Strengthening the Independence of Supreme Audit Institutions

3. Reputation as a safeguard for SAI independence

Abstract

A supreme audit institution’s reputation, shaped by perceptions of its conduct, professionalism and the quality and impact of its work, is a critical safeguard to its independence. When a SAI is consistently seen as reliable, objective and responsive, it becomes more resilient to external pressure and less vulnerable to attempts to question or undermine its mandate. A strong reputation also enhances the SAI’s ability to communicate findings effectively, influence accountability processes and engage constructively with stakeholders. This chapter draws on the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions to analyse how reinforcing a SAI’s competence and values could serve to strengthen institutional trust.

3.1. A SAI’s reputation is a key safeguard to its independence

Throughout the Global Project, the evidence collected clearly shows that institutional reputation plays a central role as an informal mechanism reinforcing constitutional and legal protections of SAI independence. Reputation and independence are mutually reinforcing: a strong reputation enhances independence, while robust independence further contributes to building and sustaining institutional reputation.

Findings indicate that a positive reputation generates two key benefits for SAIs:

• Enhanced stakeholder support: Legislators, civil society organisations and donors are more likely to advocate for the SAI when its independence is at risk, if it is trusted and has a good reputation.

• Deterrence for political influence: Attempts by political actors to influence or undermine the independence of the SAI become more costly in reputational terms, thereby creating a deterrent effect.

Evidence from the Global Project and findings from SIRAM cases suggests a recurring trajectory where efforts to erode a SAI’s reputation often precede actions to remove its leadership, introduce legal reforms that reduce its autonomy, or impose budgetary constraints. This pattern seems to confirm that a strong institutional reputation functions as a de facto protective factor for independence. In turn, research findings suggest that the more people trust a public sector organisation, the higher they rate its reputation (Lock and Jacobs, 2025[1]). As such, these insights taken together highlight the strategic relevance for SAIs of actively cultivating and safeguarding the trust that citizens and stakeholders place in them.

The OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (2021) provides a structured model to explain what shapes citizens’ trust in public institutions and how governments can act upon those determinants (Brezzi et al., 2021[2]). In addition to socioeconomic factors, political preferences and attitudes, as well as people’s perceptions of governments’ ability to tackle long-term intergenerational challenges, the framework identifies two broad and interrelated categories of drivers related to public governance: competence and values. Competence refers to whether institutions are perceived as capable of delivering on their mandates, responsively and reliably. Values, by contrast, relate to whether institutions are perceived as guided by principles such as openness, integrity and fairness. Trust is therefore not only a function of performance, but also of the values that guide their actions/decisions.

Given the strong interdependence between trust and reputation (Lock and Jacobs, 2025[1]), this framework provides a useful lens for understanding how SAIs can strengthen their reputation by working on gaining and maintaining the trust citizens place in them through deliberate efforts. While the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions was not developed for SAIs specifically, it nonetheless provides a coherent view on what factors are likely to drive trust. Rather than assuming that trust follows automatically from their mandate, SAIs can take deliberate and systematic steps in line with the framework to strengthen their trustworthiness.

The perceptions gathered from the data collected for this report suggest that citizens’ and stakeholders’ trust in a SAI converged around nine key factors that explain SAI’s institutional reputation and directly mirror the OECD framework’s core aspects: competence and values. For SAIs, competence relates primarily to the technical quality of their work, their distance from political priorities and the impact of their audits. Values are reflected in the extent to which the SAIs lead by example, demonstrating integrity, transparency and accountability, but also fairness, in their own governance and operations. Table ‎3.1 maps these nine factors (right column) identified in the context of the Global Project to the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions. This mapping provides a structured basis for identifying concrete recommendations for institutional practices SAIs can implement to enhance and sustain public trust. The recommendations will be developed further in the next sections of this chapter.

Table ‎3.1. OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions applied to SAI practices and reputation outcomes

OECD Framework	Associated factors shaping SAI reputation (according to stakeholder perceptions)
Competencies	Reliability	Consistently delivers high-quality, evidence-based audits in accordance with its mandate. Publishes reports in a timely manner. Follows up systematically on recommendations. Demonstrates methodological rigor aligned with ISSAIs or national standards.	Factor 1: SAIs conduct their work consistently as per standards without doing it according to government’s priorities.
			Factor 2: The extent to which audit reports generate impact after publication, either by reinforcing public accountability or by driving improvements in government performance.
	Responsiveness	Adapts audit topics to emerging risks (e.g. climate change, digitalisation, crisis spending). Incorporates stakeholder perspectives where appropriate. Ensures reports address issues of high public interest while preserving independence.	Factor 3: The extent to which audit topics are selected through transparent, balanced and legally grounded processes that reflect national priorities and, where appropriate, stakeholder perspectives.
			Factor 4: SAI’s ability to treat historical audit data as a national asset. Stakeholders note that effectively using accumulated audit results enhances the SAI’s strategic relevance and strengthens its contribution to addressing systemic challenges.
Values	Openness	Publishes accessible audit reports, summaries, and datasets. Communicates findings clearly to the legislature and the public. Explains audit methodologies. Proactively discloses performance information about its own operations.	Factor 5: Leading by example in transparency practices.
			Factor 6: SAI’s openness to engaging with stakeholders and considering their priorities and perspectives, rather than operating in isolation.
			Factor 7: SAI’s ability to protect the clarity and neutrality of audit findings in politically sensitive or polarised contexts through effective public communication.
	Integrity	Maintains strong internal ethics frameworks, independence safeguards, conflict-of-interest controls, and professional codes. Leads by example in accountability and anti-corruption.	Factor 8: The SAI leads by example by upholding high ethical standards internally, including their own internal processes.
	Fairness	Selects audits based on objective risk criteria. Conducts audits impartially and free from political influence. Ensures due process for audited entities. Reports findings without bias or favouritism.	Factor 9: SAI’s ability to manage informal interactions with audited entities in a way that promotes understanding and co-operation, ensures consistent treatment of all auditees and preserves professional impartiality.
			Factor 3: The extent to which audit topics are selected through transparent, balanced and legally grounded processes that reflect national priorities and, where appropriate, stakeholder perspectives.

