementary rather than adversarial. Both parties share a common objective: ensuring compliance with BCM policies, strengthening governance, identifying gaps, and ultimately enhancing organizational resilience.
In your experience, what are the most common gaps or misunderstandings that emerge during BCM audit engagements, and how can they be addressed more effectively?
More on
About the author
Sara Arabelnaka
Sr. BCM & Crisis Manager
