Remote Auditing Is Here To Stay: How It’s Changing the Audit Process

Once considered a temporary workaround, remote auditing is now a permanent part of how audits are planned and performed. Technological advances and evolving workforce expectations have pushed audit firms to rethink traditional, fully on-site approaches. The question isn’t whether remote auditing will continue (it will), but how firms and clients can use it effectively while maintaining audit quality.

How remote auditing gained momentum

The concept of remote auditing didn’t emerge overnight. Even before remote work became commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, accounting firms were gradually expanding the use of off-site audit procedures. Many firms invested in staff training and technology — such as cloud computing, secure remote access and videoconferencing tools — to work off-site. Moreover, advanced analytics software and continuous auditing tools enabled real-time testing, reducing reliance on certain traditional manual testing procedures.

These efforts were driven largely by a desire to reduce business disruptions and costs while improving flexibility for both auditors and clients. The pandemic served as a catalyst for the widespread adoption of remote auditing techniques. As firms became more comfortable with these tools, they found that some procedures could be completed just as effectively, if not more so, outside the traditional on-site model.

Why hybrid audits are the new standard

Even with well-established remote capabilities, certain audit areas still benefit significantly from being conducted in person. Auditing standards emphasize that auditors must obtain sufficient appropriate evidence, whether collected on-site or off-site. Your auditor’s risk assessment dictates how and where procedures are performed.

Today, most auditors use a hybrid approach. By combining off-site and in-person procedures, they can balance efficiency with effectiveness. Some examples include:

Internal control testing. Auditors must evaluate whether controls are properly designed and implemented, and if they’re operating effectively. Gaining a full understanding of a company’s control environment can be challenging through virtual meetings alone. In addition, auditors often need to reassess how transactions are processed when employees work remotely or in hybrid settings. Controls that were effective in prior periods may need to be updated or supplemented, and in-person observation can provide critical context.

Fraud-related inquiries. Auditing standards emphasize that inquiries of management and those charged with governance regarding fraud are most effective when conducted face-to-face. On-site discussions allow auditors to observe body language, assess tone and evaluate interpersonal dynamics — insights that are harder to capture through a screen.

Inventory observations. Auditors are required to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence that inventory exists and is in good condition. While technology, such as live video feeds, drones and security cameras, can support this process, these tools have limitations. Observing inventory counts in person, at least for a sample of locations, often remains necessary to verify accuracy and completeness.

Companies that are unwilling to allow in-person procedures in these areas may raise concerns about audit risk. And when auditors decide to use remote procedures, they must apply heightened professional skepticism and be well-trained in using technology effectively.

Remote auditing, together

The future of auditing is flexible, adaptable and often remote. However, maintaining audit quality requires using the right tools in the right situations. The optimal mix of remote and on-site procedures will vary based on a company’s size, industry, systems and risk profile. Contact us to discuss what makes sense for your organization. We’ll work closely with your internal finance and accounting team to design an audit approach that streamlines the process while upholding audit quality.

© 2026