Today, internal auditing is evolving rapidly. Many auditors wonder whether they should limit themselves to evaluating processes or also contribute as consultants. This question arises because organizations increasingly require ongoing strategic support. Although both roles may appear compatible, combining them carelessly can affect professional independence.

In this article, we explain how this boundary has shifted. We also examine when it is appropriate for the auditor to act as an advisor and what limits must be respected. In doing so, we provide clear and practical guidance for audit, risk and compliance professionals.

What Is Internal Auditing According to Modern Standards?

The IPPF 2025 defines internal auditing as an objective activity dedicated to evaluating and improving control processes, risk management, and corporate governance. Its main purpose is to provide reliable assurance regarding the effectiveness of controls. The auditor analyzes evidence, identifies deficiencies, and proposes improvements.

The mission does not include making operational decisions. Maintaining professional distance ensures objectivity and strengthens leadership’s trust in audit reports.

What Does Acting as a Consultant Within an Organization Involve?

Consulting consists of guiding business areas to solve problems and improve processes. The consultant takes an active role in designing solutions. The IIA recognizes these advisory services and permits them as long as the auditor does not assume managerial responsibilities.

The auditor may clarify questions, facilitate analysis, and support discussions. However, the auditor must avoid decisions that could compromise future independence.

Where Is the Line Between Auditing and Consulting?

The distinction lies in the level of involvement. The auditor observes, evaluates, and recommends from an independent position. The consultant designs and drives solutions. For this reason, if the auditor contributes to designing a control, the auditor should not evaluate it later.

The IPPF 2025 recommends establishing clear boundaries before participating in any advisory activity. This prevents conflicts and protects objectivity.

Why Is This Discussion So Important in 2025?

Organizations face constant change. Automation, artificial intelligence, and new regulations demand greater transparency. As a result, many areas seek ongoing technical guidance. Auditors possess a broad view of the organization and become strategic partners.

Nevertheless, this support may create ethical tensions. With clear limits, the auditor can provide advice without jeopardizing credibility.

Benefits of Acting as a Consultant… When Limits Are Respected

Real Impact on Improvements

The auditor can contribute to stronger solutions when participating in risk assessments or process workshops. Objectivity helps identify risks others may overlook.

Smoother Relationships With Audited Areas

Business units value guidance and support. Trust improves acceptance of recommendations.

Deep Organizational Understanding

By observing processes during their design, the auditor gains important insights. This strengthens the clarity and quality of audit reports.

Strategic Alignment Without Losing Independence

Moderate participation allows auditors to support institutional objectives without taking on operational responsibilities.

Risks of Crossing the Line Without Proper Controls

Risk of Losing Independence

The GAO Yellow Book 2024–2025 emphasizes that independence is essential. If the auditor designs processes, the auditor cannot evaluate them objectively.

Conflicts of Interest

Participating in operational decisions raises doubts about impartiality.

Role Confusion

Failing to explain the auditor’s role generates incorrect expectations.

Weakening of Credibility

A perceived lack of independence reduces the value of audit work for committees and regulators.

What Do International Standards Say?

Major frameworks agree that limited advisory work is acceptable if independence is protected:

• IIA IPPF 2025: allows advisory services with clear boundaries.
• COSO 2017–2024: emphasizes separation of duties.
• GAO Yellow Book 2024–2025: outlines restrictions to prevent excessive involvement.
• ISO 31000: promotes analysis without operational intervention.
• ISO 37301: highlights the auditor’s independent role.

Key Tensions: AI, Automation, and New Risks

AI as a Blurred Frontier

Artificial intelligence is transforming processes and controls. The auditor must understand these risks without engaging in the technical design of models.

Can the Auditor Advise on AI Projects?

The auditor may explain risks, review conceptual documentation, and facilitate discussions, but should not influence technical decisions.

Emerging Risks Requiring Attention

• Bias in automated models.
• Lack of traceability in digital processes.
• Insufficient controls in interconnected platforms.

Practical Application: How to Add Value Without Losing Independence

Clearly Define Boundaries

The auditor must explain the advisory role before beginning any engagement.

Document All Interactions

Documenting activities prevents confusion later.

Maintain Open Communication

Business units must know when they are receiving support and when they are being evaluated.

Practical Examples

• Facilitating workshops without approving results.
• Reviewing designs without participating in construction.
• Training teams without influencing decisions.

Suggested Links