Remote Auditing and Compliance in South Africa

Remote Auditing in South Africa: Essential for Modern Compliance. From pandemic workaround to strategic necessity, remote auditing is now central to compliance success.

This new paper by Duja Consulting explores:

1️⃣ The evolution of remote auditing
2️⃣ Benefits for the public sector and SMEs
3️⃣ South African regulatory considerations
4️⃣ Digital tools driving innovation
5️⃣ Strategies for successful implementation

Remote audits offer a powerful blend of efficiency, transparency, and resilience – but only if done right. Read the full paper to find out how to get it right.

Executive Summary

Remote auditing – the practice of conducting audits from off-site locations using digital tools – has rapidly become an integral part of how organisations ensure compliance and accountability. Accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and enabled by modern technology, remote audits allow public sector entities and businesses to maintain oversight and meet regulatory requirements without the need for auditors to be on-site. This paper examines the major aspects of remote auditing, including the tools and processes involved, benefits and risks, best practices, and real-world applications in the South African context. It also explores the relevant South African regulatory landscape – from data protection (POPIA) to corporate governance (King IV), public finance laws (PFMA/MFMA), the Companies Act, and industry-specific compliance requirements (like B-BBEE) – to understand how remote auditing fits within local compliance obligations. Recent trends such as cloud-based audit platforms, artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and the broader digital transformation of compliance functions are highlighted as key enablers. Practical insights and recommendations are provided to guide senior executives in implementing effective remote audit strategies.

Introduction

Auditing is a cornerstone of good governance and compliance, providing independent assurance that an organisation’s practices meet required standards and regulations. Traditionally, audits – whether financial audits, compliance checks, or internal audits – were performed on-site, with auditors physically present at a company’s offices or facilities. However, today the auditing landscape is evolving. Remote auditing (often called “virtual auditing”) has emerged as a viable alternative to on-site audits, wherein audit evidence is collected and evaluated just as in a traditional audit, but the work is conducted via email, telephone, videoconferencing, and secure cloud platforms. In other words, the auditor may be off-site, but through digital means can inspect documents, interview personnel, and even observe operations in real time.

The shift to remote auditing was accelerated by necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under lockdowns and travel restrictions, many audits that would have been impossible to conduct in person were instead carried out remotely, ensuring business continuity. Just a few years ago, a disruption on the scale of COVID-19 might have halted most audits entirely. In 2020–2021, auditing firms and compliance officers rapidly adopted online collaboration tools to continue critical oversight work. This experience demonstrated that remote audits can be effective, leading to a paradigm change. Even after the pandemic subsided, organisations have continued to embrace remote and hybrid audit approaches. Much like hybrid work schedules (with employees working some days from home), remote auditing is “here to stay” for many organisations.

For South African public sector institutions and businesses, the rise of remote auditing comes at a time when maintaining compliance is more complex – and more crucial – than ever. Leaders face multifaceted regulatory demands, from protecting personal information under the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) to meeting the governance principles of King IV and the financial controls of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA). At the same time, resource constraints and geographical distances (especially in a country with both urban centres and remote areas) make traditional on-site audits challenging. Remote auditing offers an opportunity to enhance oversight efficiency and broaden the reach of compliance programs. However, it also introduces new challenges, such as ensuring data security and audit quality from afar.

This paper delves into all major aspects of remote auditing in the South African context. We will discuss the tools and processes that enable remote audits, the benefits and opportunities this approach provides, and the challenges and risks that need to be managed. We will then examine how key South African regulations and compliance requirements intersect with remote auditing – including considerations for POPIA, the Companies Act, PFMA, MFMA, King IV, and industry-specific laws like Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE). Recent trends and technological enablers (cloud computing, AI, blockchain, and more) will be highlighted for their role in transforming compliance functions. Finally, practical strategies and best practices are presented, along with real-world examples, to help executives implement remote auditing effectively. The goal is to provide a comprehensive, business-oriented understanding of remote auditing and compliance that can inform decision-making for senior executives in both the public sector and small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across industries.

The Rise of Remote Auditing

From On-Site to Online:

Auditing has traditionally been synonymous with site visits – auditors poring over physical files in a back office or walking through factory floors. Remote auditing changes this dynamic. In a remote audit, the auditor might review scanned documents via a secure cloud repository, conduct interviews via Microsoft Teams or Zoom, and observe processes through live video feeds. The audit process and objectives remain the same as an on-site audit (and must still follow the same professional standards), but the medium of engagement is virtual. For example, instead of inspecting a paper ledger on a desk, an auditor may examine financial records through an online portal; instead of a face-to-face meeting with a compliance officer, a video conference is held. This virtualisation of audits has been enabled by the proliferation of digital tools and faster internet connectivity.

Catalyst – COVID-19:

The move towards remote audits received an unprecedented push during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing and travel bans made many traditional audits impossible or risky, forcing organisations to innovate. In South Africa, as in the rest of the world, auditors and compliance teams quickly implemented remote approaches to fulfil their duties. For instance, government regulators and audit firms allowed virtual inspections and electronic evidence in cases where previously an on-site presence was mandatory. The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), responsible for auditing public sector entities, had to pivot to remote auditing to continue its oversight of government finances during lockdowns. Auditor-General Tsakani Maluleke noted in early 2021 that “auditing remotely has now become part of their lives and it has required adjustment from their staff and those of their auditees”. The AGSA provided staff with secure VPN connections and audit software to collect evidence from home, illustrating how even constitutional institutions embraced remote methods. Maluleke expressed confidence that these adaptations would make audits more efficient and flexible, helping the AGSA complete its work on time despite pandemic disruptions. This real-world example from the public sector demonstrates that remote auditing was not just a stopgap measure; it delivered tangible benefits in continuity and may permanently inform how audits are conducted in the public sphere.

Here to Stay – A Hybrid Future:

As businesses and agencies acclimatised to remote audits, many discovered lasting advantages (discussed in the next section) that suggest virtual auditing will remain widely used. A survey of practices post-2020 found that most organisations plan to continue with some form of remote auditing, often as part of a hybrid model. In a hybrid audit approach, parts of the audit are done remotely (especially planning, document review, interviews), and on-site visits are used selectively for areas that truly require physical verification (such as observing inventory counts or inspecting physical infrastructure). According to one report, the use of secure cloud-based audit platforms and online confirmation tools has reduced the need for in-person audit visits by about 60%, with virtual audits proving their worth during the pandemic and continuing to offer cost and time savings thereafter. Executives have found that a well-planned remote audit can be just as effective as a traditional one, a point echoed by KPMG’s experience in Africa: when forced to go remote, KPMG auditors noted the approach was “equally effective and perhaps more efficient” once processes were adjusted. As a result, rather than reverting fully to old ways, many organisations are integrating remote auditing into their standard operating procedures. Remote methods provide agility – audits can carry on even if travel is restricted or if team members are distributed across different locations. In South Africa, where companies may have operations spread across provinces (or international offices linked to local entities), the ability to audit without always dispatching a team on-site is a strategic advantage.

In summary, remote auditing has transitioned from an emergency response to a new normal in the assurance landscape. It aligns with broader trends of digital transformation and remote work. However, to leverage remote audits successfully, organisations must equip themselves with the right tools and ensure their audit processes are adapted for the virtual environment. The following sections delve into how remote audits are conducted, what benefits and challenges they entail, and how to address those challenges.

Tools and Processes Enabling Remote Audits

Effective remote auditing relies on a combination of technology tools, defined processes, and skilled people. Unlike a traditional audit where an auditor can simply walk into a file room or tap an employee on the shoulder for clarification, a remote audit requires proactive coordination and robust IT support. This section outlines the key tools and processes that make remote audits possible:

Digital Collaboration Platforms:

At the core of any remote audit is a reliable collaboration platform. Auditors and auditees need to communicate in real time and share information seamlessly. High-quality videoconferencing software (such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or Webex) is essential for virtual meetings, interviews, and even virtual site tours. It’s important for organisations to standardise on a collaboration platform so that all parties are comfortable and there is a consistent channel for communication. Equally crucial is a secure, high-bandwidth internet connection for all participants – large files like financial records or databases may need to be transferred, and video calls require stability. Without adequate connectivity, a remote audit can be frustrated by delays or gaps in information. Many organisations ensure that their auditors have access to business-grade internet (and backup options like mobile data or secondary links) to avoid downtime.

