Your professional brand matters. How is Internal Audit’s brand perceived in your organization?

‍Do they know WHAT you do?

Internal Audit’s advisory workload is growing. A 2024 report I authored for AuditBoard found that 55% of CFOs and 50% of Audit Committees were asking Internal Audit teams to do more work around risk. 

According to the Internal Audit Foundation’s (IAF’s) 2025 North American Pulse of Internal Audit survey, 89% of CAEs are responsible for one or more areas outside of Internal Audit. Common responsibilities include ERM, SOX, fraud investigations, ethics/whistleblower programs, and compliance/regulatory.

‍Do they know WHY you do it?

Almost half (48%) of Internal Auditors in the IAF’s Vision 2035 survey said they’re seen “as ‘police’.” 

Being seen as enforcers rather than enablers doesn’t exactly make it easy for Internal Auditors to gain trust and transparency from key stakeholders. 

‍Negative associations and changing responsibilities are just two of the reasons some Internal Audit teams consider changing their names. This topic surfaced in the Internal Audit Collective when a member considering a name change solicited feedback. The community quickly responded.

Whether pro or con, their perspectives raised compelling questions. From independence and culture considerations to optics, education, and simple accuracy, the topic feels hyper-relevant to Internal Audit leaders’ ongoing efforts to define their role, purpose, and value.

So I interviewed four of them. 

‍What events led them to consider or disregard a name change? What factors did they consider, what did they decide to do, and how did they make it happen? 

Why Teams Make the Change

First, let’s be clear. Every team’s situation is different. 

Industries, growth stages, culture, professional backgrounds, organizational leadership and working styles, and personal leadership and working styles — it all factors in. The Internal Audit leaders I interviewed represent different industries and growth stages and teams of varying sizes. 

Still, several themes emerged in the reasons teams decide to change. While many overlap and interconnect, each deserves a turn in the spotlight. 

Better Align With Culture

I spoke with Martin Preedy, a CAE at a newly public tech company, who sensed early on that calling his team Internal Audit would be a barrier to collaboration. 

“At a pre-IPO, founder-led tech company, any perception of bureaucracy can be damaging,” he explained. “Folks heavily value moving fast, building stuff and shipping product, it’s a different mindset. It became clear that a lot of people we dealt with didn't have experience working with Internal Audit. They didn't know why we exist, what we do, why we're different, or why our reporting line is unique. So education was going to be really critical. Also, the name didn't jibe with the culture and operating style. The concept of Internal Audit working for the board immediately puts people on the defensive… Internal Audit implies, ‘We’re auditing you, we’re not partnering with you on the same mission to make the company better’.” 

Encourage Partnership

Above all, Martin wanted a name that opened the doors to partnership. He explained, “When everyone is in the trenches working hard to get the IPO done, that’s where you earn your stripes. Working through problems together is where you build your credibility and relationships. If we can’t earn that trust, we won’t get brought in, and we won’t be able to deliver value when it matters.”

After consulting with the CFO, CISO, CTO, Chief Legal Officer, and Audit Committee Chair, the team changed its name to Risk Advisory & Assurance. This name also matched the team’s dual advisory and assurance role, prioritizing advisory first.

Reflect Expanded Remit 

The desire to reflect Internal Audit’s expanded remit drives many teams’ name changes. Most teams today are doing more risk and advisory work, but that isn’t always common knowledge in their organizations. Technology and business transformations are fundamentally changing Internal Audit’s role, and a new name can play a role in keeping stakeholders from pigeonholing the profession. 

Internal Audit & Controls leader Juan Abadia’s team’s name change was largely driven by the goal of positioning the function beyond traditional beliefs around auditing and reflecting its broader capabilities and service portfolio. Juan explained, “How could we make sure there was clarity, positioning the function not only as an assurance provider but as a function that adds value to the business? The perception of audit is often that we are here to protect value for the enterprise. But we also wanted to convey the message that we are here to create value for the organization.” 

The team ultimately chose Audit & Risk Advisory, preserving the audit foundation while conveying the expanded purpose and capability of providing the business with risk and strategic support. 

Clarify and Ensure Independence

Juan’s team’s new name also strived to communicate that the group still didn’t own and manage the risk, which continued to be management’s responsibility. They’d decided against the name Audit & Risk Management for that reason. 

‍Independence concerns tend to loom large in naming decisions. The leader who sparked the dialogue was considering a name change in part to avoid confusion that all of her function is fully independent from management. Her function’s SOX PMO, for example, is a second-line function. 

