Towards legitimacy: board members’ perceptions of transparency, accountability and effectiveness in Spanish Regional Audit Institutions Open Access

In recent decades, the social demand for greater transparency and accountability in the public sector has intensified, driven by an increasingly informed and demanding citizenry (Domingues et al., 2015; Ferry et al., 2023). In response, public administrations have expanded their disclosure practices and strengthened communication mechanisms with stakeholders. Within this context, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) and Regional Audit Institutions (RAIs) play a pivotal role in fostering public trust and reinforcing democratic governance by evaluating the management of public resources and ensuring their efficient and responsible use (Cordery and Hay, 2019; Otia and Bracci, 2022; Dionisijev and Lazarevska, 2025).

However, transparency alone is insufficient to guarantee institutional legitimacy. For public audit processes to be truly effective, governing bodies must play an active role in shaping communication and accountability strategies (Free et al., 2020; INTOSAI, 2019b). In this regard, communication serves as a fundamental mechanism for demonstrating the value of audit activity in terms of integrity, efficiency, and public utility (Ferry and Ahrens, 2021; Ferry and Midgley, 2022). Consequently, the clear, understandable, and relevant disclosure of reports not only reinforces transparency but also transforms technical information into an instrument for trust-building (de Fine Licht and Naurin, 2016; INTOSAI, 2019b). Within this framework, the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) principles (INTOSAI-P 20; GUID 9040) - specifically regarding transparency, accountability, and effectiveness-provide the essential normative standard for analyzing how SAIs and RAIs organize and communicate their work, underscoring the strategic importance of organizational leadership in sustaining legitimacy.

Despite the central role of audit institutions in democratic systems, academic research on public auditing remains relatively scarce, particularly concerning the dynamics between these institutions and their stakeholders (Hay and Cordery, 2018, 2021; González-Díaz and García-Fernández, 2016; Baimyrzaeva and Kose, 2014). This scarcity represents a significant oversight, given that transparency and effective communication are foundational to public trust (de Fine Licht, 2019; Bovens, 2007). Moreover, the extant literature has predominantly addressed SAI communication from the perspective of external users -such as the media, citizens, or auditees (González-Díaz et al., 2013; Garde-Sánchez et al., 2014; Torres et al., 2019)- leaving the internal institutional perspective largely unexplored.

Specifically, little is known about how institutional leaders themselves perceive the effectiveness of their communication strategies, transparency mechanisms, and accountability practices (Ferry et al., 2023). This gap is particularly significant because the audit institution leaders are the architects of communication policies, responsible for approving audit reports and determining disclosure strategies. Consequently, their vision is crucial for understanding how transparency is articulated internally and whether the institution’s self-conception aligns with the expectations of its stakeholders (Cordery and Hay, 2022, 2025).

In this context, the research question is:

In line with this objective, the analysis aims to identify specific areas of institutional communication that require strengthening to enhance both accountability and legitimacy.

The Spanish case provides a particularly suitable context for this analysis, given its quasi-federal system and the existence of thirteen RAIs with varying degrees of autonomy. This diversity allows for the comparison of communication practices within a homogeneous regulatory framework, but with sufficient institutional heterogeneity to draw meaningful conclusions (Chouvel, 2017).

Consequently, this research aims to extend the literature on public sector auditing by adopting an internal governance perspective, an area less studied than the predominant approach based on external stakeholder assessments. Through the lens of Legitimacy Theory, this approach allows for an interpretation of how internal perceptions relate to institutional credibility and communicative capacity. Furthermore, the empirical evidence gathered from the Spanish regional context provides a platform for identifying specific strengths and weaknesses in communication practices, revealing a nuanced reality where high standards of formal transparency coexist with challenges in ensuring functional accountability.

Beyond these theoretical and empirical contributions, the study also offers practical insights for improving the communication and accountability functions of RAIs. By identifying weaknesses in the comprehensibility of audit information and in follow-up mechanisms, the findings can guide strategies to strengthen leadership, enhance clarity in audit outputs and better integrate communication into institutional planning.

