How The Role of Internal Audit Is Evolving Under The 2025 Global Standards

When the updated Global Internal Audit Standards issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors became effective in January 2025, most internal audit leaders were already familiar with the new standards. The structure had been published. The five domains were understood. External Quality Assessments were beginning to reference the new requirements.

What is changing now is not awareness of the standards. It is how internal audit functions are being evaluated against them.

Across organizations, we are seeing measurable shifts in governance positioning, documentation discipline, risk coverage, and board engagement. The standards are no longer theoretical. They are influencing how internal audit operates and how it is assessed.

‍

Governance Expectations Are Becoming More Explicit

One of the most visible shifts is in governance alignment.

The 2025 standards place explicit emphasis on how internal audit is positioned within the organization.

As a result, audit committees and chief audit executives are revisiting foundational elements such as:

• Audit charter language and alignment with the five domains
• Functional and administrative reporting lines
• Documentation of independence safeguards
• Oversight of the chief audit executive’s performance

Independence is no longer something that can be implied. It must be demonstrable.

Assessors are looking for documented reporting relationships, evidence of audit committee approval of the plan and charter, and visible oversight of internal audit performance. Informal structures that once functioned adequately are being formalized to withstand scrutiny.

Board conversations are also becoming more structured. Audit committees are increasingly asking how internal audit aligns its plan to enterprise risk, how quality is monitored, and how independence is preserved in practice.

‍

Risk Coverage Is Expanding Beyond Traditional Silos

The introduction of Topical Requirements has accelerated changes in audit planning.

Internal audit functions are expanding coverage into areas that require governance level evaluation, not just control testing. Cybersecurity, third party risk, and organizational behavior are being reviewed with greater depth and broader scope.

We are seeing a shift from isolated IT control testing to evaluation of cybersecurity governance, oversight, and reporting.

From contract sampling in vendor reviews to assessment of third party risk frameworks and ecosystem exposure. 

From limited compliance checks to consideration of tone at the top, incentive alignment, and behavioral risk drivers

Assessors expect to see that these risks are embedded in the audit universe, risk assessment methodology, and annual plan. Functions that have not adjusted risk coverage to reflect emerging risk domains are finding those gaps more visible during evaluations.

‍

Quality Assurance Is Becoming A Year Round Discipline

The Quality Assurance and Improvement Program (QAIP) has taken on greater prominence under the updated standards.

While QAIP has long been a requirement, the 2025 framework emphasizes ongoing monitoring and structured periodic self-assessment. As a result, internal audit teams are formalizing processes that may previously informal.

We are seeing:

• More systematic file inspection programs
• Documented internal self-assessments against the five domains
• Structured tracking of improvement initiatives
• Clearer reporting of QAIP results to audit committees

The mindset has shifted from preparing for an External Quality Assessment every five years to maintaining continuous evidence of quality.

Assessors are looking for evidence that QAIP is embedded in daily operations, not activated only in advance of an External Quality Assessment.

That evidence may include inspection logs, self assessment summaries, documented remediation plans, and board communications. A QAIP that exists conceptually but lacks consistent documentation will not meet expectations under the updated framework.

‍

Documentation Standards Are Tightening

Another noticeable change is in engagement documentation.

The updated standards clarify expectations around planning, risk assessment, supervisory review, and reporting. In response, internal audit teams are refining how work is documented and presented.

Common enhancements include:

• Clearer linkage between enterprise risks and engagement objectives
• Explicit documentation of supervisory review
• Stronger articulation of root cause and impact in audit reports
• Standardization of workpaper structure across teams

These refinements are not about formality for its own sake. They support a more disciplined and defensible audit process.

Assessors evaluating conformance under the new framework are looking for consistency across the five domains. Documentation is often where strengths and gaps become visible.

‍

Internal Audit Is Being Positioned More Strategically

Perhaps the most meaningful shift is cultural.

The language of the 2025 standards emphasizes internal audit’s purpose in strengthening governance and enhancing organizational performance. That framing is influencing how audit leaders engage with executive management and boards.

We are observing:

• Greater alignment between audit plans and strategic objectives
• Increased discussion of emerging risks at the board level
• More thematic reporting rather than purely transactional summaries
• Broader dialogue around risk trends and oversight effectiveness

Internal audit is being encouraged to operate as a strategic assurance function, not a retrospective compliance reviewer.

Assessors evaluating conformance under the five domains will consider whether internal audit’s strategy and execution reflect that broader purpose.

‍

Independence Is Receiving Renewed Attention

The updated standards are explicit about independence and objectivity safeguards.

As a result, organizations are reassessing:

• Dual reporting relationships
• Performance evaluation processes
• Budget authority and administrative oversight
• Advisory engagements that could impair objectivity

Even when structures were previously appropriate, documentation is being strengthened to ensure clarity.

Independence that is assumed but undocumented is increasingly viewed as a vulnerability. The standards reinforce that independence must be protected and demonstrable.

‍

A Framework That Is Influencing Practice

The 2025 Global Internal Audit Standards have been in place long enough that their impact is visible.

Internal audit functions are becoming more structured in governance. Risk coverage is broader and more integrated and board engagement is more deliberate.

The standards have clarified expectations. Organizations are responding by strengthening how internal audit is positioned, managed, and executed.

For internal audit leaders, the opportunity is not merely to demonstrate conformance. It is to use the framework as a catalyst for strengthening credibility and relevance.

Cherry Hill Advisory works alongside internal audit leaders who are navigating these shifts in practice. When professional expectations evolve, thoughtful alignment helps ensure that internal audit remains both independent and strategically valuable.

If your organization is reassessing how the updated standards are shaping your internal audit function, we welcome the conversation.

‍