Secure Document Repositories and Cloud Systems:

In a remote audit, virtually all documentation is exchanged electronically. This calls for a secure content and data management system to serve as a central repository for audit documents. Cloud-based solutions are ideal, as they allow multiple auditors (possibly in different locations) to collaborate in real time on reviewing documents. Examples include secure file-sharing services or dedicated audit management platforms that support role-based access. A cloud repository (such as an encrypted SharePoint site or a GRC software tool) enables auditees to upload required evidence (policies, logs, invoices, etc.) which auditors can then access anytime. These systems should have strong access controls, encryption, and audit trails to protect sensitive information and ensure only authorised personnel view confidential data – a particularly important point given South Africa’s POPIA requirements on safeguarding personal information.

Remote Audit Software and Applications:

Beyond generic collaboration tools, specialised audit software can greatly enhance remote auditing. Many audit firms use platforms that facilitate managing workpapers, tracking requests, and performing analysis. For instance, audit management systems (like Teammate+, Galvanize (ACL), AuditBoard, etc.) help assign tasks to team members, record findings, and maintain an organised workflow digitally. Furthermore, some organisations have adopted remote auditing apps that leverage mobile technology. A notable example is the app “SGS QiiQ” used by a global certification firm, which allows quality assurance audits to be conducted from anywhere by linking on-site personnel with off-site experts via a mobile interface. Such apps can stream live video from a factory floor to an auditor’s screen, enable real-time Q&A and guidance, and even use augmented reality to point out checkpoints. Web conferencing tools can also be repurposed creatively – for example, using a smartphone camera, an on-site staff member can walk an auditor through a warehouse to verify stock levels or inspect safety compliance, with the auditor directing the view. The combination of mobile cameras, screen-sharing, and even drones in some cases has expanded the range of what can be audited remotely.

Data Access and Analytics Tools:

Access to digital records is pivotal. Auditors may need read-only access to the company’s ERP (enterprise resource planning) system or other databases to retrieve reports and verify transactions. A best practice is to arrange read-only system access for auditors in advance, so they can self-serve much of the data they need. For instance, instead of asking an accounting department to run dozens of queries, the auditor (internal or external) could be given a temporary account to safely view records. Additionally, organisations are employing data analytics tools as part of the remote audit process. These tools (like PowerBI or Tableau for visualisation, or IDEA and ACL for data analysis) allow auditors to quickly analyse large datasets without being on-site. By leveraging analytics, auditors can identify anomalies or high-risk items for further review, which is especially useful when a physical inspection is not feasible. Indeed, technology now enables continuous auditing and full-population testing – AI-driven analytics can review every transaction in a ledger for red flags, rather than auditors manually sampling a few entries. This not only compensates for the absence of physical presence but can actually increase audit coverage and insight.

Process Adjustments for Remote Auditing:

Alongside tools, the audit process must be adapted to the remote context. Preparation is paramount. Before a remote audit begins, it’s advisable to conduct a pre-audit overview or kick-off meeting with the audit team and the auditee’s key contacts. During this phase, auditors can get a high-level understanding of the organisation and scope, ensure they have access to all necessary systems and documents, and flag any initial issues (like missing login credentials or unclear documentation) before the formal audit work starts. This “big picture” review sets a solid foundation and prevents wasted time later due to access problems.

Communication protocols should be established up front. Without the benefit of face-to-face interaction, auditors and auditees should agree on regular check-ins (for example, daily briefings or emails summarising progress). Many successful remote audits use a daily status update system: auditors send a report of what information has been received, what is pending, and any findings or questions, which keeps everyone aligned. This practice creates transparency and momentum, and it mirrors the way an on-site team might huddle to discuss progress.

Another key process element is managing document flow. The audit team should provide an information request list well in advance, giving the auditee time to gather and upload materials. If some records are still paper-based, arrangements must be made to digitise them. One common solution is designating an on-site coordinator at the auditee’s location who can, on behalf of the auditors, locate physical documents and scan or photograph them for remote review. This person can also use a headset or video call to let the auditor virtually “look over their shoulder” as they sift through files, ensuring the auditor can direct the search in real time. While this might seem cumbersome, it is an effective workaround for the challenge of non-digital information in a remote audit.

IT Support and Training:

Remote audits introduce technical complexity, so having IT support readily available is critical. Executives should ensure that both the audit team and the auditee’s team know who to call if a secure connection fails or if access to a system is inadvertently blocked. A well-trained support team (IT personnel or system admins) should be on standby, especially at the start of the audit, to troubleshoot login issues, network glitches, or software questions. Moreover, training is important not just for support staff but for auditors themselves. Auditors and compliance officers may be experts in finance or regulation, but not necessarily in the latest virtual meeting tools – hence, time should be allotted for the team to practice using the chosen technologies before the audit. Even basic things like how to join a video meeting, share screens, or mute/unmute should be second nature, so that the technology does not become a barrier during discussions. Similarly, auditee staff who will interact with auditors remotely might need a briefing on the tools (for instance, how to upload files to the shared drive, or how to use an online questionnaire form if one is provided).

In essence, the success of a remote audit hinges on thorough planning and the smart use of technology. By setting up a robust digital infrastructure – secure communication channels, cloud document repositories, remote access to systems – and by adjusting audit workflows to the virtual environment, organisations can create a smooth remote auditing process. Many companies in South Africa have already adopted these practices. For example, some internal audit departments use shared platforms accessible to auditors working from different cities, and external auditors often send their PBC (Provided By Client) lists electronically weeks before an audit, to ensure the client has uploaded the evidence to a portal by the time the audit kicks off. These practices reduce the friction of distance and allow auditors to focus on their core task: evaluating compliance and controls.

Benefits and Opportunities of Remote Auditing

Remote auditing offers several compelling benefits for organisations and auditors alike. When implemented well, it can enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and even improve the quality of life for audit professionals. For senior executives looking at the bottom line and strategic advantages, the following opportunities stand out:

Efficiency and Time Savings: Remote audits eliminate or greatly reduce the time auditors spend travelling to and from audit sites. This reclaimed time can be redirected to more valuable activities, such as deeper document review or more thorough analysis. In practical terms, an auditor who would have spent hours in transit can instead use that time to write more detailed findings or examine additional samples. One source notes that the time saved on commuting and logistics is substantial and can be put to better use, like enhancing the audit report or covering more ground in the audit scope. Additionally, scheduling tends to be more flexible – meetings can often be set up on short notice because participants do not need to be in the same physical location.
Cost Reduction: There are direct financial benefits to remote auditing. By removing the need for travel, organisations save on airfare or car mileage, accommodation for audit staff, meal allowances, and other travel-related expenses. Especially for SMEs or public sector departments under budget constraints, these savings are significant. Traditional audits of a national footprint (e.g. a company with offices in Cape Town, Durban, and Johannesburg) might involve considerable travel expenses, whereas a remote audit incurs virtually none of these costs. Studies and professional reports have highlighted that remote audits are more cost-effective, with the usual travel and lodging costs largely eliminated. For audit firms or internal audit units, this can mean more audits performed within the same budget, or an ability to allocate funds to technology investments instead of travel bills.
Access to Broader Expertise: Remote auditing allows organisations to tap into expertise regardless of location. If a particular compliance audit requires a specialist (for instance, an IT security audit needing a cybersecurity expert, or a public sector audit needing a PFMA specialist), remote work means that expert can contribute without the barrier of physical location. A small business in a rural part of South Africa could engage a top auditor from Johannesburg or even overseas to review their compliance, all via remote channels. This democratisation of access can improve audit quality, as teams can be composed based on skill rather than geography. It also helps in cases of multi-site organisations – one audit team can concurrently cover different branches by splitting into sub-teams remotely, instead of travelling sequentially to each site.
Auditor Well-being and Productivity: Audit work can be intensive, often involving long days and extended periods away from home (for external auditors, it’s not uncommon to spend weeks on-site at a client). Remote auditing can help alleviate “audit burnout.” Auditors working from their home or a central office face fewer of the stresses associated with constant travel and living out of hotels. This can lead to better focus and morale. Indeed, auditors have reported improved work-life balance when some audits are done remotely, as it offers greater autonomy and efficient use of time. Happier, less fatigued auditors are likely to be more alert and effective in identifying issues, which benefits the organisation being audited as well.
Operational Continuity and Resilience: One of the biggest advantages that became evident during COVID-19 is the resilience remote auditing affords. Companies and government departments were able to continue critical compliance checks and financial audits even amid lockdowns, thanks to remote methodologies. This has longer-term implications: even outside of a pandemic, other disruptions (natural disasters, strikes, or unforeseen events) could prevent physical visits. Remote auditing capabilities ensure that regulatory and compliance audits can continue despite such challenges. In South Africa, consider far-flung sites like mining operations or municipal offices in distant provinces – if travel becomes difficult, remote audits can bridge the gap and maintain oversight until travel resumes. This continuity is not just about meeting audit deadlines; it’s about sustaining trust and accountability. Regulators and stakeholders don’t want to hear that an important audit was skipped due to logistical issues. With remote options, there is less risk of audits being deferred or omitted.
Coverage and Frequency: Because remote audits require less logistical effort, organisations can conceivably conduct more frequent audits or spot-checks. An internal compliance team might rotate mini-audits of different departments throughout the year remotely, whereas previously they might only manage an annual on-site audit due to resource limits. Continuous monitoring becomes more feasible (as discussed in the technology section) when the effort to “visit” a site is as simple as initiating a data connection. In regulated industries, this can be a game-changer. For example, a financial services company could carry out quarterly remote compliance reviews on key controls, supplementing the annual external audit. The benefit is earlier detection of issues and ongoing assurance to management and regulators.
Geographical Reach and Inclusion: For the public sector in particular, remote auditing provides an opportunity to include more sites in the audit process without proportional cost increase. South Africa’s government has offices and projects across a vast area. Using remote techniques, auditors at the Auditor-General’s office can scrutinise smaller municipalities or entities that previously might not have received the same level of attention due to travel constraints. In fact, in one of the Auditor-General’s special reports on COVID-19 spending, remote tools were used to audit transactions and procurement in multiple municipalities simultaneously. This suggests a future where oversight is more uniformly applied, because remote auditing evens out some logistical disparities.