Source: Adapted from (Brezzi et al., 2021[2]) based on the findings from the OECD-IDI Global Project.

3.2. How SAIs can strengthen their reliability and responsiveness

The competence of SAIs, reflected in their reliability and responsiveness, is a central factor influencing the trust stakeholders and citizens place in them. For SAIs, these dimensions go beyond technical performance; they shape how independence is perceived and experienced in practice. Even where strong legal safeguards exist, a SAI’s de facto independence can be weakened if its work is perceived as inconsistent, delayed, disconnected from emerging risks, or lacking strategic relevance.

Reliability may strengthen trust by demonstrating that the SAI applies its mandate consistently and professionally over time. Responsiveness has the potential to reinforce trust by showing that the institution remains attentive to evolving governance challenges and societal expectations, while preserving objectivity and independence. Together, these dimensions influence whether stakeholders view the SAI as both credible and relevant. The following recommendations therefore focus on strengthening the SAI’s reliability and responsiveness as foundations for sustained public trust and de facto independence.

3.2.1. To strengthen the reliability of their work, SAIs could enhance their implementation of international standards and good practices for following up on audit recommendations and for ensuring consistent and transparent institutional communication

Reliability is fundamental to sustaining trust in the work of a SAI. It reflects the extent to which stakeholders perceive the SAI as consistent, methodologically rigorous and professionally grounded in the execution of its mandate. When audit practices are stable across political cycles and aligned with recognised standards, the SAI demonstrates that its work is driven by technical criteria rather than shifting political priorities. This consistency also reinforces perceptions related to fairness and impartiality which will be considered in the section below.

Reliability also depends on the credibility and impact of audit outputs over time. The consistent implementation of international standards, together with systematic and transparent follow-up on audit recommendations, signals institutional maturity and accountability. By embedding recognised good practices into audit execution and post-audit processes, SAIs can demonstrate technical independence, ensure continuity in their work and enhance confidence among the legislature, audited entities and the public. The recommendations below therefore focus on strengthening these foundations of reliability.

SAIs could reinforce the systematic and visible implementation of International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) to demonstrate technical independence and professional consistency across political cycles

From the data collection, members of the legislature, academia and civil society organisations observed that SAIs operate within two overlapping cycles: the tenure cycle of the head of the SAI and the broader national electoral cycle. In this context, stakeholders emphasised that the most effective way to safeguard independence is for SAIs to continuously demonstrate their technical nature. This includes grounding decisions in legal requirements, professional standards and established procedures rather than government priorities or political considerations. Stakeholders highlighted that a strong technical approach signals reliability and that SAIs’ choices are not shaped by political calculations.

A credible commitment to such a technical approach can be achieved by visibly and consistently following technical standards. Indeed, legislators, SAI officials and academics emphasised the importance of SAIs demonstrating that their audit work and jurisdictional activities are guided by internationally recognised standards that are not influenced by domestic political directions. In particular, adherence to the ISSAIs was seen as a stabilising factor, contributing to consistent and reliable audit practices even as governments and political agendas change.

Therefore, SAIs could make it a strategic priority to continually strengthen their capacity to implement the ISSAIs within the framework of their legal mandate. This can include developing staff skills through targeted training, enhancing audit methodologies, establishing internal quality control mechanisms and participating in peer reviews or knowledge-sharing initiatives. Such measures will help ensure consistent application of international standards and reinforce the perception of the SAI’s technical reliability and credibility. Tools such as the SAI Performance Measurement Framework (SAI PMF) can support SAIs in assessing and strengthening their implementation of international standards (see Box ‎3.1). In turn, external peer review mechanisms aimed at exposing a SAI’s own practices to learn and improve can be a credible commitment signalling to internal (the SAI staff) and external stakeholders that the SAI is serious about continuously improving their technical capacities.

Box ‎3.1. SAI PMF – a tool to assess the implementation of international standards

The SAI Performance Measurement Framework (SAI PMF) is a globally recognised tool developed by INTOSAI to help SAIs assess how effectively they implement the INTOSAI Principles, the ISSAIs, and other international good practices. It provides an evidence-based methodology for evaluating institutional performance, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and benchmarking practices against international standards.

SAI PMF assessments are voluntary, and the decision to conduct and publish them rests with the head of each SAI. Many SAIs choose to publish their assessments as part of their commitment to transparency. For example, the SAIs of Costa Rica, Albania and Nigeria have publicly released SAI PMF reports, demonstrating how their audit practices align with international standards and identifying areas for further improvement.

By documenting the extent to which ISSAIs are implemented in practice, the SAI PMF can help SAIs strengthen professional consistency and visibly demonstrate that their work is grounded in recognised technical standards.

The IDI supports implementation by providing training, guidance, quality assurance, and updates to the framework.

Source: INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI).

Adherence to ISSAIs also needs to be visible to external stakeholders. Explicitly referencing applicable standards in audit reports, communicating methodological choices transparently and explaining how international standards guide audit decisions can reinforce perceptions of professionalism and neutrality.

By embedding and visibly applying internationally recognised standards, including by showing openness to be reviewed externally by peers, SAIs demonstrate that their work is grounded in technical criteria rather than political considerations and that they are committed to continuous improvement. This consistency across electoral and leadership cycles strengthens institutional credibility, safeguards independence and contributes to a resilient institutional reputation.

SAIs could establish and maintain robust, systematic and transparent processes to follow up on audit recommendations to reinforce their credibility, effectiveness and contribution to public sector accountability

Stakeholders consulted for the Global Project repeatedly raised concerns about what happens after an audit report is published. These concerns relate to several factors:

• Limited visibility: Audit reports often gain visibility only through media coverage focused on controversy, which can be influenced by political narratives and may misrepresent findings.

