During a recent interview, we were asked a simple yet powerful question: “How can audits foster an environment where companies feel safe to be open about their challenges, instead of just trying to ‘pass’?”
It is a question that addresses the core of audit effectiveness. Too often, audits are still seen as events to get through rather than chances to learn. When companies feel they must perform during audits rather than speak openly, the audit has already missed part of its purpose. It may still generate findings, scores, and corrective actions, but fails to identify larger risks, behaviors, and system weaknesses.
Our research supports this point. More than 62% of respondents say organizations are hesitant to reveal issues during audits. This is not just a communication problem. It also shows a persistent lack of psychological safety: the trust that people can speak openly about problems, mistakes, and uncertainties without fear of excessive blame, punishment, or damage to their reputation.
Audits reveal more when people feel safe to speak.
In theory, audits are meant to promote transparency. However, the quality of that transparency greatly depends on the environment where the audit occurs. If an organization views the audit as a judgment day, people naturally prepare to defend, explain, or conceal. They prioritize showing compliance over discussing reality. Weaknesses are distorted, near misses are minimized, and uncomfortable questions are avoided.
This does not mean that companies are intentionally dishonest. Often, people respond to incentives. If admitting a problem risks blame, escalation, customer pressure, internal embarrassment, or negative consequences for individuals, silence becomes rational. The result is a polished audit picture that may appear reassuring but does not fully reflect the actual level of risk.
For audits to truly make an impact, they must encourage honesty. This requires more than just asking good questions. It demands a shift in mindset from auditors, auditees, leadership teams, customers, schemes, and governance functions. Audits should be viewed not only as a control tool but also as a structured chance to understand, learn, and improve.
Three levers can change the audit dynamic.
The first lever is mindset. If audits are seen mainly as punishment or just checking boxes, organizations will naturally focus on appearances. Leaders need to communicate that having weaknesses spotted is not a failure; failing to understand and fix them is the real risk. Auditors, in turn, should clarify that their role is not to catch people out but to evaluate how well systems work in practice and where improvements are needed.
The second lever is reducing fear. Organizations tend to be more open when they believe the audit will help them improve, rather than judge them. This does not mean lowering expectations or accepting poor performance. Standards must stay strong, and nonconformities need to be reported when backed by evidence. However, the way findings are discussed, framed, and followed up on can either increase defensiveness or promote ownership.
The third lever is the auditor’s role. Auditors should increasingly act as strategic advisors while maintaining independence. This isn’t about transforming into consultants during the audit or softening conclusions. It’s about being more insight-driven. Instead of just identifying what went wrong, auditors should help organizations understand why it happened, whether the issue is isolated or systemic, and what support is needed to prevent it from happening again.
Independence and empathy are not opposites.
One concern often raised is whether creating a safer audit environment could compromise auditor independence. It should not. Psychological safety is not about making audits easier, avoiding difficult findings, or turning nonconformities into soft observations. On the contrary, it enables stronger audits by providing auditors with access to better information.
A psychologically safe audit environment encourages earlier and more honest conversations. It helps auditors grasp context without losing objectivity. It allows auditees to share constraints, conflicting priorities, resource limits, and cultural barriers that might otherwise go unnoticed. This deeper understanding does not weaken the audit conclusion; instead, it enhances the relevance of the findings and the quality of subsequent improvement actions.
The best audits are not the ones where everyone feels at ease. They are the ones where people feel respected enough to be honest. Good auditing should challenge, test, verify, and sometimes confront uncomfortable truths. But it should do so in a way that promotes honesty rather than just performance.
From compliance events to improvement conversations.
When audits shift from inspection to gaining insights, their value rises dramatically. They become focused less on simply proving that a system exists and more on understanding if the system functions properly, whether people trust it, and if risks are identified early before turning into failures.
This shift is especially important in complex sectors like food safety, quality, sustainability, and responsible sourcing, where documentation alone usually doesn’t tell the full story. The real signals often show up in how people discuss problems, how quickly concerns are escalated, who takes responsibility for corrective actions, and whether recurring issues are seen as isolated incidents or signs of deeper system weaknesses.
For organizations, this means preparing for audits differently. Instead of just aiming to show compliance, they should be ready to discuss what is difficult, what is improving, and what still needs attention. For auditors, it means listening to signals beyond the checklist and asking questions that encourage learning. For customers and schemes, it means understanding that maturity is not shown by the absence of findings but by the ability to understand and manage risks openly.
The question we were asked in that interview should stay with us all. A successful audit is not just about passing; it is about uncovering what matters, fostering meaningful improvement, and building trust among all parties involved.
When audits shift from inspection to insight, companies are more likely to speak openly.
And when companies speak openly, real improvement becomes possible.