The rest of the document is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the theoretical framework; Section 3 describes the methodology and data used; Section 4 presents the main findings; Section 5 discusses the results; and Section 6 offers the conclusions, including implications, limitations, and avenues for future research.

Public sector entities are facing an increasing demand for information (Domingues et al., 2015) and a persistent need to enhance transparency and accountability (Ferry et al., 2023). Citizens and other stakeholders expect public administrations to use public resources appropriately and efficiently (Brignall and Modell, 2000; Johnsen, 2019). Furthermore, in the context of rising public debt and following major corruption cases, improvements in governance are essential to strengthen citizens’ trust in public institutions (Nurrizkiana et al., 2017; Beshi and Kaur, 2019).

The relationship between transparency and auditing has been explored by several authors. In some cases, transparency is portrayed as a consequence of auditing (Cook et al., 2016; Lamberton, 2005). In other cases, transparency is understood as a prerequisite that enables auditing (de Fine Licht and Naurin, 2016). According to de Fine Licht (2019), recognizing the role of auditing in transforming transparency into a powerful driver of accountability is essential.

Accountability lies at the core of the mission of SAIs (INTOSAI, 1977, 2019a). SAIs play a fundamental role as one of the checks and balances within democratic systems (Cordery and Hay, 2022) in nearly every country in the world (Cordery and Hay, 2019). They also serve as guarantors of the efficient and effective management of public resources, promoting good governance and transparency (Otia and Bracci, 2022; D’Andreamatteo et al., 2024).

In the current environment, SAIs face growing risks and uncertainties that demand institutional adaptation (Cordery and Hay, 2025). As Grossi et al. (2023) point out, they need to develop three key areas of public auditing: (1) performance auditing, to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of public actions; (2) assessment of the public sector’s contribution to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals; and (3) the digital transformation of auditing and the challenges that digitalization brings to public service delivery.

Given the central role of public audit in ensuring the integrity and performance of public administrations, it is crucial to understand how public audit institutions operate and carry out their duties. However, research in this field remains relatively limited (González-Díaz and García-Fernández, 2016; Hay and Cordery, 2018, 2021; D’Andreamatteo et al., 2024). In their analysis of research opportunities, Cordery and Hay (2022, 2025) highlight the need for comparative studies, analyses of the impact of technology, and a deeper understanding of SAI practices. It is therefore essential that we enhance our comprehension of current mechanisms of public auditing and accountability, along with their respective normative frameworks (Ferry and Ahrens, 2021).

At the same time, growing attention has been directed toward the interaction between SAIs and their stakeholders. Further studies are needed on this relationship (Hay and Cordery, 2021), given that the clear and comprehensible communication of audit reports is an essential SAI function (Behn, 2001; INTOSAI, 2019a). In fact, most reports produced by SAIs are published, thereby reinforcing transparency and facilitating access to relevant information for decision-making (Ferry et al., 2023).

Indeed, transparency and accountability depend not only on the availability of information, but also on its accessibility, clarity, and relevance for different stakeholder groups (Bovens, 2007; Fox, 2007). When stakeholders encounter difficulties interpreting or accessing audit reports, institutional transparency may be compromised, thereby undermining public trust and institutional credibility (Power, 1997; OECD, 2024). Accordingly, various authors (Cordery and Hay, 2019; González-Díaz et al., 2013) have emphasized that clear and accessible communication enables stakeholders to properly interpret audit reports. INTOSAI (2007, 2019a, b) underscores the importance of cultivating effective communication practices, ensuring that diverse users can understand and make practical use of audit findings.

