Internal Audit Priorities for 2026: Technology, Risk and Talent

Internal audit teams enter 2026 with a wider remit and a sharper expectation from boards. The function is asked to provide independent assurance on governance, risk management and controls while organisations adopt new technology, rely on complex suppliers and respond to geopolitical and operational uncertainty.

The 2024 Global Internal Audit Standards are now the basis for quality assessments beginning 9 January 2025. They describe internal auditing as a function that strengthens an organisation’s ability to create, protect and sustain value. That purpose makes the annual priority list more useful when it connects risk to decisions, control evidence and the capability of the audit team.

Employers strengthening an internal audit function across these emerging risks can use capability build recruitment to hire the required audit, technology, data and risk expertise in a planned sequence.

What are the leading internal audit priorities in 2026?

The leading priorities are cyber security, digital disruption, third party risk, resilience, data quality and the capability to provide credible assurance.

The Internal Audit Foundation’s Risk in Focus 2026 research is based on 4,073 survey responses from 131 countries and territories, 18 roundtables and 24 interviews. Cybersecurity remains the highest rated risk and digital disruption, including artificial intelligence, is rising quickly. The exact order differs by region and sector, so a board should use the findings as a prompt for its own risk assessment rather than as a fixed audit plan.

1. Cyber security assurance is becoming more structured

Internal audit should assess whether cyber governance, risk management and controls are designed, implemented and monitored for the organisation’s risk profile.

The IIA Cybersecurity Topical Requirement was issued on 5 February 2025 and became effective on 5 February 2026. It provides a minimum baseline for assurance over cyber governance, risk management and control processes. The requirements include clear accountability, an updated risk approach, stakeholder involvement and evidence that people performing cyber roles have the knowledge and skills needed.

For an audit plan, this means more than checking whether a policy exists. Test how the board receives information, how vulnerabilities are prioritised, how access is reviewed, how incidents are escalated and how the organisation knows that controls work. Specialist cyber, technology risk and data expertise may be needed where the internal team cannot provide sufficient assurance.

2. Third party risk requires its own view

Supplier dependence should be assessed across governance, risk management, controls, resilience and the evidence available to the organisation.

The IIA Third Party Topical Requirement was issued on 15 September 2025 and is effective on 15 September 2026. It establishes a baseline for assurance over third party governance, risk management and controls. A practical review should follow the supplier lifecycle from selection and due diligence through contract, service monitoring, incident response, exit and data deletion.

Audit teams should identify which controls are performed by the organisation, which are performed by the supplier and which are checked by another assurance provider. A contract that promises compliance is not evidence that a control operates. The audit needs records, ownership, testing and a clear route for unresolved issues.

3. Artificial intelligence needs proportionate assurance

Internal audit should assess the governance and controls around an artificial intelligence system without taking responsibility for operating it.

The IIA’s Artificial Intelligence Auditing Framework provides practical guidance for understanding strategy, governance, management and related risks. An audit may examine approval, data quality, access, change control, human oversight, monitoring, supplier arrangements and incident response. The depth of work should follow the use, impact and risk of the system.

This page does not repeat the detailed framework for employers using artificial intelligence in recruitment. The artificial intelligence in recruitment guide covers that operating model. Internal audit’s role is to provide independent assurance and to report what the board and management need to know.

4. Resilience should connect plans to evidence

A resilient organisation can show how it continues important services, makes decisions and learns after disruption.

Audit work should link business impact analysis, important services, recovery objectives, third party dependencies, crisis roles and testing results. A plan that has not been exercised cannot demonstrate readiness. A successful exercise that produces no tracked improvement is also weak evidence.

In regulated financial services, resilience may involve data, models, payments, claims, underwriting, reporting and customer communication. The audit plan should be clear about scope and avoid treating resilience as a single technology topic. It is a governance and operating capability that crosses functions.

5. Data quality is an assurance issue

Internal audit should test whether important data is defined, controlled, traceable and fit for the decision that relies on it.

Data quality matters in financial reporting, regulatory submissions, customer outcomes, risk models and sustainability information. Begin with the decision and identify the data fields that could change its result. Test ownership, lineage, access, validation, exception handling and correction. If a model or dashboard is used, check whether users understand its limits.

The audit conclusion should distinguish a missing definition from a bad value and a bad value from a weak process. That distinction gives management a practical remediation path and helps the board understand the level of exposure.

6. Climate and sustainability information needs controls

Internal audit can add value by testing the reliability, governance and accountability of sustainability information without taking ownership of management’s reporting.

Climate and sustainability data often comes from several systems and third parties. Review the materiality process, definitions, evidence, approval and changes over time. Ask whether controls match the importance of the disclosure and whether management can explain estimates and uncertainty.

The scope depends on reporting obligations and risk profile. Coordinate with risk, finance, compliance and external assurance providers so coverage is clear and independence is protected.

7. Talent and capability determine audit quality

An audit plan is only credible when the team has the skills, capacity and independence to deliver it.

The chief audit executive should map required capability against the planned portfolio. A financial services team may need experience in cyber security, cloud controls, data analytics, model risk, third party oversight, climate information and regulatory change. Not every skill must be permanent. Co sourcing, training and targeted recruitment can fill specific gaps when accountability and quality review remain clear.

In our audit recruitment practice, strong briefs describe the decisions an auditor must improve, the risks examined and the evidence communicated. Our risk and financial advisory practice adds the distinction between advice and independent assurance. For local context, see internal audit and risk hiring in Bermuda.

How should a board set its internal audit plan?

The board should approve a risk based plan that explains coverage, capability, timing, dependencies and how findings will be followed through.

Start with the organisation’s objectives and material risks. Use external research to challenge assumptions, then decide which areas need assurance, advice or monitoring. Review the plan when a major incident, acquisition, technology change or regulatory expectation alters the risk picture.

What should internal audit employers assess when hiring?

Employers should assess technical reasoning, independence, communication and the ability to turn evidence into a decision useful to the board.

Use a work sample that resembles the role. Ask a candidate to scope a cyber review, assess a supplier control, explain a data quality issue or present a finding to an audit committee. Score the reasoning, evidence selection, clarity and judgement. A qualification can support credibility, but it should not replace evidence of how the person works.

What should employers do next?

Choose one priority risk, map the required capability and test whether the current audit plan can provide timely assurance.

The result may be a revised scope, a new specialist hire, focused development or external support. Record the decision and the evidence behind it so the next planning cycle starts from a stronger base.