The System Behind the Meeting
What reaches the audit committee is rarely raw, because by the time an issue appears on the agenda, it has already travelled through several layers.
Management has discussed it internally, drafts may have been shared with senior leadership, and risk thresholds have filtered what is considered material. At the same time, the company secretary shapes how the issue is presented and where it sits in the agenda, and in some organisations the audit committee chair may already have engaged with management or the external auditor before the meeting begins.
As a result, the committee does not receive the issue in its original form, but the output of a process.
This is how governance works in practice, but it also means that if internal audit engages only at the point of reporting, it is entering the conversation after the narrative has already formed.
A Simple Illustration
In one organisation, internal audit identified a pattern of pricing exceptions across regions, and the analysis was sound. The issue was presented to the audit committee as a control breakdown, and the discussion that followed focused on approvals and thresholds, with management responding by tightening controls.
What had already happened, however, was less visible. In the weeks before the meeting, the issue had been framed internally as a local compliance matter, and by the time it reached the committee, the narrative had effectively settled.
What could have been a discussion on pricing discipline and margin remained a discussion on control adherence.
The finding was correct, but the impact was limited.
Governance Is Shaped Upstream
Governance is often described through structures such as committees, charters and reporting lines, but in practice it is shaped through flow, that is, how issues are surfaced, framed and discussed before they reach formal forums.
Internal audit sits in a unique position within that flow, because it can see across the organisation, connect patterns and bring an independent perspective. However, independence on its own does not create influence, and influence is created only when that perspective enters the system early enough to shape understanding.
This is where pre-engagement becomes important.
Engaging with management as observations emerge is not about softening the message, but about ensuring that when the issue is escalated, it is already understood in context. In the same way, the way an issue is framed determines how it is received.
A pricing inconsistency can be presented as a control failure, but it can also be framed as a signal of pressure on pricing discipline, with implications for margin and positioning. The facts remain the same, but the conversation changes.
The Illusion of the Meeting
Many CAEs organise their year around audit committee meetings, and it is natural to see these as the moments where influence is exercised. In reality, however, the meeting often reflects what has already been shaped.
Directors are independent, but they do not operate in isolation, and their understanding is influenced by prior discussions, by how papers are structured, and by the sequencing of issues. In many organisations, the same individuals sit across committees, allowing perspectives to travel and reinforce each other.
By the time the meeting takes place, a view has often formed, and so if internal audit focuses only on the meeting, it is working within the event.
If, however, it understands how issues are surfaced, filtered and socialised before the meeting, it begins to operate within the system itself, and that is where influence sits.
The Cost of Surprise
There is a long-standing instinct in internal audit to preserve independence by limiting early disclosure, but the unintended consequence is surprise.
Surprises tend to narrow discussion and shift attention toward defence rather than understanding, and as a result, a finding that appears for the first time in the audit committee is often too late to shape how it is understood.
A more effective approach is progressive transparency, where significant issues are surfaced early, discussed as they evolve, and refined through dialogue so that by the time they reach the audit committee, they are not new, but clear.
This does not weaken independence, but strengthens accountability.
Impact Depends on Receptivity
Capability alone does not determine impact, and in practice two conditions shape whether internal audit influence is realised.
The first is the audit function’s ability to think beyond compliance and control confirmation, while the second is the receptivity of the audit committee.
Even the most capable CAE will struggle to create impact if the environment is not ready to receive it, and this is why some CAEs are looking beyond the report itself and paying attention to how their audit committees operate, how information flows and how discussions are shaped.
In effect, strengthening the audit committee is not an added responsibility, but a precondition for meaningful impact.
From Reporting to Shaping
Internal audit has steadily extended its boundaries, moving from compliance checking to control assurance, from control assurance to risk assurance, and now toward strategic insight.
This shift requires a corresponding change in how influence is exercised, because if internal audit confines itself to preparing for the meeting, it remains focused on reporting outcomes, but if it engages with how issues are surfaced, framed and discussed before the meeting, it begins to shape those outcomes.
This is not about presentation, but about positioning, and more broadly about how governance works in practice.
A Final Reflection
Audit committees do not struggle because their members lack capability, but because visibility is incomplete, and internal audit is one of the few functions positioned to improve that visibility.
However, this requires a shift in perspective, because the presentation is not the moment of influence, but the moment where prior understanding becomes visible.
Influence is built earlier, often quietly, through how issues are introduced, shaped and understood, and by the time the presentation begins, the direction of travel is usually already set.
The question is whether internal audit has helped shape it, or is simply reporting on it.
Navin Pasricha
Author of, “Getting Ready to Roar: Chief Auditor’s Guide from Audit Room to Board Room”.