One of the primary objectives of SAIs is to enhance credibility and trust in public institutions and strengthen perceptions of their social role (Tidå, 2021). From the perspective of Legitimacy Theory (Suchman, 1995), SAI communication contributes to the perception that audited public activities are appropriate and acceptable within the social system. This transparency, in turn, fosters legitimacy for SAIs by demonstrating the efficiency and usefulness of their oversight (de Fine Licht, 2019).

Legitimacy Theory has been employed as a conceptual framework in several studies (Cordery and Hay, 2022). The role of independent public auditors has been highlighted in legitimizing governmental actions by meeting expectations of integrity and efficiency in the public sector (Ferry and Midgley, 2022; Ferry and Ahrens, 2021; Free et al., 2020). Moreover, auditing has been shown to contribute to citizen well-being across various domains, thereby legitimizing public entities (Ferry and Ahrens, 2021).

Several authors have focused their studies on analyzing the quality and impact of the information disclosed by audit bodies (Torres et al., 2020; Garde-Sánchez et al., 2014; González et al., 2013). These studies have shown that stakeholder satisfaction with audit reports increases when the information is actionable and when visible follow-up mechanisms exist. Nevertheless, SAI communication and its relationship with stakeholders remains an underexplored area requiring further research (Baimyrzaeva and Kose, 2014; Hay and Cordery, 2021). This need becomes even more pressing in the context of technological change and an evolving governance environment (Cordery and Hay, 2022; Otia and Bracci, 2022; Hay, 2019), factors that influence how SAIs interact and communicate.

According to Ferry et al. (2023), the actions and procedures of SAIs are shaped by three key contextual factors: the influence of INTOSAI, the organizational structure of the entity itself, and the regulatory environment in which it operates.

This framework can be used to analyze communication in the context of the global standard. According to INTOSAI (2010), the disclosure of audit actions and their results is a strategic matter in the operations of SAIs. This disclosure serves to strengthen accountability and foster trust among various stakeholder groups. To enhance SAI communication, INTOSAI has established specific guidelines, including INTOSAI-P 20 (INTOSAI, 2019a) and GUID 9040 (INTOSAI, 2019c). These guidelines offer a framework for improving SAI communication and strengthening public trust through effective communication strategies and proactive management with key stakeholders. However, transparency, while essential, is not sufficient on its own to ensure effective accountability (Bovens, 2007; Fox, 2007; de Fine Licht, 2019). SAIs must also monitor the implementation of their recommendations by audited entities (INTOSAI, 2019a), assessing the extent to which such measures have led to tangible improvements. This follow-up activity is crucial for evaluating the impact/effectiveness of their oversight work.

Conversely, studies that have addressed SAI communication (González-Díaz et al., 2013; Garde-Sánchez et al., 2014; Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2014; Torres et al., 2020; Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grima, 2023) have analyzed disclosure from the users’ perspective. However, governing bodies play a fundamental role in shaping institutional accountability (Free et al., 2020). The members of the governing bodies of SAIs are responsible for defining communication policies, determining what information is published, and how results are presented (Cordery and Hay, 2019). From a global perspective, it is the board members who should promote and lead the SAI’s communication strategy to ensure that its work is understood and appropriately perceived by society (INTOSAI, 2019a). Therefore, it seems appropriate to analyze communication strategies from an internal perspective, specifically focusing on the organizational structure. This analysis should consider the perceptions that institutional leaders have regarding communication.

Most of the literature on this subject refers to SAIs (state-level audit institutions). However, several countries have a decentralized structure of entities whose objectives mirror those of national SAIs at the subnational level (e.g. Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Austria or Spain). EURORAI (https://eurorai.org/) serves as a cooperation framework for these regional or local audit bodies at the European level. Research at these regional or local levels remains scarce (Ferry and Ahrens, 2021; Ferry et al., 2023).

The Spanish public audit framework offers a highly relevant context for this study due to its quasi-federal structure, which combines a common constitutional mandate with organizational diversity. The external audit model comprises the Court of Audit (SAI), responsible for the central government, and 13 RAIs established under specific regional legislation. These RAIs, tasked with auditing the economic and financial management of regional and local entities, provide a setting that offers both comparability and variation, allowing governing bodies’ perceptions to be examined within a consistent normative framework.