• Feasibility of recommendations: Audited entities reported that some recommendations are difficult to implement, underscoring the importance of incorporating their perspectives during the formulation of findings and recommendations to improve feasibility and ownership.

• Lack of clarity on roles: Some stakeholders identified confusion between legislative scrutiny functions and the SAI’s follow up mechanisms.

• Repeated findings: Testimonies indicated that certain shortcomings reappear year after year, raising questions about the effectiveness of follow-up and the responsiveness of audited entities.

• Limited information: In some cases, CSOs and media pointed out that there is no clear or publicly available information on the status of recommendations or other actions stemming from audit reports.

Therefore, SAIs could establish and maintain robust, systematic and transparent processes to follow up on audit recommendations to reinforce their credibility, effectiveness and contribution to public sector accountability. For example, SAIs could consider the use of behavioural insights to improve how recommendations are framed, prioritised and communicated, making them easier to understand, more actionable and more likely to be implemented by audited entities. For instance, the OECD has supported the application of behavioural insights in view of enhancing the impact of Chile’s SAI (OECD, 2022[3]).

To this end, SAIs could pay particular attention to the following elements:

• Quality and relevance of recommendations: Audit recommendations should be feasible, clearly linked to identified root causes and oriented towards measurable follow-up.

• Transparency and accountability: SAIs could maintain reliable and up‑to‑date information systems to track the status of recommendations, including implementation progress and outcomes. When permitted by legal regulations, this information could be made public to enhance transparency, support legislative oversight and strengthen the accountability of audited entities.

• Adequate resourcing of follow-up activities: SAIs could allocate sufficient human and financial resources to follow-up work. This may include dedicated follow-up units, which may be led by the responsible audit team, or the conduct of follow-up audits to assess whether recommendations have been effectively implemented and whether they have achieved the intended results. See Box ‎3.2 with the case of Austria and Box ‎3.3 illustrating the experience of Liberia.

Box ‎3.2. Enhancing impact through follow-up: The Austrian Court of Audit (ACA)

The Austrian Court of Audit (ACA) monitors and enhances the impact of its work through a structured outcome assessment and follow-up process, focused on the implementation of its audit recommendations. The process follows a two-phase approach:

• Recommendation follow-up: The ACA requests audited entities to report on the implementation status of recommendations issued during the previous year. The implementation status is classified into four categories: implemented, partly implemented, promised, or not implemented. This phase primarily relies on information provided by the audited entities.

• On-site follow-up audits: Based on this follow-up enquiry, the ACA conducts targeted, on-site audits to verify the implementation of selected recommendations. These follow-up audits are risk-based: selection focuses on recommendations deemed most critical or at risk of incomplete implementation. They are published as stand-alone reports.

Source: Compiled by OECD and IDI based on interviews.

Box ‎3.3. Strengthening audit follow‑up: Liberia’s General Auditing Commission (GAC) introduces dedicated follow‑up mechanism

In 2022, the GAC established a dedicated Audit Follow‑Up Unit to monitor the implementation of recommendations arising from published audit reports. This marked a major step toward systematic tracking and engagement with audited government entities to accelerate corrective actions and strengthen accountability.

The follow‑up unit, staffed with trained personnel, developed policies, documentation systems, and tools such as audit trackers and corrective action plans to support engagement with auditees.

In its initial activities beginning in late 2022, the unit engaged dozens of audited entities to clarify expectations and begin structured follow‑up processes.

The GAC published its first Follow‑Up Report on the Implementation of Audit Recommendations in July 2024, covering the status of implementation across 48 entities and 181 audit reports. The report categorised recommendations as fully implemented, partially implemented, not implemented, or not implemented due to budgetary constraints, a classification designed to distinguish lack of effort from lack of resources.

Source: Compiled by OECD and IDI based on interviews.

3.2.2. SAIs could enhance their responsiveness by ensuring that audit topics, findings and recommendations are timely, relevant and aligned with emerging risks and public interest concerns, while systematically using audit data to inform both oversight and insight perspectives

Maintaining strategic relevance in a rapidly evolving governance environment is a key ingredient to sustaining trust in a SAI. Stakeholders expect SAIs not only to perform their mandate consistently, but also to remain attentive and responsive to emerging risks, shifting policy landscapes and to issues of high public interest. When audit work reflects current and forward-looking challenges, the SAI demonstrates that its oversight function is both meaningful and aligned with societal needs, while remaining grounded in its legal mandate.

Responsiveness also depends on the institution’s ability to use its accumulated knowledge strategically. The systematic use of audit data, findings and recommendations can transform individual reports into broader oversight, insight and foresight perspectives. By selecting audit topics through transparent and objective processes and by leveraging past work to identify systemic patterns and risks, SAIs can enhance their contribution to public governance debates without compromising their independence. The recommendations below therefore aim to strengthen the timeliness, relevance, and strategic orientation of audit work as key dimensions of responsiveness.

SAIs could ensure that the selection of their audit topics is demonstrably based on legal requirements, objective criteria and transparent methodologies, so as to reinforce perceptions of independence and professional judgement

SAIs differ in the degree of discretion they have in selecting audit topics. Some operate under detailed statutory audit mandates with limited room for discretionary choices, while others have broad authority to determine most of their annual audit programme. In all cases, consulted stakeholders consistently viewed topic selection as a critical indicator of SAI independence. The choice of audit subjects signals to governments, legislatures, civil society and the media the degree of technical and autonomous judgement exercised by the SAI.

Legislators, CSOs and media representatives noted that independence is also reflected in how SAIs address both conjunctural and structural issues. Conjunctural issues are those that dominate public debate at a given moment and attract significant media attention. Some consulted stakeholders, particularly in the media, valued SAIs that contribute timely, objective and technically sound evidence to inform public discussion on such topics. At the same time, other stakeholders consistently highlighted that addressing conjunctural issues must be balanced with sustained attention to structural issues critical for society, such as education, health or security, even when these matters may sometimes receive less immediate attention by the media.

