Discussion on Implementation Path of Algorithm Governance in Audit Work

Authors

  • Weiyi Li Business School, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/5z7t0t23

Keywords:

Algorithm Governance, Audit Framework, Algorithmic Accountability, AI Risk Management, Internal Audit, Transparency, Explainability

Abstract

At present, the application of algorithms in the decision-making process of enterprises has gradually expanded and changed audit work. Rule-based and machine-learning models have been used to address financial risk scoring, compliance monitoring and fraud detection, and as a result, new governance problems for the audit profession have arisen, such as technical opacity, accountability gaps and changing regulatory requirements. This paper studies the implementation paths of algorithm governance in audit systems, derives theoretical support from research on algorithmic accountability, and examines top-level governance standards as practical references. The five main implementation directions of the analysis are: algorithmic inventory and risk classification; model transparency and explainability protocols; bias detection and fairness validation; continuous monitoring and trigger-based Audit coverage; and organizational capacity building. In short, the paper suggests that to achieve effective algorithm governance in an auditing environment, a hybrid architecture is required, integrating technical controls, institutional accountability mechanisms and competency-oriented human supervision; together, these should ensure that algorithmic decisions are auditable, contestable and consistent with the professional standards for independent assurance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.

[2] Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633–705. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2941859

[3] European Parliamentary Research Service. (2019). A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency. European Parliament.

[4] Open Government Partnership, Ada Lovelace Institute, & AI Now Institute. (2021). Algorithmic accountability for the public sector. Open Government Partnership.

[5] National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST.

[6] Goodman, E. P., & Tréhu, J. (2023). Algorithmic auditing: Chasing AI accountability. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 39(3), 289–338. https://doi.org/xxxx

[7] ISACA. (2024). AI algorithm audits: Key control considerations. ISACA.

[8] Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.101206

[9] Deloitte. (2025). Internal audit's role in strengthening AI governance. Deloitte.

[10] AI Now Institute. (2023). Algorithmic accountability: Moving beyond audits. AI Now Institute.

[11] Ernst & Young. (2025). How internal audit can adapt to AI. EY.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-06

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Li, W. (2026). Discussion on Implementation Path of Algorithm Governance in Audit Work. Academic Journal of Finance and Accounting, 1(3), 47-52. https://doi.org/10.54691/5z7t0t23