Several Internal Audit Collective members responded by sharing their attempts to use naming to highlight ownership of ERM or internal controls functions while still conveying Internal Audit’s independence. One said that his team had decided to split out the SOX-dedicated second-line function that owns controls design and maintenance as the Controls Team, distinct from the fully independent Internal Audit. Yet another said that clear and separate branding, charters, and scopes (alongside alignment with company strategy) helped ensure ERM and Internal Audit stayed compliant with standards and independence requirements. 

Avoid Negative Perceptions

The negative connotations of “Internal Audit” play a role in many naming decisions. 

Martin’s Audit Committee Chair readily understood this. “She was the biggest supporter [of the Risk Advisory & Assurance name], maybe because she'd seen how other Internal Audit functions can be perceived and viewed. We don’t want to be the cop on the beat, the gotcha-mentality team. We'll never get a seat at the table that way.” 

Martin continued, “The name Internal Audit doesn’t represent exactly all that we do. It can give negative connotations to the partners we need to work with and make us unrelatable. Not many people see the word ‘audit’ and think ‘great!’” His key concern is that Internal Audit is too often seen as the people who drop in and point out the problems, rather than the collaborative partner who understands the trade-offs business leaders need to make and helps them proactively and practically solve problems. The Risk Advisory & Assurance moniker has helped, and now the business more often “asks for risk to be in the room.”

Clear Up Confusion 

Audit, Risk, and Compliance leader Jason Winter’s team’s name change was aimed at eliminating confusion in the business by more accurately representing the team’s full scope of services. Jason explained, “We had actually gone through a couple of organizational changes, so we had a lot of new leadership. They didn't know what they didn't know. The opportunity to meet with new leaders and help them understand how we can help was obviously super important.”  

Jason’s team included the traditional Internal Audit, ERM, and Internal Investigations groups. They ultimately chose “Corporate Audit Services” as an umbrella covering all three distinct but interrelated scopes. “Now they knew it was more than just Internal Audit — that our team provided additional services, plural.” 

Increase Awareness

A new name is also an opportunity to educate stakeholders on how you provide value. 

Jason knew the team’s name change couldn’t stand alone. “You’re clearing up confusion, but at the same time you’re probably causing new questions… No one knows what [Corporate Audit Services] means until you get out there and actually share it with them.” 

The change challenged the team to become intrapreneurs, going out and re-marketing the team’s services. The team’s relationship map guided a series of one-on-one roadshows with key relationship partners. Said Jason, “It’s a great opportunity to connect, communicate, and build those relationships. You can help people understand that you're here to help, and how you can advise and partner with them.” 

As a result, the team had more people proactively reaching out for help, ultimately creating a backlog necessitating quarterly planning. But as Jason said, “That’s a good problem to have.”

Juan’s team consciously took several steps to engage stakeholders around the new name and make sure it landed. “It takes time to change the mindset,” said Juan. The Audit & Risk Advisory team developed its own logo that it used to create new templates and email signatures, and updated its presentations to reflect the new name and expanded services. 

Juan also felt that the new name gave the team itself a clearer identity and vision that they could coalesce around. Because the team helped to choose and socialize the name, it created a new sense of belonging and purpose. 

Reflect New Leadership

Before shifting to arguments against, I’ll add one more that anyone who has ever worked at a Big Four or other consulting firm will recognize: New leaders frequently change their teams’ names.

At EY, when there was a new leader helming the risk group, they’d often start by tweaking the name. The new marshal in town declares it time to change our hats and put on new boots, so to speak. 

Why Teams DON’T Make the Change

This topic can be controversial. 

Some Internal Audit leaders doubt that name changes will have an impact, or that the change could create more issues than it solves. 

Head of Internal Audit Sarah Hansen absolutely believes it can be the right choice for some teams, but doesn’t foresee herself seeking such a change. She explained, “Ultimately, if I’m building relationships and having the appropriate level of interactions with my stakeholders, they should know what we're doing and the value that we can bring to the table.”

With that said, below are the most frequent arguments I heard against name changes.  

They’ll Call You Internal Audit Anyway

To start with, some stakeholders may resist adopting the new name. As Sarah said, “At the end of the day, your stakeholders are most likely still going to call you Internal Audit, and they may wonder why you've given yourself a different name.” 

Avoid Appearing Self-Focused or Superficial

An overemphasis on branding could end up looking like unproductive navel-gazing. Sarah cautioned, “There may be some skepticism around functions that appear to be overly investing in branding. The idea being, could that energy be spent elsewhere? Should it be spent elsewhere?” 

Management may perceive name changes as a “lazy” path to influencing perceptions of the function — and hold a belief that, rather than changing the name, Internal Auditors should focus on working, in substance, to change how they are perceived. 