Therefore, the SAI’s annual audit plan or work programme could be developed based on a clear and documented methodology, commonly grounded in a risk assessment approach. Where adjustments to the plan are necessary, these should be justified, documented and communicated in a transparent manner. Collecting inputs from external stakeholders to develop the annual audit plan is also recommended.

Furthermore, SAIs should publish their annual audit plan or work programmes. Publication could include, where appropriate, indicative timelines for audit execution and the expected presentation or tabling of audit reports. See Box ‎3.4 regarding Australia as an example.

Box ‎3.4. Annual audit work programme: Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) publishes an annual audit work programme to outline planned audit coverage across the Australian Government sector. The programme reflects the ANAO’s audit strategy, informs Parliament, government entities and the public, and anticipates emerging risks and challenges affecting public administration. While the Auditor-General has discretion to pursue audits beyond the published program, the work programme provides a structured plan for accountability and oversight.

• Development process: The annual audit work programme is developed through a multi-stage process designed to identify audit priorities, ensure balanced coverage, and promote transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement.

• Environmental scan: The ANAO monitors government activity, trends, and risks, including parliamentary interests, entity operations, and prior audit findings. It also considers cross-cutting themes including governance, ethical culture, stewardship, information and communication technology (ICT) and cyber security, digital transformation, performance measurement, and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI).

• Topic development: Potential audit topics are developed based on risk, impact, importance, materiality, auditability, and previous coverage. Topics aim to capture areas where audits can generate insights, improve accountability, and support public sector performance.

• Consultation: Draft topics are shared with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), relevant parliamentary committees, Australian Government entities, other stakeholders and the public to inform audit priorities.

• Coverage review: Proposed audits are reviewed for proportional coverage across portfolios, public administration activities (governance, service delivery, procurement, grants, policy development, regulation, asset management, and financial management), stages of implementation, and audit objectives (efficiency, effectiveness, economy, ethics).

• Programme finalisation: The annual audit work programme is finalised and published, providing transparency on planned audits while maintaining flexibility for the Auditor-General to respond to emerging issues.

Source: Compiled by OECD and IDI based on interviews.

At the same time, the independence of SAIs could be safeguarded throughout the selection of audit topics. Where the legal framework does not require formal approval, the selection of audit topics could not be subject to informal endorsement or validation by the executive or the legislature. Any interactions with these actors in relation to the selection of audit topics should be clearly defined, transparent and limited to information-sharing or consultation, in line with the SAI’s mandate.

In this context, SAIs could also establish clear and transparent rules for accommodating audit requests originating from external actors, in particular members of the legislature. Such requests may, at times, be part of broader political dynamics or used as instruments within political disputes. As mentioned in Chapter 2, transparent and rules-based processes for handling these requests are therefore essential to safeguard independence.

SAIs could leverage the data, findings and recommendations generated through their audit reports to develop both insight and foresight perspectives

SAIs, legislatures and donors converged in the view that historical audit data, and in some cases even year‑to‑year information, constitutes a valuable source of knowledge that can be used to inform a wide range of stakeholders. According to the testimonies collected, making systematic use of this accumulated evidence demonstrates consistency, continuity and reliability over time. Stakeholders also emphasised that this long‑term perspective reinforces the structural nature of the SAI’s work and provides stability beyond political cycles.

Audit reports are a source of structured and comparable information that can be analysed to identify recurring patterns, trends and systemic weaknesses in the functioning of the public sector. Such analysis can support an insight perspective, enabling SAIs to better understand the root causes of repetitive findings and persistent structural problems, including deficiencies in internal control systems, governance arrangements, or legal and regulatory frameworks that may require reform. Different scopes and practices on the insight and foresight perspective are included in OECD report Supreme Audit Institutions and Good Governance: Oversight, Insight and Foresight (OECD, 2016[4]). See Box ‎3.5 regarding the use of audit data to strengthen internal control processes in South Africa.

Box ‎3.5. Preventive control guides of the Auditor-General of South Africa

The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) has developed preventive control guides as part of its insight strategy to address recurring internal control weaknesses identified through audit work. The guides are intended to support audited entities in strengthening internal controls and reducing the occurrence of repeat audit findings.

The preventive control guides cover key areas such as financial management, supply chain management, performance information and compliance with legislation. They describe essential preventive and detective controls, outline responsibilities of management and oversight structures, and provide practical information on how controls can be designed and implemented within public institutions.

These guides are disseminated to audited entities and used as reference material to support improvements in internal control environments. They complement the AGSA’s audit activities by making audit insights available in a structured format that can be used by institutions to address control gaps on an ongoing basis.

Source: Compiled by OECD and IDI based on interviews.

The audit evidence can also support a foresight perspective. Aggregated analysis of audit findings can help identify emerging risks, vulnerabilities and threats that may affect the sustainability, efficiency or integrity of specific public sector areas, public policies or programmes. This forward-looking input can inform budget preparation processes, legislative scrutiny and policy debates, while remaining consistent with SAIs’ mandates and independence.

To put insight and foresight approaches into practice, SAIs could promote an institutional culture that treats audit information as a valuable analytical resource. This may require strengthening analytical skills, data management tools and methods that allow audit results to be systematically brought together and analysed across entities, sectors and over time. For many SAIs, annual performance or activity reports offer a suitable and legitimate way to present cross-cutting analysis, trends and emerging risks in a clear and accessible manner. See Box ‎3.6 regarding the example of United Kingdom.

Box ‎3.6. Using audit insights to disseminate good practice: The United Kingdom’s National Audit Office (NAO)

The United Kingdom’s National Audit Office (NAO) plays an important role not only in holding government to account, but also in identifying and disseminating good practice and lessons learned across government. Drawing systematically on evidence from its audit and value-for-money work, the NAO shares insights to support continuous improvement in public administration.

A key mechanism for this is the publication of thematic reports and good-practice guides on cross-cutting issues that are relevant across departments and arm’s-length bodies. These products synthesise findings from multiple audits and are designed to make lessons accessible and actionable for policymakers, senior officials and practitioners.

