Corporate governance is challenged by an all-too-common problem: translating operational risk into strategic language boards can act upon. Audit committees are frequently faced with hundreds of pages of low-level findings while systemic risks go unreported. Here, says Sabine Charles, CEO of consulting firm Charles Financial Strategies, is where credentials like the CIA, CPA and CISA can play an important role in both understanding past failures and preventing future ones.
Modern warning signs like SEC fines and costly breaches scream for attention, but many oversight committees still measure success through staffing levels or spending limits. In my work with organizations across industries, I’ve observed that these leaders often overlook actual skill levels when they judge their protective teams. Neglecting expertise drives a deep wedge between organizational needs and staff proficiency.
As the regulatory environment tightens, I believe organizations benefit from having certified audit professionals on their teams. Professional credentials like the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) provide structured frameworks for developing the critical thinking and technical skills that modern governance demands. High-level training can stabilize annual reports while improving stakeholder trust in the organization.
The skills gap creates measurable risk exposure
Internal review teams often struggle without the specialized knowledge that comes from rigorous professional training. Leaders need critical skills to challenge what executives claim. An untrained person usually believes a formal policy confirms that safety exists. Specialists, however, follow the flow of cash or data through every digital step to prove a protocol holds firm when dangers arise. Such deep testing distinguishes the master from the novice.
The cybersecurity domain illustrates this challenge particularly well. According to a 2024 report, more than half of organizations report being understaffed, with significant gaps in soft skills and cloud computing expertise. This leaves organizations vulnerable at a time when digital operational resilience is critical.
An Association of Certified Fraud Examiners report reinforces the broader governance challenge, noting that nearly half of all occupational frauds occurred due to a lack of internal controls (32% ) or an override of existing controls (19% ). Strong audit and oversight functions serve as the primary defense against these vulnerabilities, and professional credentials provide one pathway to building that capability.
Internal Audit: Oh, the Places You’ll Go!
Why your internal audit team needs to get comfortable being uncomfortable
Read moreDetailsClosing the tech-governance deficit in the AI era
The accelerated adoption of AI and automated decision-making has introduced new complexity to governance. Organizations are rushing to implement generative AI tools to gain competitive advantage, frequently bypassing standard vendor risk assessments or data privacy reviews.
Specialized designations like the CISA move from technical assets to strategic necessities in this environment. While many chief audit executives are investing in digital training to bridge the skills gap, there is a difference between teams that explore technology and those with deep technical expertise. Audit professionals with advanced training can examine algorithmic decision-making, validate both inputs and outputs and assess the integrity of data processing logic itself.
They can also ensure compliance with emerging frameworks, such as the EU’s AI Act or the SEC’s cybersecurity disclosure rules. Without specialized capability, boards risk operating with incomplete information about algorithmic biases or security vulnerabilities within the enterprise network.
Audit functions must deliver boardroom-ready intelligence
A persistent challenge in modern corporate governance is translating operational risk into strategic language that boards can act upon. Audit committees are frequently inundated with hundreds of pages of low-level findings — missing signatures or minor variance reports — while systemic risks go unreported.
A 2025 report by Baker Tilly and the Internal Audit Foundation reveals that while risk management awareness is growing, it often fails to penetrate organizational decision-making effectively. The study found that fewer than half (49% ) of respondents believe risk awareness effectively resonates throughout their organization, and only 60% agree that risk intelligence is actually used in strategic planning.
Strong audit leadership can bridge this divide. Professional training programs specifically emphasize aligning audit work with organizational strategic objectives, moving the conversation from “what went wrong in the past” to “what might prevent us from achieving our goals in the future.”
The importance of robust oversight was vividly illustrated in late 2024 by the historic $3 billion fine levied against TD Bank for AML failures. While the bank’s internal audit function had identified issues, the broader governance framework was described by regulators as “siloed” and culturally deficient, allowing systemic control overrides to persist for years. The bank’s senior leadership had imposed budget constraints on compliance functions despite rising profits and risk levels, and more than 92% of transactions went unmonitored between 2018 and 2024, according to an indictment.
This case demonstrates that effective governance requires more than just identifying problems. It requires organizational structures that ensure audit findings receive appropriate attention and resources. Professional standards and codes of ethics can support auditors in reporting difficult truths regardless of internal politics, though organizational culture and management commitment remain essential.
The business case for investing in audit capability
The business case for investing in professional development is compelling. Compliance costs are escalating, with financial institutions globally bearing over $206 billion in compliance costs annually, according to one report. However, efficiencies driven by competent internal assurance can help mitigate this burden.
When internal auditors hold professional designations, their work can meet rigorous professional standards, potentially allowing external auditors to place greater reliance on it. This can reduce the hours external firms must bill for testing, lowering overall audit fees. Furthermore, internal auditors with professional certifications often bring consulting perspectives to operational improvements, identifying waste and inefficiency alongside fraud risks.
Organizations should consider the full cost of audit capability: not just salary and training expenses, but also the cost of missed fraud detection, inefficient testing cycles and remediation consultants brought in to fix problems. Professional development represents an investment in building internal capability that can prevent these downstream costs.
Conclusion
As regulatory requirements intensify and investors demand greater transparency, oversight committees and compliance leaders must carefully evaluate their teams’ capabilities. Professional certifications offer structured pathways to develop the specialized knowledge modern governance requires. While credentials alone cannot guarantee effective oversight — as the TD Bank case illustrates, organizational culture and management support remain critical — they provide frameworks for building the technical expertise and ethical standards that strong audit functions require.
In an era of escalating compliance costs and evolving risks, investing in audit team development merits serious consideration as part of a comprehensive governance strategy.
Sabine Charles, DBA, is chief executive officer and founder of consulting firm Charles Financial Strategies and authored a CPA test preparation book, "Cracking the Code: Techniques for Certification Success," published in 2021. 
