Risk & Assurance
Boards often treat assurance as an extension of audit. This confusion creates blind spots in governance confidence and accountability.
Audit is one form of assurance, but it is not assurance in its entirety. Treating the two as interchangeable is a common governance mistake, and one that can leave boards with a false sense of confidence.
Audit is typically concerned with compliance, accuracy, and adherence to defined standards. It provides comfort that processes are being followed and that controls exist. Assurance, by contrast, is concerned with whether those controls are effective, proportionate, and appropriate for the organisation’s actual risk profile.
When boards rely too heavily on audit as their primary assurance mechanism, gaps can emerge. Areas that fall outside formal audit scopes—such as culture, decision-making quality, or emerging risks—may receive little scrutiny, despite being critical to organisational performance and resilience.
Good assurance frameworks are deliberate and layered. They draw on multiple sources of insight, including management reporting, independent reviews, internal challenge, and, where appropriate, external validation. The objective is not to eliminate risk, but to provide the board with a reasoned level of confidence that key risks are understood and managed.
Clarity about the distinction between audit and assurance helps boards ask better questions, commission the right work, and avoid over-reliance on a single mechanism. In doing so, boards move from procedural comfort to informed confidence.
If an insight raises questions about governance confidence, you’re welcome to book a confidential discussion.
Book Governance Discussion