Despite these benefits, it’s important to note that remote auditing is not a panacea – it works best when combined with sound judgment about where it is appropriate. Many organisations find that a hybrid approach yields the best results, leveraging the benefits above while still occasionally deploying auditors on-site for those areas that truly need physical observation. Nonetheless, from a business perspective, the opportunities presented by remote audits – cost savings, efficiency gains, and resilience – are very attractive. Senior executives can view remote auditing as an extension of their digital transformation and risk management strategies: it is another way to run smarter operations.

By seizing these benefits, companies can also repurpose saved resources. For instance, money saved on travel could be invested in better audit tools or training. Time saved can be used for addressing audit findings or strengthening compliance programs. The net effect is often a more robust compliance posture.

In summary, the move to remote auditing can drive cost efficiency, enhance flexibility, and strengthen compliance oversight – a trio of advantages that align well with the needs of both public institutions and private businesses in the modern era.

Challenges and Risks of Remote Auditing

While remote auditing brings many advantages, it also introduces new challenges and risks that organisations must manage. Executives should be aware of these potential pitfalls to ensure that moving audits off-site does not compromise audit quality or compliance. Key challenges and risks include:

Technology Dependence and Reliability: A successful remote audit is highly dependent on technology infrastructure. Network connectivity issues, software glitches, or hardware failures can disrupt the audit process. For example, if an auditor loses connection during a critical meeting or cannot access the client’s systems due to VPN failures, the audit can be delayed. In South Africa, where internet stability can vary by location, this is a real concern. Power load-shedding and bandwidth limitations add to the risk. Thus, remote audits carry an inherent IT risk – something rarely considered in traditional audits. Mitigation requires backup plans (such as alternative internet sources, or the ability to switch to audio-only communication if video fails) and support from IT staff to troubleshoot quickly. Moreover, not all organisations have equal IT maturity; an SME might not have an advanced IT environment, making the remote audit more challenging to execute.
Reduced Personal Interaction: Auditing isn’t just about paperwork; it’s also about people. The rapport and intuitive understanding that develop from face-to-face interactions are harder to achieve remotely. Lack of personal connection is cited as a drawback of remote audits. Auditors cannot as easily read body language over a screen, nor engage in the informal conversations that sometimes yield useful insights (e.g. overhearing a hallway remark or spontaneously walking to someone’s desk to clarify a point). This can affect the effectiveness of the audit process – issues might go unexplored because the auditor didn’t get the same “feel” of the organisation’s culture or because staff were less forthcoming over formal video calls. There’s also a risk that auditees may feel less engaged or less observed, which could impact how seriously they treat the audit. Building trust remotely requires effort; both auditors and auditees must strive to communicate openly and clearly to compensate for the virtual barrier.
Audit Scope Limitations: Some audits simply cannot be done entirely remotely. There are cases where remote audits are not possible or feasible for certain audit objectives. For instance, consider an inventory count for a manufacturing company – an auditor usually needs to be physically present to observe counting and ensure existence of stock. While some creative solutions (like live video streaming of a warehouse walkthrough) can substitute to an extent, they may not fully satisfy audit requirements in all scenarios. Similarly, inspecting the condition of equipment, verifying the implementation of safety controls, or assessing physical security controls (like access badges at a facility) might require an on-site visit. During the pandemic, many such activities were deferred or done with limited assurance. There’s a risk of audit quality reduction if remote methods are stretched beyond their suitable scope. Academic research has found evidence that fully remote audits can lead to decreased audit quality in certain contexts – for example, companies with high inventory or complex R&D processes saw more audit issues when auditors worked entirely off-site. Non-Big Four auditors and situations requiring significant judgment were particularly affected, underscoring the importance of auditor presence in some cases. Thus, a blanket remote approach without consideration of scope can be risky.
Evidence Verification and Authenticity: In a traditional audit, an auditor might inspect original documents (e.g. seeing a wet-ink signed contract or a physical invoice) to ensure authenticity. With electronic evidence, there is a risk that what is provided could be altered or not fully complete. Ensuring the integrity of audit evidence obtained remotely is a key challenge. Auditors have to rely on scans or data extracts, which could theoretically be manipulated. There is also the possibility of selective provision of information – since the auditor isn’t on-site to ask for “that file on the shelf,” they rely on what the auditee sends. One mitigation is obtaining evidence from independent or credible sources whenever possible, and seeking multi-level confirmations for important items. For example, rather than trusting a scanned bank statement sent by a client, the auditor might directly confirm balances with the bank via electronic confirmation systems. Organisations should set a tone at the top that tampering with provided evidence is unacceptable (and perhaps technically deter it by, say, providing auditors read-only access to systems so they pull data directly). Nonetheless, fraud risk can increase in remote settings if not vigilantly monitored, since the physical checks are fewer.
Data Security and Privacy Risks: Remote audits involve transmitting potentially sensitive data over networks and storing it on digital platforms. This raises information security concerns. Companies must ensure that data shared with auditors (financial records, personal information about customers or employees, etc.) is protected in transit and at rest. If using cloud services or external collaboration tools, data might traverse outside the company’s direct control. The risk of cyberattacks or data leaks during an audit is not trivial – imagine if confidential financial data being audited were intercepted or if an auditor’s laptop was compromised. Moreover, under POPIA, organisations in South Africa have legal obligations to safeguard personal information; a data breach during a remote audit could lead not only to operational trouble but regulatory penalties. Recognising this risk, audit teams implement measures such as using VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) for encrypted communication, and strictly prohibiting use of unsecured channels or personal email for audit information. Auditors should only use approved secure platforms provided by either the client or their firm. Limiting system access is also prudent – for instance, giving auditors read-only access and only to the necessary data, to reduce the risk exposure window. All these precautions must be in place to prevent data breaches. Failure in this area can be costly; aside from legal fines, trust between the auditee and auditor could be damaged if sensitive data is mishandled.
Communication Gaps and Coordination Issues: Remote work in general suffers from the challenge of keeping everyone on the same page. In a remote audit, miscommunication can easily occur. An auditor might misinterpret an email or not get a prompt answer due to the lack of face-to-face follow-up. Auditees might feel less urgency in responding to an email request than they would with an auditor sitting in their office. These gaps can slow down the audit or cause frustration. KPMG identified communication difficulties with process owners and unavailability of key staff as common challenges in remote audits. For example, scheduling meetings can be harder when people aren’t together – someone might miss a call or forget a virtual meeting, whereas if an auditor is on-site, they might catch that person in the hallway. To mitigate this, clear schedules and frequent reminders are needed. Still, the risk remains that a remote audit might take longer due to coordination overhead. There’s also the human tendency to multitask in virtual settings – an employee might be less focused in a remote audit interview, checking emails on the side, whereas in person they’d be more fully engaged. Such divided attention can result in less accurate or complete information being shared.
Audit Timeline and Project Management Risks: Without careful management, remote audits can suffer delays in receiving information and overruns of timelines. When documents are not handed over in person but instead requested electronically, auditees might procrastinate or accidentally overlook the request email. KPMG noted that receiving information was harder to fast-track remotely, leading to delays. Also, unexpected technical or availability issues can push timelines out. This can be problematic if an audit has a hard deadline (e.g. statutory audits that must be finished by a certain date for financial reporting). The remedy is to reassess and perhaps narrow the audit scope if delays mount, and to engage proactively with those responsible to keep things on track. Using project management tools or an audit tracker can help monitor outstanding items in a remote audit. Nonetheless, the risk of missing deadlines is something to watch closely in a virtual environment.