Typically, NAO good-practice reports are structured around:

• A clear description of the issue, explaining why it matters for public value and government performance.

• Common challenges identified across departments, based on recurring weaknesses observed in audit work.

• Lessons and principles for improvement, highlighting what has worked well in practice and how government organisations can strengthen their arrangements.

An illustrative example is the NAO’s work on the use of consultants across government. The NAO identified risks related to value for money, capability gaps, and over-reliance on external expertise. Its report distilled lessons for departments on topics such as:

• Defining the business need for consultants more clearly.

• Strengthening internal commercial and project management capabilities.

• Improving oversight of consultancy spending.

• Ensuring that knowledge and skills are transferred back into the organisation.

To reinforce uptake, the NAO complemented the report with a practical good-practice guide, providing concrete advice and tools that organisations can adapt to their own context.

Source: (UK NAO, n.d.[5]).

3.3. How SAIs can strengthen their openness, integrity and fairness

Safeguarding the independence of SAIs depends not only on formal legal guarantees but also on the values that guide their conduct in practice. Openness, integrity and fairness shape how independence is perceived by the SAI’s stakeholders. Even where strong constitutional protections exist, ethical breaches, unmanaged conflicts of interest or opaque practices can undermine credibility.

Openness may reinforce trust in public institutions by ensuring transparency about how resources are used, audits are conducted and findings communicated, while proactive stakeholder engagement reduces misinterpretation and misleading information. Integrity strengthens confidence by enabling auditors, SAI’s members involved in jurisdictional activities, and leadership to navigate ethical dilemmas, conflicts of interest and undue influence with impartiality, supported by robust internal frameworks and safeguards. Fairness in interactions with audited entities and stakeholders, through consistent procedures and transparent management of informal engagement, reinforces neutrality and professionalism. The following recommendations therefore focus on embedding these core values into practice, enhancing transparency, reinforcing integrity safeguards, and ensuring structured and impartial engagement to potentially improving public trust and strengthen de facto independence.

3.3.1. SAIs could fulfil their statutory transparency responsibilities and adopt a proactive approach to openness, including the systematic publication of key information, clear communication with stakeholders and the public and engagement mechanisms to address questions and prevent the spread of misleading information

Proactive openness and being responsive to access to information requests allows the SAI to make its work visible and understandable to stakeholders, going beyond minimum legal transparency requirements. By systematically publishing information, explaining audit processes or jurisdictional activities and engaging stakeholders, the SAI can help ensure audit findings are interpreted correctly and acted upon effectively. Such openness also strengthens the SAI’s resilience against reputational risks by supporting coherent and co-ordinated communication. In line with the OECD Recommendation on Information Integrity, these efforts contribute to fostering an information environment that is accurate, reliable and trustworthy, thereby reinforcing public confidence in audit institutions.

This approach reduces the risk of misinterpretation or misleading information and enables stakeholders to see how audit results inform improvements in public governance. Strengthening communication and transparency in this way reinforces the SAI’s credibility and supports its independent role in the accountability system.

SAIs could strengthen transparency practices to enhance accountability and openness

Stakeholders’ testimonies indicate that SAIs are increasingly expected to demonstrate openness and transparency across two main dimensions: the dissemination of their work and the use of their own resources. They highlighted the need for greater clarity regarding the basis on which SAIs take their decisions, particularly in situations where there is discretion in the interpretation of their mandate or powers.

Stakeholders furthermore underlined that SAIs are expected to meet all statutory transparency requirements applicable to public institutions in relation to the management of their own resources. Members of SAIs consistently highlighted that this baseline compliance could be further complemented by proactive transparency, whereby SAIs voluntarily disclose information that goes beyond minimum legal obligations, for example on operational expenses, procurement, and governance arrangements.

However, in some institutional contexts, especially for collegial bodies and SAIs with jurisdictional functions, stakeholders noted that internal deliberations may be legally protected to safeguard independence. Members of SAIs consulted for this report noted cases in which politicians request SAIs to increase transparency, including the disclosure of working papers and internal deliberations, particularly in collegial bodies. In most cases, such requests are not permitted under the legal framework and are intended to question the professional judgment of SAIs or to assess it from a political perspective. In these cases, independence could be threatened.

Therefore, SAIs could periodically assess the fulfilment of their transparency statutory responsibilities both in relation to the audit process (e.g. strategic plan, annual audit plan/work programme, audit reports, information on the follow-up of recommendations and findings) and its operations (audited financial statements, salaries, operational expenses). This assessment could include the reliability of the systems where the information is generated, including the risks of consistency and reliability. The assessment could be done based on INTOSAI-P 20 (Box ‎3.7) and the national legislation on transparency and access to public information.

Box ‎3.7. INTOSAI-P 20: Transparency and accountability of supreme audit institutions

INTOSAI-P 20 sets out principles to guide SAIs in promoting transparency and accountability in their operations and communications, while respecting legal and confidentiality requirements. The principles encourage SAIs to make information on their mandate, organisation, audit processes and results publicly accessible, and to communicate audit findings in a clear and understandable manner.

INTOSAI-P 20 also emphasises stakeholder engagement, including with legislatures, audited entities, the media and citizens, and calls on SAIs to be transparent about their own governance and use of resources. Together, these principles support public trust and reinforce the role of SAIs within accountability and open government frameworks

Source: (INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements, 2013[6]).

In addition, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity and the OECD Recommendation on Open Government, SAIs can support integrity and accountability by adopting proactive transparency practices that go beyond minimum legal disclosure requirements. These may include providing access to data supporting audit findings, in formats that enable reuse.

SAIs may also use plain-language materials and stakeholder engagement tools to further facilitate public understanding and enable meaningful use of audit information by citizens, civil society and academia, while respecting confidentiality and legal constraints.

Proactive transparency should be applied in a proportionate and user-focused manner, in line with SAIs’ constitutional mandates. Information should be presented in formats that are easy to understand and accessible to a wide range of stakeholders, including the legislature, civil society, the media, and citizens, while respecting confidentiality requirements. Disclosure that may be used to challenge the professional judgment of SAI staff or to assess it from a political perspective can constitute a risk to the independence of SAIs. See Box ‎3.8 with the case of Mexico regarding proactive transparency.