Martin fully understands this concern. “If you focus on the name, are you focusing on form over substance? In my previous roles with more established Internal Audit functions, there was more to lose.” However, given the opportunity to build the function from scratch in his current role, this time the equation was different. 

Emphasize Actions Over Words

Sarah stressed that her resistance is primarily due to the fact that, on its own, changing a name won’t necessarily change perceptions. Said Sarah, “If you really want to change the perception, go out there and build the relationships and do the work needed to change the perception. If you change the name without doing those things, the message it may send to the first and second lines is that you care more about investing in optics than investing in impact.” She suggested that a team that has done this work may still end up changing its name, but as an extension of the process. 

Any team can invest in educating stakeholders about the value they can bring — no name change required. 

Though Juan’s team did adopt a new name, he agreed that rebranding alone isn’t enough. A name change should always be accompanied by a broader vision and real changes in how a team operates and delivers value. He said, “If you change the name but you don't ensure it’s supported by how the function actually operates and the value it delivers, the impact will be limited. Our name change was part of a larger effort,” including an evolved portfolio of services and value proposition.

Martin also agreed. He explained, “The name is less important than what we do every day, the culture that we build in our team, and how we hold ourselves to a certain standard. The name was more about removing a barrier to that.”

Alternative Names for Internal Audit Functions

Most name options tend to use variations of the same terms. The non-exhaustive list below was culled from my interviews, the Internal Audit Collective, and supplemental web research. 

• Global Audit & Risk Management 
• Corporate Audit & Risk 
• Corporate Audit & Risk Management
• Corporate Audit Services
• Global Risk Management
• Enterprise Risk, Assurance & Compliance
• Assurance, Risk & Compliance
• Risk Advisory & Assurance
• Risk Assurance & Advisory
• Risk Assurance & Consulting
• Audit & Risk Advisory
• Global Enterprise Risk & Internal Audit
• Management Assurance
• Independent Assurance Services
• Internal Controls (Audit/Assurance)

My esteemed colleague Richard Chambers raised this same issue in a 2021 blog after soliciting ideas on LinkedIn. Richard included a few options (suggested humorously by contributors) that gave me a laugh. “Protectors of the Realm,” “The ‘CYA’ Department,” and “Friendly Fire” do have a ring to them…  

What Else Is Involved in a Name Change?

Making a name change matter and stick requires strategic thinking, planning, and action. The leaders I interviewed each undertook some version of the following steps.

1. Name Selection. Solicit input and feedback from your team and stakeholders. Make sure you can explain the need for the name change. Will stakeholders readily understand your rationale? Advised Sarah, “Clarifying name changes may be useful as it relates to educating people up front on the remit. But any creativity beyond that may be counterproductive.” In addition, evaluate whether names may give the impression that the function is not independent. Several commenters responding to the original post communicated this as a reason to use the Internal Audit name (given longstanding associations with independence). 
2. Buy-In. Gain team and stakeholder buy-in on the selected name. If it doesn’t make sense to your stakeholders, it may not make sense to proceed. 
3. Branding and Administration. Update name and team member titles in organizational charts, strategic plan, vision/mission/purpose statement(s), and technology tools. Create and institute team branding (e.g., logos, styles) on email signatures, templates, decks, and any other team assets.
4. Education and Socialization. Plan and execute targeted efforts to educate stakeholders on what the new name represents and why (e.g., roadshows, all-hands meeting, one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders, internal communications, intranet, Slack or Teams announcements). As Jason said of his experience, “The key was getting out there and explaining to people what it represented. Without that, it wouldn't have done us any good. There would have been just as much confusion as there was before.”  

Consider the Benefits — But Don’t Forget the Big Picture

The right answer will be different for different teams. It’s not my job to be pro or con. 

I’m only here to advance the conversation.

So, in closing, I’ll share the one thing that every one of my interviewees agreed on: The name is only one piece of the puzzle. The work itself is what matters most. 

A name change can bring significant benefits.

It can give your organization clarity on what you’re really doing. It can be a fantastic opportunity to educate stakeholders and market your value proposition. 

‍But if the quality of your work isn’t meeting expectations, who cares what the name is? 

So I’ll allow myself one recommendation: If you’re considering a name change, concentrate first on improving the quality of your work. Then, 6-12 months down the road, you can invest time reassessing whether a name change is right for your team. That way, if you do decide on a name change, you can ensure your efforts spotlight an even better version of your team.

Another part of the big picture is that names are dynamic and fluid. As responsibilities, roles, leaders, and organizations change, teams will keep trying out new names. 

Just ask the Internal Audit leader who said her function had changed its name four times in six years.

‍Anyway, who am I to say what’s in a name? 

I founded a company called the Internal Audit Collective. I suppose I’ve got my own opinions.