RAIs are autonomous and independent entities that primarily function by reviewing budget execution and the legality of public spending, as well as conducting financial, compliance, and performance audits. In certain cases, they may provide guidance to regional parliaments on financial oversight matters. Furthermore, they may even design programs aimed at preventing corruption in the public sector within their territories. Within the Spanish system, RAIs play a key role in supervising public finances at the subnational level. The autonomy of these entities, along with the heterogeneity of practices observed across the autonomous communities, makes them an appealing context for exploring decentralized accountability mechanisms.

Regarding the governance structure, the majority of Spanish RAIs adopt the collegiate model. In this model, a board made up of several members is responsible for establishing the strategic and annual plans for RAI’s activities, defining operational priorities, and approving audit reports. Members of the collegiate body are elected by the regional parliament and oversee the audit departments. Exceptions to this are found in only two RAIs—the Cámara de Comptos of Navarra and the Cámara de Cuentas of Castilla-La Mancha—which are led by a single appointed member who assumes full responsibility for planning, auditing, and reporting.

Building on the conceptual and contextual framework outlined above, this study examines board members’ perceptions regarding the extent to which Spain’s RAIs adhere to INTOSAI principles of transparency, accountability and effectiveness. The analysis focuses on governing body members, whose institutional responsibilities place them in a privileged position to assess such alignment. Accordingly, the research is guided by the following question:

To address this question, the study adopts a descriptive and exploratory research design based on the perceptions of board members. Given their role in approving audit reports and shaping communication strategies, their assessments provide an internal perspective for evaluating compliance with INTOSAI principles.

According to the Principles of Transparency and Accountability - INTOSAI-P 20 (INTOSAI, 2019a), the role of these institutional leaders in communication is fundamental, as they are the ultimate guarantors of the institution’s transparency and accountability. This role goes beyond the mere dissemination of audit reports; it involves establishing ethical frameworks, ensuring public visibility, and guaranteeing the clarity of information. In essence, the role of institutional heads is to set an example, ensuring that the audit institution is a model of transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. This requires adopting open, clear, and strategic communication to ensure that control work and its conclusions have an effective impact and are not overlooked.

To a certain extent, the perceptions of the board members can help explain the level of institutional awareness regarding the international standards issued by INTOSAI. Therefore, the perceptions of RAI board members can offer valuable perspective on the extent to which RAIs are institutionally aware of their responsibility to address stakeholders’ expectations and, by extension, to legitimate their RAIs. Consequently, analyzing these perceptions is particularly useful to identify potential internal biases that may affect the ability of RAIs to fully achieve their mission.

The questionnaire was constructed on the basis of two complementary sources:

1. International frameworks, particularly INTOSAI-P 20 Principles of Transparency and Accountability (INTOSAI, 2019a) and GUID 9040 (INTOSAI, 2019c), which establish dimensions such as accessibility, clarity, timeliness, follow-up of recommendations, and stakeholder engagement.

2. Empirical studies, such as Bovens (2007), Fox (2007), Garde-Sánchez et al. (2014), González-Díaz et al. (2013), Grossi et al. (2023), Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grima (2023), Reichborn-Kjennerud (2014) and Torres et al. (2020), which operationalized transparency, accountability and effectiveness into measurable items in the context of public audit institutions.

From these sources, we derived sixteen variables grouped into three main dimensions (INTOSAI, 2019a):

1. Transparency: accessibility and disclosure of information.

2. Accountability: usefulness, follow-up, clarity, timeliness.

3. Effectiveness: impact of audit reports linked to the contribution to control public administration, to improve public management and efficiency in performing functions.