In light of these challenges, many experts advocate a hybrid audit model as a balanced approach. As academic Sian (2022) suggests, a hybrid model can overcome communication challenges and evidence gathering issues by combining remote work with selective in-person interactions. The idea is to enjoy the efficiency of remote auditing for documentation and interviews, but also schedule some on-site verification for critical areas, thereby mitigating risks around evidence integrity and scope limitations.

To address the risks systematically, organisations should update their audit methodologies to include risk assessments for remote audits. For example, before deciding to do an audit remotely, consider: Are there significant inventory or fixed asset verifications needed (which are harder remotely)? Does the auditee have reliable IT infrastructure? Is the data being audited sensitive under POPIA, requiring extra safeguards? By answering these, one can decide if a full remote, hybrid, or traditional approach is warranted for each audit.

In summary, remote auditing introduces challenges in technology reliability, human interaction, evidence reliability, data security, and logistics. Being forewarned allows organisations to be forearmed – with good planning, training, and the adoption of mitigating controls (like secure IT setups and clear communication plans), these challenges can be overcome. The next sections will discuss how South African regulations come into play and provide best practices to navigate these risks while reaping the benefits of remote audits.

South African Regulatory Landscape: Compliance Considerations for Remote Auditing

South Africa’s regulatory environment is robust and multi-dimensional, impacting how audits (including remote audits) must be conducted to ensure compliance. Senior executives must ensure that shifting to remote auditing does not lead to non-compliance with local laws or governance codes. In many cases, remote auditing can support compliance by enabling ongoing checks, but attention must be paid to specific legal requirements. Here we examine key South African regulations and standards relevant to auditing and compliance, and discuss how they relate to the remote auditing context:

Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) – Data Privacy in Remote Audits

POPIA is South Africa’s comprehensive data protection law, akin to Europe’s GDPR. It governs how personal information (pertaining to customers, employees, or any natural persons) must be collected, stored, used, and protected by organisations. Under POPIA, companies must implement stringent safeguards and can face hefty fines or enforcement actions if they fail to protect personal data. Remote auditing intersects with POPIA in two main ways: (1) the content of audits often includes personal information (think HR records, customer files, etc.), and (2) the process of remote auditing involves data transfer and potentially third-party access to that information (e.g. external auditors connecting remotely).

Firstly, if a remote audit is examining areas like customer data management, HR compliance, or IT security, the audit will directly scrutinise POPIA compliance. Auditors will look for evidence that proper consent was obtained for personal data, that data encryption and access controls are in place, and that breach response plans exist. In fact, as regulatory scrutiny grows, POPIA compliance audits are expected to become more stringent, delving deeply into whether organisations are truly upholding privacy rights. Remote auditing tools must allow auditors to inspect things like consent records or data protection policies, which might involve remote access to secure systems. Ensuring the auditor can do this safely is crucial.

Secondly, in conducting the audit remotely, personal data might be transmitted. POPIA’s Security Safeguard provisions require that when personal information is sent over a network or stored in the cloud, it must be protected against unauthorised access. For example, if an auditor asks for a dataset of customer information to analyse compliance, the company must ensure it’s transferred securely (preferably encrypted and through a secure portal, not email). Additionally, if remote auditors are located outside South Africa or using cloud servers abroad, POPIA’s cross-border data transfer rules kick in – essentially, personal data may only be sent out of South Africa if the recipient (or their jurisdiction) has equivalent data protection laws or if the individual consents. This means that multinational companies coordinating audits across borders need to be mindful of where audit data resides. A practical step is to keep remote audit data on local servers or reputable cloud services that are POPIA compliant.

Another angle is the role of the Information Officer under POPIA (every organisation must appoint one). This officer should be involved in approving and overseeing any remote audit that deals with personal data, to ensure compliance is maintained. In line with POPIA, the audit team should probably sign a confidentiality agreement (if external) or adhere to internal policies regarding personal data handling. Logging and monitoring of what auditors access can add accountability.

In summary, POPIA doesn’t prevent remote auditing, but it raises the bar for how data in a remote audit is handled. Companies should make sure that remote audits do not inadvertently cause a privacy breach. If personal information is part of the audit evidence, steps like masking or anonymising data (when feasible) can be wise. By treating the remote audit platform as an extension of their own environment – secured and monitored – organisations can comply with POPIA while benefiting from remote audits. Given the regulator’s increasing focus on data privacy, executives should see remote audits as an opportunity to double-check their POPIA compliance in real time, and not as a loophole to be lax on data security.

Companies Act and Financial Reporting Compliance

South Africa’s Companies Act, 71 of 2008, along with the regulations of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), sets requirements for financial record-keeping, auditing, and governance for companies. Not all companies are legally required to have an audit – it depends on factors like public interest score – but many (especially larger firms and those listed on exchanges) do have mandatory annual audits or independent reviews. The Companies Act and accompanying financial reporting standards (like IFRS for listed entities) don’t explicitly differentiate between how an audit is conducted (on-site vs remote), but they demand that audits be performed to acceptable standards and that directors ensure proper internal controls and record availability.

For executives, the key is that a remote audit must meet the same bar as a traditional audit in terms of rigor and completeness, so that the company remains compliant with the Act’s requirements for fair presentation of financials and effective internal controls. There have been frequent legislative updates and amendments to corporate laws and regulations, meaning compliance audit requirements can shift rapidly. For example, if the Companies Act is amended to require additional disclosures (such as sustainability information or executive pay transparency), auditors will need to audit those disclosures too. Remote auditing techniques will need to adapt to verify new types of information.

One practical consideration under the Companies Act is the requirement to keep certain records (like minutes, accounting records) at the company’s registered office or another accessible location. If auditors are remote, companies might need to ensure those records are digitised or otherwise accessible. During COVID-19, CIPC and other regulators were generally accommodating of electronic records and filings, setting a de facto precedent that electronic documents are acceptable for compliance purposes – a trend likely to continue.

Another aspect is the role of the Audit Committee, as mandated for public companies. Audit Committees under the Companies Act (and King IV, discussed next) have to oversee the audit process and ensure auditor independence and quality. They should be informed if audits are going to be remote and should inquire about how the audit firm plans to handle any remote-related limitations. An enlightened Audit Committee might ask management: “Have you provided the auditors with all necessary remote access? Are you confident no audit evidence will be missing due to remote work?” This oversight ensures that the remote nature of an audit does not inadvertently cause non-compliance (such as missing a statutory deadline or failing to detect a control issue).

In summary, the Companies Act framework demands transparent, reliable financial reporting and governance. Remote auditing is fully compatible with these demands as long as companies maintain good record-keeping (preferably electronic), and auditors adhere to auditing standards. In fact, the flexibility of remote audits can help companies comply with reporting timelines – e.g. auditors can start preliminary work remotely even before year-end, to speed up the final audit. Executives should thus view remote auditing as a tool to meet their Companies Act obligations more efficiently, not as a hurdle. So far, there’s no indication that regulators like CIPC object to remote audits; what matters to them is the outcome (accurate audits and reports) rather than the physical process.