Box ‎3.8. Enhancing transparency and access to audit information: Mexico’s public audit consultation system

Mexico’s SAI (Auditoría Superior de la Federación, ASF), has developed the Public Audit Consultation System (Sistema Público de Consultas de Auditoría) as a central digital platform to provide open and structured access to audit information.

The system allows users, including legislators, public officials, oversight bodies, civil society organisations, researchers and citizens, to consult audit results in a transparent and user-friendly manner. It consolidates information from ASF’s audit activities and presents it in a searchable format, contributing to greater public understanding of how public resources are used and overseen.

Key features of the system include:

• Public access to audit results, including information on audited entities, audit types, findings and recommendations.

• Search and filtering tools that enable users to identify audits by sector, level of government, audited entity or fiscal year.

• Tracking of observations and follow-up actions, supporting oversight of how audited entities respond to audit findings.

• Standardised presentation of information, which facilitates comparison across audits and over time.

Source: (UNODC et al., 2020[7])

SAIs could implement structured mechanisms for internal and external stakeholder engagement

Building on proactive transparency and communication efforts, structured stakeholder engagement enables SAIs to move from one-way disclosure towards meaningful dialogue. While publishing information enhances visibility, engagement mechanisms allow SAIs to better understand stakeholder expectations, emerging governance risks and perceptions of institutional performance. This two-way interaction strengthens the relevance, legitimacy and societal anchoring of audit work, while helping to ensure that findings are understood and used effectively. When carefully designed with appropriate safeguards, stakeholder engagement reinforces public trust and supports the SAI’s de facto independence by demonstrating openness, responsiveness, and professional judgement in practice.

External stakeholder engagement

Testimonies from CSOs, academia and legislatures expressed that they value being consulted by SAIs in the development of institutional strategies, the process to select audit topics, or the identification of improvement of SAI’s operational and legal frameworks. Such engagement was seen as contributing to more relevant audit coverage, better alignment with public interest priorities and increased ownership of audit findings.

Heads of SAIs and CSOs also emphasised the relevance of relationships with global actors. Testimonies indicated that donors, INTOSAI bodies, and other international organisations should be considered part of the stakeholder landscape, to support information exchange and the sharing of experiences and expectations. It was also noted that engagement with global actors can contribute to international advocacy related to SAI independence, particularly in contexts where such independence may be subject to challenge.

Therefore, SAIs could establish structured engagement mechanisms to identify expectations regarding SAI operations, perceptions of areas for improvement, national challenges and relevant emerging or time-bound issues. Engagement strategies could be inspired by the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, that provide ten steps for designing, planning, implementing and evaluating a citizen participation process (OECD, 2022[8]).

Such mechanisms should be designed and implemented in a manner that preserves the independence and objectivity of SAIs, with safeguards to ensure that stakeholder input informs, but does not determine, institutional decisions. See Box ‎3.9 regarding the example of Morocco.

Box ‎3.9. Co-ordination arrangements of the Court of Accounts within Morocco’s accountability ecosystem

The Court of Accounts of the Kingdom of Morocco has formalised co-ordination arrangements with several institutions that form part of the national accountability ecosystem. These arrangements aim to clarify institutional roles and responsibilities and to facilitate information and knowledge exchange among public oversight actors.

Co-operation mechanisms involve, in particular, institutions responsible for external and internal control, judicial authorities, and other public bodies with mandates related to accountability, integrity and the fight against corruption. The Court of Accounts has put in place formal frameworks, including co-operation agreements and protocols, which define modalities for collaboration, data sharing and mutual consultation, while respecting the legal mandates and independence of each institution.

These co-ordination arrangements support the circulation of audit information and findings, contribute to a better understanding of respective functions across institutions, and facilitate follow-up on audit observations and recommendations. By formalising interactions within the accountability ecosystem, the Court of Accounts seeks to enhance consistency in oversight practices and improve the overall functioning of public accountability mechanisms in Morocco.

Source: Fact-finding mission.

SAIs could adopt a structured approach to stakeholder engagement by defining the objectives, scope, timing, and resource requirements of engagement activities. This includes identifying relevant stakeholder groups, specifying the type of information to be collected and assessing how a range of external perspectives may contribute to planning and prioritisation processes. The INTOSAI community, development partners such as the World Bank and the IMF, as well as international organisations, should be considered when identifying relevant stakeholder groups. See Box ‎3.10 with the example of New Zealand regarding stakeholders’ engagement at international level.

Box ‎3.10. Stakeholders’ engagement through peer support within the INTOSAI community

The SAI of New Zealand and the Cook Islands Audit Office maintain a co-operative relationship focused on peer support and capacity development. This co-operation is implemented through bilateral arrangements and within regional frameworks for Pacific SAIs.

The Office of the Auditor-General of New Zealand provides technical and institutional support to the Cook Islands Audit Office through structured peer-to-peer activities. These activities are designed on the basis of agreed work plans and focus on areas such as audit methodologies, quality assurance processes, and institutional development.

This form of co-operation is now also embedded within the approach of the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) as set out in the PASAI Strategy 2024-2034. Increased use of this approach between developed and developing members of PASAI provides a regional platform for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and co-ordinated capacity-building initiatives. Through PASAI, in addition to its two peer support partnerships (Cook Islands and Samoa) the SAI of New Zealand also contributes to regional programmes that support audit quality, the timeliness of financial audits, and dialogue on institutional and legal frameworks affecting SAIs.

Engagement between the New Zealand and the Cook Islands also supports participation in regional and international discussions, including exchanges related to SAI independence and the role of external advocacy in safeguarding institutional mandates.

Source: Fact-finding mission.

