If you’ve been through a compliance audit before, this might sound familiar: The audit passed, the report looked clean. Everyone moved on, and yet, something didn’t feel right.
In a recent QA discussion with real clients and prospects, a hard truth surfaced: compliance can look successful on paper while failing in practice. Not because people don’t care, but because the dynamics around audits are far more complex than most businesses realize.
This is especially true with frameworks like SOC 2, which has become the default starting point for companies trying to prove trust quickly.
We’re going to start with a strong statement: Not all compliance audits are thorough.
Not all auditors push back when controls are weak. Not all audit outcomes reflect real security maturity.
Why does this happen?
Because in many cases, audits are treated as transactions, not responsibilities. Companies increasingly ask for fast audits, fixed timelines, and predictable outcomes. The focus quietly shifts from security assurance to business enablement closing deals, meeting customer requirements, and while this are valid and real business needs, you cannot expect to rush something as delicate as a compliance audit and do a job well done. When companies demand expedited results, they only care about checking the compliance box as quickly as possible.
When that happens, the goal shifts from “Is this control effective?” to “Can we sign this off?” And that’s where things start to break down.
SOC 2, in particular, was designed to be flexible, and that flexibility is both its strength and its weakness. Unlike prescriptive frameworks, SOC 2 allows companies to define how they meet control objectives. That makes it accessible, but it also creates room for interpretation, negotiation, and sometimes, compromise.
If you’re looking for an auditor, you have more influence than you think.
First, allocate enough time. A real audit needs room to breathe. When timelines are overly compressed, controls don’t get tested properly — they get summarized. Rushed audits lead to shallow evidence and missed risks.
Second, research the auditing firm. Look for firms with strong reputations and consistent recommendations in the industry. At BEMO, we often see good outcomes with firms like A-LIGN, Insight Assurance, and Sensiba because they are known for rigor, not shortcuts.
Finally, watch for red flags. If you hear promises like “get compliant in 30 days” or overly sales-driven messaging, pause. Compliance is not a speedrun. When audit firms sell certainty and speed above all else, rigor is usually what gets sacrificed.
When auditors cut corners, companies learn to do the same.
We’ve seen examples like:
On paper, everything looks compliant. In reality, the risks are still there.
Teams stop asking whether controls actually work and start asking whether they’ll pass review. That’s how organizations end up breached while confidently claiming to be “SOC 2 compliant.”
This doesn’t just weaken individual companies, it waters down the credibility of the framework itself.
Read our article "How Rushing SOC 2 Compliance Can Cost You a Major Deal (What to Do Instead)" to go more in depth about the risks of fast compliance promises.
Auditors don’t operate in a vacuum, They operate inside your organization.
Challenging weak controls can easily be perceived as defiance, especially when those controls were designed or approved by senior leadership. Auditors often hear things like:
At that point, the auditor is navigating a maze of political landmines. Push too hard, and relationships suffer. Push too little, and weak controls get approved.
This pressure is far more common in SOC 2 than in stricter frameworks like CMMC, where requirements are far more prescriptive and less negotiable. In CMMC, controls are explicit. In SOC 2, they’re often debatable.
This is where many audits drift into grey areas and workarounds.
Good auditing isn’t just technical. It’s human. And as the most interested party, you need to be open to auditors who:
A “smooth” audit that avoids tension might feel successful in the moment, but it often leaves real risks untouched. Discomfort isn’t a failure of the audit process, it’s often evidence that the audit is doing its job.
Audits are supposed to be eye-openers. They’re meant to show you where there is room for improvement.
If you ask for easy-going audits, you will get easy-to-hack systems.
Our CEO, Bruno Lecoq, highlights the importance of understanding the core value of compliance, security. And why a real commitment to compliance audits matters, read more about his stance here.
So remember, a strong audit doesn’t aim to embarrass you it aims to protect you.
That means auditors who:
A clean report means very little if the work behind it was rushed or half-validated.
Compliance should improve how your business operates, not just how it looks to outsiders.
At the end of the day, the responsibility doesn’t lie with the auditor, It lies with you!
If something goes wrong:
Auditors don’t absorb that risk, your business does.
That’s why the most important questions you can ask aren’t “Will this pass the audit?”. But instead: “Would this hold up during a real attack?”, “Do we actually understand this control?”, “Is this reducing risk, or just reducing friction?”
Is it the auditor’s job to make us secure?
No. Auditors validate controls. Security outcomes are the responsibility of the business.
Is tension during an audit a bad sign?
Not necessarily. Productive discomfort often signals that real risks are being addressed.
How do we avoid compliance becoming a checkbox exercise?
By prioritizing implementation, allocating enough time, and choosing auditors known for rigor.
What ethical responsibility do auditors have?
Auditors have a duty to challenge weak controls, even when it’s uncomfortable — but businesses must allow space for that challenge.