King IV Code of Corporate Governance – Assurance and IT Governance

King IV is not legislation but a voluntary code of corporate governance that has been widely adopted in South Africa (and, in some instances, effectively required for listed companies via JSE listing rules). King IV places strong emphasis on governance structures, including the assurance model and the use of technology. There are a few key principles from King IV that tie in with remote auditing:

Combined Assurance: King IV advocates a “five lines of assurance” model, expanding the traditional three lines of defense. It encourages coordination among various assurance providers – internal auditors, external auditors, compliance officers, regulators, and the board itself – to avoid gaps or overlaps. In a remote auditing scenario, combined assurance can be facilitated through digital means. For instance, internal audit findings (perhaps from a remote internal audit) can be shared on a common platform accessible by the Audit Committee and external auditors, improving alignment. King IV actually requires the Audit Committee to ensure that the combined assurance model is implemented effectively and that assurance activities are coordinated. Remote auditing can play a role here by making it easier to “combine” assurance – if all assurance providers use collaborative tools, they can more easily share their insights. However, it also means the board should be confident that remote methods are producing quality assurance. If anything, King IV’s combined assurance principle means that if one assurance function (say internal audit) is working remotely, they should communicate any limitations or risk to the others (like the external auditors or risk management function). The board, via the Audit Committee, should query how remote auditing is integrated into the overall assurance plan for the organisation.
Technology and Information Governance: King IV has specific principles (Principle 12 in King IV’s 17 principles) focusing on the governance of IT and information. It expects the board to govern technology and information in a way that supports the organisation setting and achieving its objectives, and it calls for a robust cybersecurity plan and regular review of the adequacy of the organisation’s technology and information systems. This is very relevant to remote auditing – conducting audits remotely is only possible with strong IT systems and implies that sensitive information will be accessed through those systems. Therefore, boards should ensure that their IT governance covers the scenario of remote access by auditors. For example, have they implemented multi-factor authentication for remote connections? Are there policies for remote work (including by third parties like auditors) that ensure security? King IV’s focus on IT governance aligns with needing to have such controls. Additionally, King IV notes that boards should oversee that information assets (which include data from audits) are protected. By extension, one could infer that a board following King IV would want assurance that remote auditing processes themselves are secure and not introducing risk. In practice, a King IV-aligned company may have its IT subcommittee or Audit Committee review the protocols of remote audits, especially if critical financial data or customer information is involved.
Ethical Leadership and Transparency: Although not directly about auditing, King IV’s emphasis on ethics and transparency means that boards should support any mechanism (like remote auditing) that enhances oversight and accountability, as long as it’s done ethically. Remote audits should be as transparent as on-site ones – the same disclosures in annual reports about audit processes would apply. If remote methods discovered a material issue, King IV would expect the board to act just as diligently upon it.

In essence, King IV does not oppose remote auditing; instead, it provides a framework to ensure that if remote audits are used, they are governed properly and integrated into the overall assurance picture. Companies applying King IV can legitimately include remote auditing practices in their King IV application reports, for instance by stating how technology is used in assurance. Given King IV’s explicit mention of developing a cyber security plan and reviewing technology effectiveness, one could argue that having capabilities for remote oversight (with secure technology) is actually part of being a forward-looking, well-governed organisation. The code also warns that auditor independence and quality should be maintained – remote or not, audit independence must be preserved, which means things like ensuring remote auditors still have unrestricted access to information (no management filtering due to the distance).

To summarise, King IV supports any audit approach that strengthens assurance and controls, provided it is well-controlled. Executives in King IV-governed entities should ensure remote auditing is covered under their governance policies: that there are guidelines for when to do it, how to secure it, and how to report on it to the board and stakeholders.

Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) – Public Sector Accountability

PFMA and MFMA are critical statutes governing financial management in the national/provincial and local government spheres, respectively. They require government departments, public entities, municipalities, and municipal entities to maintain effective, efficient financial management and submit to regular audits (usually by the Auditor-General). These acts aim to ensure public funds are managed with transparency and accountability, imposing duties on accounting officers to keep proper records and prevent irregular expenditure.

Under PFMA/MFMA, annual audits of financial statements are mandatory, and there are also performance audits and compliance audits in certain cases (like audits of predetermined objectives for performance indicators). The AGSA traditionally conducts these through teams visiting the departments or municipalities. With the advent of remote auditing, the public sector had to adjust. In 2020, as noted earlier, the Auditor-General’s office moved a significant portion of its audits to remote work to avoid delays in audit cycles. This was crucial because any delay in issuing audit opinions can have knock-on effects, such as delaying the tabling of annual reports in Parliament or councils, which PFMA/MFMA require by specific deadlines.

From a compliance standpoint, nothing in PFMA/MFMA prohibits remote audits – what they demand is that entities cooperate with auditors and provide information timely. Whether the auditor is sitting in the building or requesting info via email, the entity must comply. In fact, one could argue remote auditing makes it easier for some small municipalities to get audited, since auditors can engage even if they cannot be physically present due to distance or resource constraints. However, one challenge in public sector audits is often the quality of records (PFMA audits often face issues like missing documents or poor record-keeping). Remote auditing can be harder if documents aren’t digitised – imagine a rural municipality with only paper records and patchy internet; remote auditing there would be difficult. Thus, Treasury and the AGSA have been encouraging digital record-keeping as part of modernisation of government finance. In cases where records were not digitised, the AGSA had to sometimes send scanners or make alternative plans, which highlighted an area for improvement.

Another relevant aspect is oversight bodies – PFMA and MFMA establish Audit Committees for departments and municipalities, and these committees now often meet virtually (especially post-COVID). Remote auditing ties into that: Audit Committees can receive audit updates via video meetings. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and other legislative oversight committees also adapted; they were briefed by the AG remotely. All of this shows an ecosystem adjusting to ensure accountability carries on.

One could also consider Section 45 of the Public Audit Act (as amended) – it allows the AG to provide audit or audit-related services. While not directly about remote, the amended Public Audit Act introduced “material irregularity” provisions, giving the AG more power to act on findings. Remote tools have enabled the AG to identify material irregularities even when they couldn’t go on-site, by focusing on data analysis of transactions. So remote auditing, by ensuring audits happened on schedule, indirectly supported the enforcement of PFMA/MFMA (because without timely audits, irregularities would go unchecked longer).

Overall, for executives in public sector entities: remote auditing should be seen as a means to fulfil PFMA/MFMA obligations under challenging conditions, not as a relaxation. Entities must still prepare their financial statements and performance reports, and be ready to supply evidence to auditors. Remote or on-site, the requirement to have proper systems of internal control and record-keeping (a PFMA principle) remains. In fact, if an entity can accommodate a remote audit smoothly, it likely means they have better electronic systems and records, which is itself a sign of good financial management. Post-pandemic, the AGSA has indicated that a hybrid of remote and on-site will continue, and that they will “find ways to be flexible in how we audit so that we can minimise disruption in accountability and oversight processes”. This statement underscores that the priority is the outcome – accountability – and remote auditing is just another method to achieve it.

Industry-Specific Compliance Audits (e.g. B-BBEE, Health & Safety, Environmental)

Beyond general laws, many industries in South Africa have specific compliance requirements that are subject to audits or verifications. A few notable ones include:

