Audit committees want CFOs to bridge management board

Deloitte has published a report on the relationship between audit committees and chief financial officers in Southeast Asia. The study found that 90% of audit committee members expect CFOs to act as a bridge between management and the board.

The research covered 21 audit committee members and 61 CFOs across Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. It also included interviews and a later pulse survey on shifting priorities during geopolitical disruption. The findings point to a gap between what audit committees want and what finance leaders say they currently provide.

Nearly two-thirds of audit committee members, or 62%, said they wanted regular or continuous updates. By contrast, only 36% of CFOs said they were providing information at that pace.

Under normal conditions, most respondents said the relationship worked reasonably well. Some 85% of audit committee members felt they received the right information at the right time, although that confidence weakened when volatility increased and decision windows narrowed.

Information gap

The findings suggest timing matters as much as volume. Audit committee members said they wanted earlier visibility into changing conditions, unresolved uncertainties and judgement calls that could become harder if raised too late.

Governance problems are now less likely to stem from a lack of information than from information arriving too late or being presented too narrowly for effective judgement, the report said. That puts greater pressure on CFOs to decide what should be escalated to the audit committee and when.

Survey results showed that audit committee members placed particular weight on communication around regulatory compliance, which 90% rated as very or extremely important. Technology, AI and cyber risk followed at 67%, while environmental, social and governance issues were cited by 48%.

For CFOs, those issues often sit within a broader set of stakeholder demands. The central challenge, Deloitte said, was not primarily limited resources but calibration.

CFOs rated the challenge of translating strategic discussions into board-ready insights at 2.4 out of 5. People constraints scored 2.3, technology constraints 2.3 and process constraints 2.5, with 1 meaning not challenging at all and 5 meaning extremely challenging.

Governance focus

Audit committees are putting more emphasis on how finance systems and processes work, rather than relying only on final outputs, according to the report. Nine in ten audit committee members said visibility into finance systems and processes was very or extremely important.

That shift comes as finance teams adopt AI and automation tools. Audit committee members rated their understanding of AI and automation at 3.3 out of 5 for financial reporting, 3.6 for controls and 3.4 for risk management, suggesting moderate maturity rather than a settled approach.

CFOs said providing that visibility to audit committees remained manageable. Time constraints were rated 2.4 out of 5, competing priorities 2.3 and skills-related constraints 2.0.

The later pulse survey found both sides moving towards what Deloitte described as a shared resilience agenda, though their immediate concerns differed. Audit committee members focused on liquidity headroom, working capital controls, and capital expenditure and portfolio decisions, with each cited by half of respondents.

CFOs pointed to a wider spread of exposures. Supply and logistics continuity, hedging and market exposure, scenario planning, and counterparty and credit risk were each identified by 36% as top priorities.

When asked about difficult trade-offs during disruption, half of audit committee members said they wanted the earliest escalation on balancing decision speed with effective controls and on supporting customers while managing receivables risk. Among CFOs, 45% said balancing inventory buffers with cash preservation was the hardest trade-off to manage in practice.

Trust levels remained strong in the study. Both audit committee members and CFOs rated trust in the relationship at 4.0 out of 5, though CFOs rated the quality of interactions slightly lower at 3.7, compared with 4.0 from audit committee members.

Ho Kok Yong, Chief Financial Officer Program Leader at Deloitte Southeast Asia, said the changing environment had altered what audit committees needed from finance leaders. "Recent geopolitical disruption has reinforced a simple truth: in volatile conditions, audit committees do not merely need more data. They benefit from earlier orientation - visibility into what is changing, what is uncertain, and which judgement calls narrow options if delayed. In uncharted waters, the audit committee sets the course, but it is the CFO who ensures the organisation can steer with confidence - with clarity and transparency to respond when conditions change."

He also pointed to the effect of AI on oversight. "The rise of AI also redefines what 'good assurance' looks like, and that requires joint ownership and mutual understanding between audit committees and CFOs, not silent assumptions."

Seah Gek Choo, Boardroom Program Leader at Deloitte Southeast Asia, said judgement and timing were central to the relationship. "The most resilient organisations treat governance as a shared responsibility, with the CFO as a key conduit between management and the audit committee. In this relationship, calibration is paramount: what to surface, when to surface it, and how to communicate it to multiple stakeholders. A healthy 'no surprises' culture is not about submitting polished papers, but about reducing signal latency. This means creating the conditions for earlier dialogue between the audit committee and CFO, while there is still room to shape decisions."

In the report's concluding remarks, Ho returned to the same theme. "In uncharted waters, the audit committee sets the course. But it is the CFO who ensures the organisation can steer with confidence - with the clarity and transparency needed to respond when conditions change."