Internal engagement and inclusive leadership

Stakeholder engagement also has an important internal dimension. Many SAI representatives highlighted the importance of inclusive leadership practices, notably using informal mechanisms that allow staff to provide feedback and share perspectives on strategic priorities and other relevant issues to be addressed by the SAI. Such approaches were seen as contributing to stronger internal dialogue, greater staff engagement and more informed decision making at the leadership level.

Internal engagement mechanisms could be conducted periodically, with clarity regarding their frequency and timing. Heads of SAIs could foster inclusive leadership by putting in place formal and informal mechanisms that allow staff to provide feedback and share perspectives on strategic priorities and key organisational issues.

SAIs could strengthen their capacity to prevent and respond to the spread of misleading information by adopting a proactive, audience focused, and collaborative approach to public communication

In responses to the questionnaires, as well as during country visits and workshops, Heads of SAIs noted the emergence of a political culture increasingly shaped by short‑term incentives i.e. political actors may prioritise immediate, visible results or personal and partisan gains over long-term policy consistency, institutional integrity, or evidence-based decision making. Consulted stakeholders described an environment characterised by rapid communication dynamics driven by social media, reduced space for consensus‑building and a growing tendency to prioritise individual or partisan gains over institutional integrity.

A key consequence of this context, according to stakeholder testimonies, is the growing spread of both misleading information, false information shared without intent to deceive and disinformation, i.e. false information deliberately created or disseminated to mislead, about the findings of audit reports. Consulted stakeholders observed that such information distortions affect public debate, misrepresent the mandate and limitations of SAIs, and generate unrealistic expectations about what audit processes can deliver. They also expose SAIs to unwarranted criticism, which can weaken their institutional standing and increase their vulnerability to politically motivated legal reforms, budgetary pressure, or attempts to remove SAI leadership.

Furthermore, across countries, it was common to hear that civic space in the political arena is shrinking. Consulted stakeholders pointed to a diminishing role for civil society organisations in public policy debates and noted increasing government influence over traditional media. According to stakeholder testimonies, these developments make it more difficult for oversight institutions, including SAIs, to communicate effectively with citizens, counter misleading narratives and ensure that audit findings and results of jurisdictional activities are understood in their proper context.

Therefore, SAIs could strengthen their capacity to prevent and respond to misleading information surrounding their work by adopting a proactive, audience focused, and collaborative approach to public communication. See Box ‎3.11 regarding the example of Norway.

Box ‎3.11. Communication and dissemination of audit results: The case of the SAI of Norway

The National Audit Office of Norway has a strategy to communicate the results of its work to relevant professional environments where the findings can have practical impact. Conferences, presentations, and dialogue meetings are key channels for this dissemination. This contributes to increasing the presence and improving the reputation of the SAI among different groups.

In line with the communication policy, the Auditor General and audit department representatives present findings, share methodological approaches, and engage in discussions with relevant audiences across the country.

These activities support the National Audit Office’s objective of promoting transparency, facilitating knowledge transfer, and contributing to long-term improvements in public-sector governance. Regular dissemination helps ensure that audit results reach those who can act on them.

Source: Compiled by OECD and IDI based on interviews and documents review.

SAIs could communicate clearly, promptly and factually about their audit work or jurisdictional activities to reduce the space for misinterpretation or distortion. This involves presenting key findings in accessible formats and using messages that are grounded in verified information.

To reduce the spread of misleading content, intentionally or not, related to audit work or jurisdictional activities, SAIs could engage constructively with media, civil society actors and other credible intermediaries. Such co-operation can help reinforce accurate interpretations of audit findings and more broadly reinforce information integrity.

SAIs could also remain alert to trends influencing information integrity that could affect trust in public institutions. By better understanding the information environment and responding swiftly to emerging inaccuracies, SAIs can help protect the integrity and clarity of their audit messages. Box ‎3.12 illustrates the experience of Spain.

Box ‎3.12. Institutional communication and public engagement: Spanish Court of Auditors (Tribunal de Cuentas)

The Spanish Court of Auditors (Tribunal de Cuentas) has established a dedicated communication function to manage its institutional communication and engagement with stakeholders, including the public and media, and to oversee its presence on digital platforms.

The Tribunal has a communication unit responsible for implementing its institutional communication protocol, which encompasses strategic communication planning, media relations and public dissemination of audit outputs.

This unit is tasked with addressing the challenge of misleading information through a consistent strategy through managing press relations and co-ordinating the dissemination of official information and events. It also oversees the Court’s use of social media platforms and multimedia content to broaden public outreach.

Source: Fact-finding missions.

3.3.2. By establishing strong internal integrity frameworks, SAIs can mitigate risks of undue influence, reinforce credibility, demonstrate impartiality and strengthen public trust in their work

Consulted stakeholders emphasised that as accountability actors, SAIs are expected to lead by example, demonstrating a clear commitment to integrity and the public interest. The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity defines integrity as “…the consistent alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles and norms for upholding and prioritising the public interest over private interests in the public sector” (OECD, 2017[9]).

Ensuring integrity within SAI operations was indeed identified during the interviews conducted for this report as an area requiring further attention. It was highlighted that the effectiveness of integrity frameworks is reflected in how the head of the SAI engages with political actors, how SAI staff interact with audited entities or public officials subject to jurisdictional procedures and the consistency and predictability of institutional decisions, regardless of electoral cycles or leadership tenure. Staff from consulted SAIs further underscored the relevance of systematically identifying integrity risks and implementing proportionate mitigation measures, including preventive controls and monitoring mechanisms, to strengthen organisational integrity. There was broad convergence around the need for a well-defined allocation of institutional and individual responsibilities for integrity policies and robust conflict-of-interest rules.

Furthermore, testimonies also pointed to the importance of a constructive understanding of independence, characterised by an active engagement with other institutional actors based on clear rules, shared values and mutual respect. By contrast, a less constructive interpretation of independence framed primarily as an entitlement to a privileged status within the national institutional framework, rather than as a responsibility to deliver public value, was perceived as an integrity risk.