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE): Companies often undergo B-BBEE verification audits to obtain a B-BBEE scorecard, which is critical for government tenders and licenses. These verifications are conducted by accredited verification agencies and typically involve on-site visits to confirm things like employee demographics, supplier status, and community project involvement. During COVID-19, regulators (like SANAS, which accredits B-BBEE agencies) recognised the need for flexibility and allowed remote verification in lieu of on-site visits. Specifically, B-BBEE verification agencies were permitted to conduct “on-site” inspections via recorded video conferencing and review documents electronically. Any required paperwork could be submitted or viewed through video channels. This adaptation ensured businesses could still obtain their B-BBEE certificates during lockdowns. Going forward, this opens the door for a more hybrid verification approach. However, remote B-BBEE audits have to manage risks such as verifying the physical existence of assets or projects claimed – agencies might request GPS-tagged photos or live video as evidence. For executives, if your company is due for a B-BBEE audit, you might have the option of remote verification, which can be more convenient but will still require thorough preparation (scanning HR records, arranging virtual staff interviews, etc.). Always confirm that the verification agency’s process aligns with the latest SANAS guidelines to ensure your certificate is valid.
Health and Safety Audits (e.g. Mine Health & Safety or Occupational Health & Safety): Companies in sectors like mining, construction, or manufacturing must comply with health and safety laws and often undergo audits or inspections (some internal, some by regulators like the Department of Employment and Labour or the Mine Health and Safety Inspectorate). Traditionally, safety audits are on-site because they involve physical inspection of equipment, safety signs, housekeeping, etc. During the pandemic, there were cases of remote health & safety audits being trialled. One mining sector example saw companies conduct safety e-audits via cameras and checklists, and some found it effective enough that they wanted to continue with a remote element even after immediate risks subsided. Remote safety audits can include reviewing documentation (safety procedures, incident logs) remotely and even watching live video of a site walkthrough. However, this is one area where physical presence is often important – remote audits can supplement but likely not fully replace on-site safety inspections. Still, organisations can use remote tools for interim checks or to involve specialists who can’t travel. It also enables auditing of far-flung sites by corporate HSE teams more frequently.
Environmental Compliance Audits: Similar to safety, environmental audits (checking compliance with environmental permits, waste management rules, etc.) usually involve site visits. Some aspects, like reviewing monitoring data or paperwork (e.g. waste disposal manifests), lend themselves to remote review. Drones and satellite images have even been used to remotely audit environmental conditions (like checking if a mine’s tailings dam is at the right height). The Department of Environment did allow certain reporting to be done electronically in 2020. Companies might employ a hybrid approach: remote sensing for broad checks, on-site for detailed ones.
Financial Services and AML: Banks, insurers, and other financial institutions face sector-specific laws (e.g. FAIS, FICA for anti-money laundering). The regulators (FSCA, Prudential Authority, SARB) conduct inspections and audits of compliance. During travel restrictions, many of these regulatory audits went remote – with regulators sending IT checklists, conducting Zoom interviews, etc. One driver was also the FATF grey listing of South Africa in 2023, which led to heightened AML audits by multiple regulators. Remote audits have enabled concurrent scrutiny by different authorities without overburdening the institution with physical visits. Financial institutions should ensure their compliance data (like transaction records, KYC files) are well-organised for remote review. Also, confidentiality is key given the sensitivity of financial data; encryption and access logs are a must when regulators or external auditors access systems remotely.
Quality Management System Audits (ISO certifications): Many businesses, from manufacturing to services, maintain ISO certifications (e.g. ISO 9001 for quality, ISO 14001 for environment, ISO 45001 for safety). Certification bodies like SGS, Bureau Veritas, etc., audit these periodically. These bodies have embraced remote auditing solutions to keep certifications valid during disruptions. For example, SGS in South Africa reassured industries that regulatory and standards audits could continue via its remote auditing apps, which connect sites to auditors in real time. By using such technology, companies were able to maintain their ISO certifications and meet standards despite lockdowns. This showed that remote audits can uphold not just legal compliance but also compliance with voluntary standards.

Regardless of industry, a common thread is that regulators and certification authorities have grown more comfortable with remote or hybrid audits, provided certain conditions are met (like using recorded video for evidence, secure document submission, etc.). For executives, it’s important to stay updated on any guidelines issued by regulators or accreditation bodies about remote audits in your sector. The flexibility is increasing, but typically with safeguards. For example, SANAS’s temporary relaxation for B-BBEE had conditions attached – agencies had to mitigate all risks related to not being physically on-site. This included possibly doing follow-up visits when possible, or documenting reasons for remote verification.

In conclusion, South Africa’s compliance landscape – from broad laws like POPIA and PFMA to specific industry audits – is adapting to remote auditing. Embracing remote audits can help organisations stay compliant even when facing logistical hurdles. However, compliance and audit professionals must ensure that the spirit and letter of the laws are still met. Remote methods are tools, not excuses; a non-compliance is still a non-compliance whether found in person or via a computer screen. The onus is on management to facilitate effective audits and on auditors to carry out their duties with diligence, regardless of distance.

Technological Enablers and Digital Transformation in Auditing

The surge in remote auditing has been facilitated by broader technological trends that are transforming compliance functions. What began as a necessity (using whatever tools available to audit remotely) is evolving into an opportunity to reimagine auditing and compliance through technology. Senior executives should be aware of these enablers, as they not only make remote audits possible, but also significantly enhance the effectiveness of compliance oversight. Key technologies and trends include:

Cloud Computing and Digital Platforms:

As touched on earlier, cloud-based audit and compliance platforms are a foundational enabler for remote auditing. Cloud solutions provide the scalability and accessibility needed for auditors and compliance officers to work from anywhere. Many organisations are moving their financial systems, document repositories, and GRC (Governance, Risk & Compliance) systems to the cloud. This not only makes remote access easier but also supports real-time collaboration. For example, if a company’s accounts are managed in a cloud ERP, an external auditor can be granted access to that environment to review transactions live, rather than working off static exports. Cloud platforms also offer integrated security features (encryption, access logs) that help address the risks of remote work. The ubiquity of cloud technology means even SMEs can afford tools that were once only the domain of big corporations – there are cloud-based compliance management tools for tracking legal requirements, incident reporting apps for H&S compliance, etc., all of which generate data that can be audited remotely. According to industry analysis, the adoption of secure cloud collaboration tools has been so widespread that they dominate many audit processes today. This trend is likely to continue, with cloud solutions becoming the default mode for hosting compliance and audit activities.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automation:

AI is revolutionising auditing by handling repetitive tasks and identifying patterns that humans might miss. In compliance audits, AI-driven software can rapidly scan through vast amounts of data – financial transactions, access logs, communications – to flag anomalies or high-risk items. One analysis suggests that up to 78% of routine audit tasks (like data extraction and basic testing) can be automated with AI. Machine learning algorithms can learn what normal transactions look like and alert auditors to outliers in real-time. For example, an AI tool might analyse all supplier invoices to find duplicates or odd spikes that could indicate fraud or error. In South Africa, companies using AI for areas like ESG compliance data have reported process speeds 40% faster than before. The power of AI is especially beneficial for remote audits: since AI can work on the data centrally, auditors working remotely can focus on interpreting results rather than number-crunching. Automation also reduces human error – an automated check will not overlook something due to fatigue. Another use of AI is in predictive analytics – forecasting where compliance risks might arise (e.g. predicting cash flow issues or detecting early signs of control breakdowns) with impressive accuracy. By integrating AI into remote auditing platforms, organisations can move from sample-based audits to full-population auditing where every record is considered. The net effect is a more thorough audit without necessarily increasing manpower.

Blockchain for Audit Trails:

Blockchain technology is emerging as a tool for maintaining immutable records that auditors can trust. A blockchain is a distributed ledger that is virtually tamper-proof. Some innovative compliance functions are piloting blockchain for compliance records and audit trails. For example, a company might record its procurement transactions on a blockchain ledger; an auditor can then verify that those records haven’t been altered since being written. In the B-BBEE context, blockchain has been explored for maintaining scorecard information and supply chain ownership records, ensuring transparency for verification purposes. If widely adopted, blockchain could significantly reduce the risk of falsified evidence in audits – the auditor could rely on the blockchain log as definitive proof of events. In a remote audit, where the auditor can’t physically observe document handling, having a blockchain audit trail gives extra confidence in integrity. While still in its early stages of adoption, it’s a trend to watch. A scenario for the future: regulators themselves might utilise blockchain to monitor compliance data in real-time (for example, tax compliance or customs entries), thereby continuously auditing through technology rather than relying on periodic checks.

Data Visualisation and Big Data Analytics: The ability to visualise data through dashboards and to crunch “big data” sets has changed how audit findings are communicated and understood.

Auditors now often produce interactive charts or heatmaps that highlight risk areas. This is particularly useful for executives, as it turns raw audit data into actionable insights. For instance, an internal audit team could use data visualisation to show compliance levels across all branches of a company on a map, identifying which region has higher incidents of non-compliance. In remote audits, sharing a dashboard via screen share can sometimes convey an issue more effectively than a stack of spreadsheets. Moreover, when regulators request information (such as during an investigation), being able to query large datasets and present results quickly is a competitive advantage. Companies are also increasingly investing in RPA (Robotic Process Automation) to automate data extraction for audits. For example, an RPA bot might nightly extract system logs or financial entries and compile them for the audit team, saving time.

Continuous Auditing and Monitoring:

Digital transformation is blurring the line between discrete audits and ongoing monitoring. With systems interconnected and data flowing in real-time, auditors (especially internal ones) are moving towards continuous auditing models. Remote auditing dovetails with this – if systems can be checked continuously from anywhere, the concept of an “annual audit” could evolve into a continuous assurance process. This means exceptions or compliance deviations are caught and reported as they happen, rather than long after the fact. Continuous monitoring tools alert compliance officers immediately if, for example, a transaction exceeds an approval limit or if an access log indicates unusual activity. Auditors set these parameters and then oversee the process. Executives benefit by getting early warning of issues, aligning with regulators’ push for proactive compliance rather than reactive “tick-box” compliance.

