Risk & Assurance
Boards often receive large volumes of assurance but still feel uneasy. The issue is rarely quantity—it’s confidence and clarity.
Many boards receive extensive assurance. Internal audit reports, external reviews, management attestations, and compliance statements arrive regularly. On paper, assurance coverage appears strong. And yet, directors often report a lingering sense of discomfort.
This discomfort is not a failure of diligence. It is usually a signal that assurance inputs are not translating into assurance confidence.
One reason is that assurance is frequently presented as activity rather than insight. Reports confirm that processes were followed, controls were tested, or standards were applied. What is often less clear is what this means for the board’s actual responsibilities and risk exposure.
Another challenge is aggregation. Assurance is typically delivered in silos—financial, operational, regulatory, cultural. Boards are left to connect the dots themselves, often without a clear line of sight to where assurance is strong, where it is thin, and where it may not exist at all.
Language also matters. Assurance reports can be technically accurate yet practically opaque. Phrases such as “no material findings” or “adequate controls” may satisfy professional standards, but they do not always answer the board’s underlying question: how confident should we be?
Effective assurance does more than confirm compliance. It helps boards understand uncertainty, prioritise attention, and make informed judgements. When assurance fails to do this, discomfort persists—no matter how many reports are received.
Assurance comfort comes not from volume, but from clarity.
If an insight raises questions about governance confidence, you’re welcome to book a confidential discussion.
Book Governance Discussion
