This article explores SAI stakeholder engagement and present findings from an intenational survey carried out by the National Audit Office of Estonia (NAOE). The NAOE survey, as part of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Development Initiative’s (IDI) SAI Young Leaders project, was distributed to 47 SAIs, as well as the European Court of Auditors. Thirty-eight delegates responded.
Stakeholder: a person, group or organization that has interest or concern in the SAI and who can affect (or be affected by) SAI actions.
Stakeholder engagement, as a planned process, gives relevant counterparts an opportunity to provide input into audits. Rooted in a SAI’s culture and historical patterns, the degrees of stakeholder engagement can be viewed as a continuum of potential influence on a decision or action being considered.
INFORMING and CONSULTING (are shaped by one-way communication where stakeholders are passive information receivers) INVOLVEMENT (engagement strategies are base on two-way interaction, which entails providing feedback on stakeholder contribution) COLLABORATION (involves developing stakeholder partnerships within the audit process) EMPOWERMENT (encompasses delegating final decision-making to stakeholders).
The NAOE survey results showed a majority of respondents preferred engagement strategies primarily based on consultation, followed by informing and involving. Few SAIs responding to the survey collaborate with stakeholders, and only two SAIs defined stakeholder engagement as empowerment. As SAI engagement interventions vary, differentiating among levels, instruments and stakeholders is essential. The survey allowed for more than one response, and half of the respondents noted employing more than one approach to engage stakeholders.
Stakeholder Engagement – Impact: Research implies (1) a strain on stakeholder engagement due to requiring a balance between SAI autonomy and increasing audit impact through meaningful dialogue; (2) 80% indicated stakeholder engagement is mentioned in strategic documents and there are guidelines on stakeholder engagement; (3) evaluating engagement activities remains a shortcoming since roughly half of the survey’s respondents indicated few performance indicators exist that are connected to stakeholder engagement, which makes it difficult to evaluate activity effectiveness and appropriateness.
Stakeholder Engagement – A discussion: The NAOE confirms that those responding to the survey predominantly focus on one-way engagement; however, growing awareness of engagement advantages has resulted in SAIs moving towards more systematic and participatory work with stakeholders and placing increased emphasis on gathering stakeholder feedback.
Stakeholder Engagement – Conclusion: Engaging stakeholders throughout the audit process can be challenging. Recently, SAIs have begun to recognize stakeholder engagement as a support instrument that can lead to increased audit impact. The NAOE survey results demonstrate SAI engagement approaches are becoming more institutionalized and are moving toward participatory involvement—going beyond a simple dissemination of audit results. This includes collecting stakeholder views on audit planning and soliciting feedback throughout the audit cycle.
National Audit Office of Estonia (PHAN THU HIỀN dịch)