Cybersecurity Tools:

Alongside auditing tools, the importance of cybersecurity has grown. Given the risk mentioned earlier, companies are investing in advanced security for remote work. This includes endpoint protection on auditors’ devices, DLP (Data Loss Prevention) systems that monitor and prevent unauthorised data sharing, and even cyber audit tools that specifically test the organisation’s defences. There’s a convergence happening: cybersecurity audits (like ISO 27001 audits or internal cyber risk assessments) are often being done remotely using network scanning tools, configuration reviews via remote login, etc. Regulators, such as the IRBA, have even mandated that cybersecurity considerations be included in audits for certain companies. Technologies such as AI-driven threat detection are helping auditors and IT compliance professionals identify irregular network patterns that could indicate breaches. The overall effect is raising the bar for compliance in the digital realm.

Regtech and Compliance Automation:

In regulated sectors, Regtech (regulatory technology) solutions are being adopted. These include software that automatically checks transactions against regulations (like sanction screening tools or labour law compliance checkers). For example, tools can scan employee data to ensure that employment equity targets (as per B-BBEE or labour laws) are met, flagging any discrepancies. Or tax compliance software that validates VAT claims against SARS databases. Such automated compliance checks mean that when an audit happens (remote or otherwise), many issues have already been identified and addressed. The audit then becomes more of a validation exercise rather than a first-line discovery.

Overall, these technologies are driving a digital transformation of the audit and compliance function. Remote auditing is both a beneficiary of this transformation (since tech makes it possible) and a catalyst for further change (as remote practices push companies to adopt even better tech tools). The future of compliance in South Africa looks to be heavily tech-enabled: a place where audits are faster, more continuous, and more data-driven. Forward-thinking executives are leveraging these innovations to not only ensure compliance but to gain strategic insight (for example, using compliance data analysis to identify inefficiencies or to strengthen strategic decision-making). However, with great technology comes the need for skilled people – investing in training auditors and compliance officers to use AI, analytics, and new tools is just as important as the tools themselves

In summary, cloud, AI, blockchain, and related digital tools are not buzzwords but practical enablers that amplify the effectiveness of remote audits and compliance monitoring. Companies that embrace these will likely find that they can not only comply with laws more easily but can turn compliance into a competitive advantage, achieving higher trust with stakeholders and being better prepared for regulatory changes. The South African regulatory trend is also towards requiring more tech-savvy compliance (e.g., electronic submissions, greater scrutiny of data). Thus, technology adoption in auditing is both an opportunity and an inevitability in keeping up with the evolving landscape.

Best Practices and Strategies for Implementing Remote Auditing

Implementing remote auditing in a way that captures its benefits while mitigating its challenges requires careful planning and strategy. Below are practical insights and recommendations for organisations – particularly aimed at senior executives and compliance leaders – to successfully integrate remote audits into their operations:

1. Establish a Clear Remote Audit Policy and Scope:

Start by defining when and how remote audits will be used in your organisation. Not every audit needs to be remote, so set criteria (for example: audits of geographically distant sites, or during travel restrictions, or for areas where digital data is readily available). By formalising this in a policy, you give clarity to your teams and external auditors about expectations. Include in the policy the security requirements (use of VPN, approved tools only, no personal email for audit data, etc.) to ensure consistency and compliance with data protection rules and assets. The policy should also stipulate that remote audits must adhere to the same standards as in-person audits – quality should not be compromised. If regulators issue guidance (like SANAS did for B-BBEE or IIA for internal audits), incorporate those guidelines.

2. Invest in the Right Technology Infrastructure:

This cannot be overstated – technology can make or break a remote audit. Ensure you have:

A high-quality, secure collaboration platform for virtual meetings. All relevant parties should use this platform to avoid fragmentation (e.g. don’t have some people on Skype, others on Teams – pick one).
Secure cloud storage or audit management software for sharing documents. If needed, invest in an audit-specific tool that allows tracking of requests and uploading of evidence. Make sure it has encryption and access control features.
Adequate bandwidth and connectivity for all involved. If your key finance staff are in an area with poor internet, consider providing them with data cards or alternative means during the audit. As KPMG advises, subscription to a good internet service is essential – don’t let something as mundane as a data cap derail your audit.
Hardware and peripherals: For example, good quality webcams, maybe 360-degree cameras for showing rooms, or body cams for on-site personnel doing virtual walkthroughs. Little things like a portable scanner for an on-site contact can vastly improve the ability to digitise documents on the fly.

3. Prepare and Train Your Team:

Both auditors and auditees should be well-prepared for the remote audit format. Conduct training sessions so that everyone is comfortable with the tools to be used. Consider doing a dry-run or simulated remote audit scenario to practice. It might be useful to create a “Remote Audit Checklist” for auditees: e.g., test your internet connection, have these files scanned in advance, know how to access the shared folder, etc. Internally, coach your auditors on soft skills for virtual communication – how to keep participants engaged in a video meeting, how to clearly articulate questions since reading body language is harder, etc. The more familiar the team is with the remote process, the smoother it will go.

4. Robust Planning and Communication:

Plan the audit timeline with some buffer for the unexpected. It often takes longer to get documents remotely, so build that into your schedule. Issue the document request list well in advance and in phases if possible. Don’t wait until the last minute to ask for key evidence. Encourage auditees to start uploading documents even before the official audit start date, if they can. Also, perform the pre-audit overview or scoping meeting remotely to set the stage. During the audit, maintain a disciplined communication routine: daily or weekly status updates, as appropriate, to all stakeholders summarising progress and outstanding items. This keeps everyone accountable. Additionally, schedule periodic check-ins with the audit team itself (if you’re the CAE or audit manager) to ensure they are collaborating effectively and no one is siloed, since team cohesion can suffer remotely. Use video for important meetings to personalise the experience – faces and voices help build trust more than emails alone.

5. Ensure Data Security and Privacy Compliance:

Work closely with your IT and data privacy officers (Information Officer under POPIA) to implement security measures for remote audits. This includes:

Using VPNs for all remote audit data transmission.
Restricting auditor access to what is necessary (principle of least privilege; read-only where applicable).
Prohibiting the transfer of data via insecure means (no personal USB drives, no unauthorised cloud drives).
Logging all access, if possible (many systems can log when an account views or exports data – review these logs if any concerns arise).
If using third-party auditors, ensure NDAs or confidentiality agreements explicitly cover remote work and that the audit firm has adequate cyber safeguards.
For POPIA, ensure any cross-border data considerations are addressed – e.g., if your external auditors use a server in Europe to store working papers, is there an operator agreement or do you need consent? Often, audit firms will have that sorted, but it’s best to verify it.
By doing the above, you not only protect information but also demonstrate diligence in compliance. It might be worth conducting a quick risk assessment of the remote audit process before starting to identify any weak points (e.g., is data being downloaded to auditors’ devices unencrypted? If so, consider requiring encryption on their drives). Being proactive here prevents costly mistakes.

6. Facilitate Evidence Collection and Authenticity:

To avoid delays and ensure completeness of evidence:

Digitise documents wherever possible. If some records are only on paper, assign someone to scan them or consider using optical character recognition (OCR) to make them searchable.
Utilise tools like e-signature validation, secure portals for third-party confirmations (banks, customers), and even blockchain-based verifications if available, to confirm the authenticity of documents.
Encourage a culture of honesty and completeness – remind process owners that providing partial info will only prolong the audit. Set an expectation of full transparency, reinforced by leadership.
If feasible, use data analytics to reduce burden – for instance, rather than asking for 50 invoices to inspect, ask for an extract of the invoice register and run analytics to pick anomalies, then only request those supporting documents. This can minimise the back-and-forth. KPMG suggests leveraging data & analytics to obtain the minimum sufficient amount of evidence needed.
For any evidence that is critical and high-risk, consider independent verification. For example, if auditing compliance with tax payments, pull a statement from the SARS eFiling system (with the client’s permission) instead of relying on an internal report. This multi-level confirmation approach is recommended for high-risk items.