A questionnaire was crafted to incorporate items that operationalize the INTOSAI principles incorporated in the analysis. Table 1 details the correspondence between principles and variables. Furthermore, we suggest that these operational variables are conceptually related to the references listed in the right-hand column of this table. Given the limited amount of empirical research on how board members perceive the fulfillment of RAI commitments regarding transparency, accountability, and effectiveness, it becomes particularly relevant to define these operational variables based on prior literature, thereby establishing a clear connection with the theoretical framework adopted in this study.

As shown in the preceding table, the included variables are linked to Principles 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 of INTOSAI-P 20. Therefore, Principles 4, 5, and 6 were excluded, as they address aspects not covered in this study: integrity and ethics for staff of all levels (P4), accountability and transparency when audit institutions outsource their activities (P5), and economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of operations managed by audit institutions in accordance with laws and regulations and reports (P6). It is important to note that INTOSAI P6 focuses on the internal operations of the audit institution and requires performance audits of the SAI itself. This principle is outside the scope of our study, which does not assess the internal management of RAIs. In contrast, variable E3 (efficiency in performing functions) is derived from P9, which pertains to institutional capacity and the ability of the SAI to fulfill its mandate. Therefore, E3 captures perceived institutional capacity rather than operational performance, avoiding conceptual overlap with P6.

Each variable was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (see  Annex 1). To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by three independent experts in auditing and public communication, and subsequently pilot-tested with three former RAI board members. Feedback from both processes informed adjustments in wording and structure. The internal consistency of the items was verified with Cronbach’s alpha, obtaining values in the three dimensions which exceed the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70, indicating satisfactory reliability. The alpha values for transparency, accountability, and effectiveness are 0.906, 0.932, and 0.807, respectively.

To mitigate potential self-assessment bias, the questionnaire used neutral and non-judgmental wording, and respondents were assured full anonymity. However, given that board members evaluate their own institutions, responses may be influenced by symbolic or institutional perceptions. This limitation is acknowledged and addressed in the Discussion.

The population consisted of all 53 current board members of the 13 RAIs operating in Spain (see  Annex 2). A total of 35 valid responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of 66%. No inferential statistics were employed because the analysis covers the full population of board members and the objective is descriptive rather than causal.

Initially, measures of central position and dispersion were calculated for all various variables. The normality of the distributions was subsequently assessed through the implementation of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Given the results of these tests, which indicated that the variables did not follow a normal distribution, and considering the small population size (53) and the number of respondents (35), both means and medians as well as standard deviations and percentiles 25 and 75 are provided. These statistics enable us to capture the internal distribution of perceptions and identify areas of convergence or divergence among board members (see Table 2 and  Annex 3).

The board members’ perceptions regarding the extent to which the RAIs fulfill the three dimensions considered in the study, as guarantees of institutional legitimacy, are included in Table 2. The results are presented below according to the dimensions of accountability, transparency, and effectiveness.

Overall, our findings (as shown in Table 2) indicate a favorable perception of transparency. The highest scores correspond to item T3 – Access to audit reports (M = 6.29), followed by item T1 – Access to RAI organizational information (M = 6.11).

The next most highly rated items are T2 Access to information on activities and T5 Access to results and recommendations (see Table 2), which also received positive evaluations from board members and demonstrate that board members consider RAIs transparent in providing audit information and outputs.

However, their perceptions of item T4 – Access to methodological documents (M = 5.53) – are comparatively lower, suggesting that access to technical or procedural information remains an area for improvement.

In general, the results indicate that RAIs meet the INTOSAI principles associated with transparency. Nevertheless, certain distinctions can be observed: Public availability of reports (P3), Mandate and role disclosure (P1) and Availability of information on activities (P2) are highly valued by board members, whereas Disclosure of recommendations (P7) and Clarity of audit methods (P3) receive comparatively lower scores.

Overall, these results indicate high levels of formal transparency. However, they also show variation across items, with accessibility and publication practices generally stronger than the clarity or user-friendliness of the information provided.

