A remote audit may be suitable when the required evidence can be evaluated effectively using agreed technology and communication methods. Suitability depends on the activities, risks and certification programme. The ability to hold a video call does not establish that an entire assessment can be remote.
Separate document access from operational observation
Some activities are readily discussed through shared records and interviews. Others depend on observing physical conditions, understanding movements or speaking with people in a particular environment. Consider each assessment activity separately. A remote method that works for contract review may be inadequate for a noisy or restricted production area.
Discuss evidence quality as well as availability. Poor image detail, limited camera coverage or dependence on one guide can restrict what an auditor understands. The body needs to decide whether the method supports its assessment objectives and whether other arrangements are necessary.
Check readiness before confirming the method
- Test connectivity, audio, screen sharing and permissions with the tools that will actually be used.
- Identify relevant staff, their availability and any language or accessibility needs.
- Agree how confidential records will be viewed, transferred or retained; avoid unnecessary copying.
- Clarify whether live observation is feasible and how interruptions or restricted access will be handled.
- Create a fallback for technology failure and confirm the route for revising the assessment plan.
A test should include the operational location, not just a quiet meeting room. Check whether the person controlling the technology can also explain the process. Do not allow filming or screen sharing to distract people from safe operation or expose unrelated customer information.
Keep the plan open to evidence limitations
Remote access can reveal a gap that was not obvious during planning. Record the limitation and agree how it will be resolved. Switching to another method is preferable to treating an unclear observation as sufficient. Avoid promising a fully remote audit to customers or management before the certification body has confirmed suitability.
A hypothetical example
Imagine a service business with electronic project records and a small equipment workshop. Contract reviews and support interviews can be accessed securely online. A trial from the workshop, however, produces poor audio and cannot show a relevant handling activity clearly.
The business shares the limitation before the audit. The body considers a combination of remote review and other assessment arrangements for the workshop. The decision preserves access to useful digital evidence while addressing the activity that the proposed video method could not explain adequately.
Frequently asked questions
Does remote auditing reduce the requirements?
No. The assessment method does not change the requirements against which the system is evaluated. Evidence still needs to support the relevant conclusions.
Can the organization choose remote auditing unilaterally?
It can request it and explain the available technology. The certification body must determine suitability under the applicable programme and agree the assessment arrangements.
For the broader standard context, see ISO’s explanation of certification. The steps above are practical guidance; use the applicable standard and certification programme for precise requirements.
Related reading: the certification process and evaluating a certification body. Contact EQRM with the activities involved and any evidence-access constraints when discussing possible audit methods.