7. Maintain Engagement and Support for Auditees:

Remote audits can be taxing for those being audited, who might feel like they have to juggle their regular job and the audit requests more than if auditors were physically present (when it’s clear “the auditors are here this week, focus on them”). To mitigate this:

Set realistic timelines in agreement with management for providing information. Maybe spread requests out to avoid overload on one person in a short time.
Be mindful of “Zoom fatigue” – don’t schedule unnecessarily long meetings. Use agendas and stick to them.
Provide a channel for auditees to ask questions or get clarifications easily, like a dedicated email thread or chat group for the audit.
Show understanding of their context – for example, if a municipal finance official is working from home with limited connectivity half the day, adapt your approach (maybe schedule calls when they are in office).
And importantly, recognise the efforts. A simple thank-you email after a remote audit, acknowledging the cooperation and effort of the auditee team, goes a long way to maintaining good relationships for next time.

8. Embrace a Hybrid Approach When Necessary:

Be open to a hybrid audit model. If certain elements of the audit are better done on-site, plan for that rather than forcing a purely remote audit. For example, you might do 90% remotely and then have a short on-site visit at the end for physical verification of assets or a final in-person meeting. As research suggests, a hybrid model can combine the strengths of both approaches. So, don’t view remote vs on-site as an all-or-nothing choice. Determine the optimal mix for each engagement. This flexible strategy can greatly enhance overall audit quality.

9. Monitor and Learn – Continuous Improvement:

After each remote audit, debrief with your team: what went well, what issues arose, and how can we improve next time? Maybe even solicit feedback from the auditees about their experience. Use this to refine your processes. Because technology and norms are rapidly evolving, keep an eye on new tools or updated best practices in the field (for example, The Institute of Internal Auditors may release updated guidance on remote auditing post-COVID, as hinted in KPMG’s reference to IIA Africa guidance). Encourage a mindset that remote auditing processes are continually improved just like any business process.

10. Align Remote Auditing with Overall Risk Management:

Finally, integrate your remote auditing activities with your broader risk management and compliance framework. The findings from remote audits should feed into risk registers and compliance updates. If remote audits allow you to audit more often or more areas, leverage that to maintain an up-to-date view of your risk landscape. Ensure that issues identified (even minor ones) are addressed and that management actions are monitored. Essentially, treat remote audit results with the same seriousness as traditional audits – because they carry equal weight. By doing so, you reinforce that the organisation’s commitment to compliance and good governance is unwavering, irrespective of the format of audit.

Conclusion and Outlook

Remote auditing has transitioned from an emergency improvisation to a permanent feature of the audit and compliance landscape in South Africa. For senior executives in both the public sector and private SMEs, this presents an opportunity to re-think how oversight and assurance are delivered. The experiences of recent years have shown that with determination and the right technology, even the most complex audits – from government financial audits to multi-site compliance checks – can be conducted from a distance without sacrificing quality. The South African context, with its strong regulatory frameworks like POPIA, PFMA/MFMA, the Companies Act, and King IV, provides both the impetus and the boundaries within which remote auditing must operate. Executives must ensure that while embracing innovation, they continue to meet all compliance obligations and uphold governance principles.

The benefits of remote auditing are clear: increased efficiency, lower costs, and greater flexibility, all of which can lead to more frequent and comprehensive auditing. Organisations can become more resilient, maintaining accountability even amid disruptions. For example, as Auditor-General Maluleke noted, the ability to audit flexibly and remotely ensures minimal disruption in accountability and oversight processes – a crucial consideration for public trust. Likewise, businesses that adeptly use remote audits are better positioned to avoid compliance slip-ups, since they can audit emerging risks in real time rather than waiting for an annual visit.

However, realising these benefits on a sustained basis requires vigilance against the risks. Challenges such as ensuring data security, verifying information authenticity, and preserving the depth of insight that on-site presence can bring must be continually managed. The best practices outlined – from robust planning and technology investment to hybrid approaches and continuous improvement – form a roadmap for doing so.

Looking ahead, remote auditing is likely to further evolve. We can anticipate that:

Hybrid Auditing Becomes Standard: Many organisations will formalise hybrid audit models, using remote techniques for planning and analysis, and targeted on-site work for critical touchpoints. This will probably become a best-of-both-worlds standard, combining efficiency with assurance integrity.
Regulators and Standards Adapt: Regulatory bodies may update audit and compliance guidelines explicitly to account for remote methods. We might see, for instance, South African auditing standards or governance codes including commentary on remote audit procedures. The fact that bodies like SANAS and the FSCA have allowed remote assessments suggests future rules will embed those lessons.
Technology Integration Deepens: The use of AI and continuous monitoring tools will become routine in audits. We could see AI performing the first line of audit work, with human auditors focusing on exceptions and high-level analysis. Blockchain or other secure ledgers might store compliance evidence in real time, providing auditors an ever-available trove of verified data. This continuous auditing could reduce the distinction between an “audit period” and normal operations – auditing could be almost ongoing, with remote auditors stepping in as needed to interpret and report on the data.
Greater Assurance on ESG and New Domains: As ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) reporting grows in importance (with possible mandatory disclosures on the horizon, as per Companies Amendment Bill proposals), remote auditing will extend into these areas. Checking carbon emissions data or verifying community project spending could be done remotely with IoT sensors and digital reports, for example. Companies that digitise these processes will find remote audits much easier.
Skillsets and Roles Evolve: Auditors will increasingly need IT and data science skills, and possibly certifications in cybersecurity or data analytics, to effectively use remote auditing tools. The composition of audit teams may include more IT auditors or analysts than before. Conversely, compliance officers in business units will need to be comfortable preparing digital evidence and interfacing with remote auditors. Training and development will need to keep pace.

In conclusion, remote auditing and compliance in South Africa should be viewed as an essential element of modern governance – one that aligns with the nation’s push towards digital transformation and improved accountability. Executives who champion and invest in these practices position their organisations to be more agile, transparent, and robust in their compliance posture. They also send a message to stakeholders (be it taxpayers, shareholders, or customers) that oversight is not being diminished in the remote era, but rather enhanced through innovation.

Embracing remote audits does not mean lowering the guard; instead, it means using every tool at our disposal to uphold standards. As this paper has detailed, by addressing the challenges and leveraging technology, organisations can execute remote audits that stand up to scrutiny and deliver real value. The transformation is already underway – what remains is for leadership to institutionalise these changes and drive a culture that sees compliance not as a checkbox or a once-off event, but as a continuous, tech-enabled dialogue of improvement. In doing so, South African public institutions and businesses alike will not only comply with laws and codes but will likely discover new efficiencies and insights that propel them forward in an increasingly digital world.

Connect with Duja Consulting! Follow us on LinkedIn!

Remote Auditing and Compliance in South Africa

This new paper by Duja Consulting explores:

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Rise of Remote Auditing

From On-Site to Online:

Catalyst – COVID-19:

Here to Stay – A Hybrid Future:

Tools and Processes Enabling Remote Audits

Digital Collaboration Platforms:

Secure Document Repositories and Cloud Systems:

Remote Audit Software and Applications:

Data Access and Analytics Tools:

Process Adjustments for Remote Auditing:

IT Support and Training:

Benefits and Opportunities of Remote Auditing

Challenges and Risks of Remote Auditing

South African Regulatory Landscape: Compliance Considerations for Remote Auditing

Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) – Data Privacy in Remote Audits

Companies Act and Financial Reporting Compliance

King IV Code of Corporate Governance – Assurance and IT Governance

Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) – Public Sector Accountability

Industry-Specific Compliance Audits (e.g. B-BBEE, Health & Safety, Environmental)

Technological Enablers and Digital Transformation in Auditing

Cloud Computing and Digital Platforms:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automation:

Blockchain for Audit Trails:

Data Visualisation and Big Data Analytics: The ability to visualise data through dashboards and to crunch “big data” sets has changed how audit findings are communicated and understood.

Continuous Auditing and Monitoring:

Cybersecurity Tools:

Regtech and Compliance Automation:

Best Practices and Strategies for Implementing Remote Auditing

1. Establish a Clear Remote Audit Policy and Scope:

2. Invest in the Right Technology Infrastructure:

3. Prepare and Train Your Team:

4. Robust Planning and Communication:

5. Ensure Data Security and Privacy Compliance:

6. Facilitate Evidence Collection and Authenticity:

7. Maintain Engagement and Support for Auditees:

8. Embrace a Hybrid Approach When Necessary:

9. Monitor and Learn – Continuous Improvement:

10. Align Remote Auditing with Overall Risk Management:

Conclusion and Outlook

Dominate Recruitment in Your Industry with a Dynamic Virtual Recruitment Platform

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

MASTER CLEANSE BESPOKE

ORGANIC BLUE BOTTLE

TWEE DIY KALE