Remote, face-to-face or hybrid? Why audit isn't an either-or decision

Organisations today operate very differently from five years ago. Many finance teams are split across multiple locations. Many organisations have embraced hybrid working and others have reduced their office footprint. International businesses are increasingly managing teams across jurisdictions and time zones.

As operating models have evolved, so too has the audit process. But despite ongoing debate around remote versus face-to-face auditing, most audits involve elements of both. Instead, firms must strike the right balance between technology, personal interaction and professional judgement.

As Chetan Mistry, Audit Partner at S&W, explains: “Our objective is always to deliver a high-quality audit and exceptional client service. The question isn’t whether an audit is remote or face-to-face. It’s what approach best supports those outcomes.”

That philosophy reflects what S&W is seeing across its client base: No two businesses operate in exactly the same way, so no two audits should either.

The shift towards more flexible working has transformed how organisations manage their people, processes and technology.

For auditors, that means adapting to the realities of modern business operations while maintaining the rigorous standards that stakeholders expect.

“We’ve found a myriad of different working styles that suit our clients without compromising either client service or audit quality,” says Mistry.

“We still have clients where the audit team is predominantly on site. We have others that are largely remote. Most sit somewhere between those two positions.”

Understanding how a client operates helps shape the audit approach. A technology business with a globally dispersed workforce may require a very different approach from a manufacturing business where operational understanding and physical presence remain critical.

While technology has enabled auditors to work more efficiently than ever, there remain elements of the audit process that benefit significantly from in-person interaction.

Building relationships, understanding organisational culture and discussing complex areas of judgement can often be more effective when people are in the same room.

Mistry believes some of the most valuable conversations happen outside formal meetings: “What remote working doesn’t always capture is the unstructured value-add – the conversation after a meeting, the question asked over a coffee, the opportunity to bounce ideas around informally. Those interactions can be incredibly valuable.”

Being embedded within a client’s environment can also help auditors develop a deeper understanding of how the business operates in practice rather than simply how it’s documented.

This can be particularly valuable during first-year audits, periods of change or when discussing significant accounting judgements.

Alex Adkins, Audit Director at S&W, says physical presence can help accelerate understanding: “You can conduct walkthroughs and hold video calls, but sometimes nothing replaces being in a client’s environment and seeing how teams operate day to day. That deeper understanding often leads to better conversations and stronger outcomes.”

Face-to-face interaction can also make it easier to resolve issues quickly and build stronger working relationships throughout the audit cycle.

That doesn't mean remote auditing is a compromise, far from it. Modern audit technology allows information to be shared securely, progress to be tracked in real time and collaboration to take place across locations and time zones.

Many clients now operate entirely through cloud-based systems, giving audit teams secure access to information without creating additional administrative burdens for finance teams. This flexibility can reduce travel, speed up information sharing and give audit teams quicker access to key documentation.

“We are a technology-enabled firm,” says Mistry.

“The ability to share information securely, monitor audit progress and collaborate effectively has transformed the audit experience.”

However, he is quick to stress that technology should support relationships rather than replace them: “Technology should enhance human-led interactions, not become a substitute for them.”

That’s particularly important when discussing areas requiring judgement, professional scepticism or wider commercial context. Complex conversations are often resolved more effectively through discussion than through long email chains or online messaging platforms.

Whatever delivery model is used, audit quality remains the same.

Both Mistry and Adkins emphasise that flexibility should never come at the expense of quality. There may be occasions where a remote approach is entirely appropriate. Equally, there will be situations where bringing people together in person is the best way to move forward.

The ability to recognise that distinction is critical.

“If something isn't working, we need to be agile enough to change our approach,” says Adkins. “The focus must always be on what delivers the best outcome for the client and the highest audit quality.”

That adaptability also extends to international audits and globally dispersed organisations, where audit teams may need to combine remote collaboration with targeted site visits and face-to-face engagement.

Changes in working practices and technology have expanded the ways audits can be delivered. As a result, many engagements now combine remote collaboration with face-to-face interaction where it adds most value.

For S&W, the future isn’t about choosing between remote and face-to-face auditing. It’s about combining the strengths of both approaches to create an experience that reflects how modern businesses operate.

As Adkins puts it: “Strong audits depend on good communication between the client and audit team, regardless of where people are working.”