To mitigate integrity risks, SAI’s therefore could promote organisational cultures of integrity within their institutions, with clear guidance and support to staff as well as strong risk management practices and internal controls. Leadership at all levels is also central to achieving resilience against integrity risks and to lead by example and create an environment of openness where staff feel secure to speak up. Indeed, leaders shape organisational culture, establish ethical practices and ensure that institutional decisions follow the laws, shared values and are taken in the public interest. Leadership could establish and implement practical integrity policies that signal to stakeholders that the institution operates independently, reliably and in service of society. Indeed, sustainable ethical performance depends on institutional arrangements that embed integrity and accountability across the organisation. See Box ‎3.13 with the example of Jamaica.

Box ‎3.13. Building credibility and trust: The case of the Auditor General’s Department of Jamaica

The Auditor General’s Department of Jamaica (AGDJ) is widely perceived by stakeholders as a credible and trusted institution. Its positive reputation is based on three main factors: effectiveness in fulfilling its legal mandate, a strong technical and objective audit approach, and consistent adherence to established procedures and regulations.

To lead by example and set the tone for informal interactions with audited entities, the Auditor General of Jamaica also applies transparency measures for all conversations, meetings and exchanges throughout the audit process. By clearly defining expectations for ethical behaviour and accountability, the AGDJ ensures that staff consistently follow professional standards, further demonstrating impartiality and reinforcing credibility.

This strong framework has encouraged external stakeholders, particularly civil society organisations and academia, to advocate for the SAI and support its role in public accountability. AGDJ staff also note that active participation in INTOSAI activities has strengthened the institution’s professional standing and visibility at the national level, highlighting the importance of structured internal integrity measures in building both domestic and international confidence.

Source: Fact-finding mission.

Establishing a comprehensive and coherent internal integrity framework in SAIs can be inspired by the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity (OECD, 2017[9]; OECD, 2020[10]), and requires, amongst others:

• Developing in a participative manner and promoting actively a Code of Ethics that is consistent with their mandate, independence and operational context, and that is aligned with internationally recognised standards, such as the ISSAI 130 (INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements, 2019[11]).

• Clarifying integrity and ethics standards through a Code of Conduct that translates ethical values into clear guidance. The Code of Conduct should address key integrity risk areas relevant to SAIs, including conflicts of interest, gift policies, use of information, interactions with stakeholders and the use of public resources.

• Putting in place appropriate policies and processes to ensure awareness of, understanding of, and adherence to integrity standards. This includes regular training and availability of guidance tailored to roles and responsibilities, clear communication of integrity expectations, leadership commitment and role-modelling at all levels.

• SAIs could establish mechanisms to identify, assess and mitigate integrity risks as part of their governance and risk management processes. This includes periodic integrity risk assessments, proportionate mitigation measures and continuous monitoring to address emerging risk.

• SAIs could establish and maintain transparent and well-defined mechanisms to prevent, detect and address integrity breaches. These mechanisms should clearly set out procedures for reporting, investigating and responding to alleged misconduct, ensure due process and confidentiality, and be communicated internally and externally as appropriate to potentially reinforce accountability and trust.

3.3.3. To enhance fairness and credibility, SAIs could establish transparent policies to manage informal interactions between auditors and auditees

Stakeholders consulted from the executive highlighted that consistent and transparent communication is essential for ensuring that auditees feel they are being treated fairly. Such communication is expected to support the smooth functioning of formal elements of the audit process, including how auditee inputs are handled during the audit and how draft or final reports are communicated to them.

Consulted stakeholders also placed particular emphasis on the role of informal interactions, such as brief conversations, phone calls, or occasional meetings, that complement formal procedures. Members of the SAI noted that while these exchanges can facilitate practical co-ordination, they may also create risks for the perceived neutrality and independence of auditors if not managed carefully.

Therefore, to support fairness in their interactions with audited entities, SAIs could consider the following actions:

• Systematic application of ISSAIs, which provide a common framework for audit quality, consistency, professional judgement and effective communication throughout the audit process.

• Clear and standardised procedures for communicating audit results to the audited entities, including formal documentation (e.g. minutes of the disclosure meetings) and structured opportunities for audited entities to provide comments on the findings.

• Policies on the formal and informal communications with the audited entities. This policy should include, aligned with the SAI’s integrity framework and applicable legal provisions, the requirements regarding meetings, calls, and other informal exchanges between auditors and auditees.

• Mechanisms for receiving feedback from audited entities, supported by safeguards that ensure such feedback is used for institutional learning and process improvement, without risk of adverse consequences for the auditee.

References

[2] Brezzi, M. et al. (2021), “An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b6c5478c-en.

[11] INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements (2019), ISSAI - 130 - Code of Ethics, IFPP, https://www.issai.org/pronouncements/issai-130-code-of-ethics/ (accessed on 26 February 2026).

[6] INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements (2013), INTOSAI-P - 20 - Principles of Transparency and Accountability, IFPP, https://www.issai.org/pronouncements/intosai-p-20-principles-of-transparency-and-accountability/ (accessed on 20 February 2026).

[1] Lock, I. and S. Jacobs (2025), “Drivers of Reputation and Legitimacy of a Highly Visible Public Sector Organization: Surveying Citizens’ Perceptions”, Corporate Reputation Review, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-025-00230-9.

[3] OECD (2022), Enhancing the Oversight Impact of Chile’s Supreme Audit Institution: Applying Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1afdc85e-en.

[8] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[10] OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.

[9] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0435, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/Recommendation-Public-Integrity.pdf.

[4] OECD (2016), Supreme Audit Institutions and Good Governance: Oversight, Insight and Foresight, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264263871-en.

[5] UK NAO (n.d.), Insights, National Audit Office, United Kingdom, https://www.nao.org.uk/insights/ (accessed on 20 February 2026).

[7] UNODC et al. (2020), International Practices to measure, monitor and evaluate corruption levels and anti-corruption policies, https://www.cdeunodc.inegi.org.mx/unodc/unodc/doc/UNODC_AnticorruptionPolicies_CorruptionCases_Indicators_ENG.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2026).