Table 2 shows that perceptions regarding usefulness (items A4–A5) and stakeholder orientation (item A7) received the highest scores from board members in relation to accountability. Specifically, item A7 – Relevance of information (M = 5.77) and item A5 – Usefulness of regularity reports (M = 5.61) were rated most positively. Slightly lower scores were observed for item A4 – Usefulness of operational reports, as well as for items related to stakeholder engagement (A2–A3) and the timeliness of publication (A8).

By contrast, item A1 – Follow-up mechanisms (M = 4.79) and item A6 – Understandability of information (M = 4.94) obtained the lowest scores, falling below what can be considered a favorable perception (above 5.00) and revealing relative weaknesses in these aspects of accountability.

Overall, the findings indicate that RAIs broadly comply with INTOSAI Principle P8, particularly in relation to usefulness and stakeholder orientation, and to a lesser extent with stakeholder engagement and timeliness. However, the results show limited compliance with Principle P3 (clarity and accessibility of audit methods) and Principle P7 (follow-up mechanisms), which remain the weakest areas within the accountability framework.

Although external visibility is high, weaker valuations of Follow-up mechanisms (A1) and comprehensibility (A6) suggest that some aspects of accountability may be constrained by the technical complexity of audit reports.

Regarding effectiveness (items E1–E3), results, as shown in Table 2, show that aspects associated with effectiveness and INTOSAI Principle P8 (Enhancing accountability), were highly valued by board members. Item E1 – Contribution to the control of public administrations (M = 6.17) and item E2 – Contribution to management improvement (M = 6.06) achieved the highest mean scores within this dimension.

Finally, the perception of efficiency in the performance of RAI functions (P9, item E3) was also positive (M = 5.27), indicating a favorable evaluation of institutional effectiveness.

From the board members’ perceptions, it is evident that the RAIs largely comply with INTOSAI Principle 8, which emphasizes enhancing accountability. Compliance with Principle 9, related to the effectiveness of the institution, is observed to a lesser extent.

Despite the generally positive scores, these perceptions should be interpreted cautiously given the weaker performance observed in the comprehensibility (A6) and follow-up (A1) indicators. The coexistence of high perceived effectiveness and low comprehensibility/follow-up suggests a discrepancy between symbolic perceptions of institutional performance and operational conditions required for substantive effectiveness. This situation is discussed in the following section.

The results show that, insofar as the INTOSAI principles of Mandate and role disclosure (P1), Availability of information on activities (P2) and Public availability of reports (P3), are fulfilled, the RAIs broadly achieve the transparency objective, which contributes to strengthening their legitimacy within the environment in which they operate. Thus, the perceptions of board members highlight that information is readily available, suggesting that audit processes contribute to transparency, as reflected in both INTOSAI’s pronouncements and the literature (INTOSAI, 2019a; Otia and Bracci, 2022).

Moreover, a favorable perception is also observed regarding Clarity of audit methods (P3) and Disclosure of recommendations (P7). In this respect, Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grima (2023) highlight that transparency and the relevance of audit result communication are crucial to meeting social expectations and reinforcing institutional legitimacy. However, it is necessary to take into account that, although transparency is an essential element in achieving stakeholder satisfaction and the legitimacy of the organization, as indicated by de Fine Licht (2019), this is not sufficient, it must be accompanied by accountability.

Regarding the evidence obtained on the application of the INTOSAI principles that foster accountability, it has been observed that Principle 8, particularly in relation to stakeholder orientation and usefulness, is fulfilled, followed by aspects such as stakeholder engagement and timeliness. However, Principle 3 (clarity and comprehensibility of information) and Principle 7 (follow-up of recommendations) are not adequately met. Therefore, it can be considered that according to board members’ perceptions, formal transparency (disclosure) does not correspond to effective accountability (Bovens, 2007; Fox, 2007; de Fine Licht, 2019), which may undermine the perceived legitimacy of the work performed by RAIs/SAIs.

