ABSTRACT
Auditees and other interested parties are nowadays more willing to publicly challenge the evidence produced by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). Such challenges can have adverse implications for the reputation of SAIs. Performance audits, which are often less clear-cut and definitive than traditional audits, have moved SAIs into more contestable space with consequent implications of an increasing risk to their reputation. This chapter examines six factors, the management of which can affect reputational risk: audit strategy; topic selection, quality; effectiveness of findings; communication; and integrity. For each factor, the authors briefly examine a case study illustrating a reputational risk issue or issues. Each case is followed by a brief discussion of the case and its implications for how reputational risk is managed The cases indicate a situation likely to be seen with increasing frequency in a world where unwanted findings are dismissed as ‘fake news,’ findings may be deliberately misinterpreted, and experts and the evidence produced by them seen as legitimate targets for criticism.
