Internal Auditor Objectivity - How to demonstrate

[lpower]

We are in the process of upgrading our ISO 14001 and was wondering how to demonstrate internal auditor objectivity (other than they don't audit their own work). Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[RoxaneB]

We have a matrix which shows which processes an auditor may and may not audit. We also comment on the report (especially in system audits) where the lead auditor did not assume an auditor position along with an explanation.

 

[C Emmons]

May sound kind of simple - but it also helps if you can ensure that auditors are not effected/impacted by the work of the area audited.

 

[db]

This can be a bit tricky. That is why 14K omits 9K's "Auditors shall not audit their own work." In some cases it is impossible to have a totally independent auditor. For example; you might have an environment management program (EMP) for recycling paper. If I place paper in the recycle bin, am I now prohibited from auditing that program? What we have to do is to make sure that the audits are objective and impartial. So, if I participate in an EMP, I still may be able to audit it. If I develop and administer the EMP, then it would probably be best if I did not.

 

[Randy]

Objectivity ain't got nuttin' to do with what ya'll are talking about. You talking independence.

Objectivity is a point of view without bias, no pre-determined opinion, no pre-concieved stand, not giving a krap...that's objectivity.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Objectivity ain't got nuttin' to do with what ya'll are talking about. You talking independence.

Objectivity is a point of view without bias, no pre-determined opinion, no pre-concieved stand, not giving a krap...that's objectivity.

Right on. And there's no guarantee that an independent observer will be objective; it's just more likely.

 

[lpower]

I have no problem proving independence, it's the objectivity that will be difficult. Most of our auditors have a preconceived notion of how things should be done.

 

[Randy]

Kick 'em in the azz and change their minds!

The only thing they should be doing is understanding what is to be and finding out how it really is.

 

[RoxaneB]

I have no problem proving independence, it's the objectivity that will be difficult. Most of our auditors have a preconceived notion of how things should be done.

How things should be done and how things are actually done are two separate things. Kind of like school...we walked away from school knowing how the world worked (at least in theory)...quite a shock, wasn't it, when things just didn't go the way we expected them to?

If your auditors are unable to put aside their feelings on how things ought to be done, then they should not be auditing. Worst case, they should issue Opportunties for Improvement which the auditees have every right to reject.

But if the requirements are being met and formalized processes being followed, there are no nonconformances to be had.

 

[Greg B]

How things should be done and how things are actually done are two separate things. Kind of like school...we walked away from school knowing how the world worked (at least in theory)...quite a shock, wasn't it, when things just didn't go the way we expected them to?

If your auditors are unable to put aside their feelings on how things ought to be done, then they should not be auditing. Worst case, they should issue Opportunties for Improvement which the auditees have every right to reject.

But if the requirements are being met and formalized processes being followed, there are no nonconformances to be had.

I totally agree with Roxanne (as usual) and I often issue Imporvement Opportunities these are still seen by senior managemernt in the Interim Report but may not make it to the Final Report. I have removed myself from some areas of auditing as I find it very hard to be objective, having set up much of the original processes in a certain area. I no longer work in that area but still regard myself as being too subjective. It is the main reason we don't have auditors auditing their own areas.