The subjective nature of auditing

This month’s article has a personal perspective, perhaps you might say a subjective perspective, and that is the challenge of applying consistent approaches and standards to auditing. I’m speaking here from recent personal experience – names and organisations are excluded for obvious reasons, but the case study is real.

I recently conducted an observation audit of one of SLF’s auditors; this is a periodic process that we carry out to ensure that our auditors are aligned, operating with integrity and maintaining the standard expectation of SLF Audit Schemes.

The facility that was being audited was a good facility undergoing their first social audit and they showed a high standard of preparedness and social responsibility. Their audit wasn’t perfect (not many are) but for a first time audit they have performed well and as SLF advocates for continuous improvement, we are not looking for perfection straight out the gate, we are looking for the current, real position of a facility. My observation audit was successful, there were a couple of learning points for the SLF auditor that I was observing but that is exactly the point of the accompanied visits – to provide that continued learning and development for the SLF auditing team.

The same facility was undergoing an environmental audit the week after our visit, and with the exception of a few minor points that were in the process of completion, there should have been no problem with them receiving environmental certification from the other auditing body. However, this was not the case. I heard last week that the auditor who assessed the company had, through his own inexperienced interpretation of the audit protocol, told the company that he would have to either fail the audit, or they would have to treat it as a trial audit. This was due to a requirement, that is NOT an actual requirement of the audit protocol which gives rise to whether the auditor had received sufficient training. Consequently, the company concerned has now wasted thousands of pounds having this audit classified as a trial audit and will have to pay again for another audit in the future.

In my professional opinion, the tannery in question was certainly deserving of their audit certification, more so than a lot of facilities that already have certification. My recommendation to the tannery is to appeal this decision through the audit company concerned and seek a new audit at the audit company’s expense. I can’t influence whether this happens or not – but it is what they should do.

This leads me to the point of this article.

Subjectivity in auditing can have damaging effects for leather manufacturers with far reaching consequences that could ultimately mean loss of business. Therefore, we in the auditing services business have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain robust measures to ensure our teams act consistently and objectively in supporting our leather industry with their certification needs.

For those who are regular readers, you may recall that in March 2023 I wrote an article for S&V entitled “The Trouble with Auditing…” In that piece we looked at the definition of auditing and how even now if you google it, it still centres around financial auditing of books and accounts.
However, an operational audit or a facility audit can be simply defined as:

“a process of inspection against a set of key criteria”.
Companies may conduct internal audits of their processes, systems and production, and then have those externally audited by a third party, to prove compliance against the criteria laid out by the certification scheme / standard.
Third party auditing must be objective. Without that then the results become a lottery depending upon which auditor you happen to get. Objectivity is only possible through:
(a) clear criteria outlined in the requirements of the scheme/standard, that are not open to interpretation.
(b) Robust and adequate training of the auditors who perform the audits, ensuring that the auditing team is kept up to date with continuing professional development and training.
(c) Where there is the potential for interpretation, clear guidance should be given as to the professional judgement of a situation, or a process of referral back to the scheme/standard owner for clarity and decision-making.

We must not forget about auditor perspective and bias. I have come across countless cases over the last decade of different outcomes to the same case study, depending on the auditor who is looking at it. This is a vital reason for the need for auditors to work as a team – to discuss different cases with each other, seek advice if unsure of something, or pass on relevant information that could be useful to other auditors.

Having experienced auditors to support the development of junior auditors is a key tool for a successful team. Auditors who appear to be in competition with each other often fail to fit into a team and this can have a negative impact for both the audit body and the companies being audited.

Final thoughts
Here I repeat what I wrote in the earlier piece I mentioned “The Trouble With Auditing”. Auditing is not an exact science within the leather industry, and there will always be a subjective element. However, auditing remains the most effective method we have at our disposal to provide a mechanism for assessment and demonstration of good ESG practice.
It is time for a reset:

• facilities who only do an audit “because the brand demands it” need to re-evaluate their position.
• brands who just request an audit without fully recognising what that involves or the challenges that could pose for a facility need to re-evaluate their position.
• facilities who are not happy with their auditor or the way an audit is being conducted, must question it, to ensure that standards are maintained.

The trouble with auditing is that our industry isn’t using the discipline in the right way yet – it doesn’t have to be an outward drain of money and resource – it can be an incoming support for continual improvement for people, planet and profit. Our auditors need to be the flagbearers and for that they have a huge weight of responsibility on their shoulders. That weight should be adequately supported by the scheme owners and standard bodies that employ them.
If you want any more information on how to get the best out of an audit and what value it can add to your organisation, then get in touch at info@sustainableleatherfoundation.com.
Until next time, thanks for reading.