Thus, the weaknesses observed in areas such as the comprehensibility of information and the follow-up of recommendations affect the capacity of external control to reinforce accountability and sustain public trust. The results concerning report comprehensibility reveal a significant shortcoming in achieving institutional legitimacy. As de Fine Licht (2019) argues, when audit results are not easily understood or visible to stakeholders, their potential to foster accountability is considerably reduced. This argument is in line with INTOSAI principles and several authors who emphasize not only accessibility, but also the clarity and relevance of information as key aspects that ensure accountability (Bovens, 2007; Fox, 2007; Cordery and Hay, 2019; González-Díaz et al., 2013).

Regarding the follow-up of recommendations, board members perceive that RAIs do not adequately ensure their implementation, which, according to INTOSAI-P 20, GUID 9040, and Chouvel (2017), is essential for achieving accountability. The results are similar to those obtained by Cordery and Hay (2019), who evidenced that many SAIs report having little or no follow-up mechanisms in place. However, several studies have shown how the existence of mechanisms for monitoring recommendations affects stakeholder satisfaction (Torres et al., 2019; Garde-Sánchez et al., 2014; González et al., 2013). In this respect, Hay and Cordery (2021) further stress the need for greater research into the relationship between SAIs and their stakeholders, particularly regarding the impact gap of audit institutions’ activities.

The findings suggest that effectiveness is also perceived, although with varying intensity depending on the principle considered. RAIs appear to comply with Principle 8, related to enhancing accountability—particularly regarding the capacity of audits to strengthen control over public administrations and to improve management. However, perceptions of Principle 9, concerning institutional effectiveness, indicate compliance at a lower level. This divergence may reflect the fact that effectiveness extends beyond mere disclosure and requires observable impacts on public administration, which are more difficult for board members to assess directly. The assessment of perceived effectiveness suggests that, for board members, the role of RAIs strengthens trust and credibility in public administrations, and therefore, their legitimacy (Tidå, 2021; Cordery and Hay, 2022; Ferry and Ahrens, 2021).

The fact that RAIs comply with enhancing accountability is consistent with the considerations of Otia and Bracci (2022) and Ferry and Ahrens (2021), who identify audit institutions as key drivers of good governance and institutional legitimacy through their capacity to enhance administrative performance and ensure the efficient use of public resources. A similar opinion is expressed by de Fine Licht (2019), who contends that transparency alone is insufficient to guarantee accountability. It must be supported by mechanisms that promote answerability and enforce consequences, allowing stakeholders to evaluate whether institutions act effectively on their findings and commitments.

Finally, these results reveal an interesting paradox: while board members rate the overall effectiveness of the RAIs positively, they simultaneously identify important weaknesses in report comprehensibility and in the mechanisms for following up recommendations. This coexistence can be explained by distinguishing between perceived effectiveness—often associated with institutional notions of performance—and functional effectiveness, which depends on operational conditions such as clarity of reports and effective follow-up procedures. Consequently, we interpret the high effectiveness scores with caution, recognizing that they may reflect general or abstract perceptions of the RAIs’ role rather than concrete impact. At the same time, the findings indicate that these functional limitations (A6 and A1) may constrain the actual capacity of audit work to generate improvements, which aligns with the broader literature on legitimacy and accountability.

The results of the study enable us to draw several relevant conclusions about institutional communication and the legitimacy of RAIs in Spain. First, it is clear that members of governing bodies perceive high levels of transparency and effectiveness in the activities of their institutions, especially with regard to the availability and usefulness of audit reports. However, aspects related to the clarity of information and the follow-up of recommendations still show significant weaknesses. Overall, the findings suggest that RAIs enjoy a high level of symbolic effectiveness, while their substantive effectiveness may be limited by weaknesses in the comprehensibility of audit information and the visibility of follow-up mechanisms. From a legitimacy perspective, this combination reveals a gap between formal transparency and the substantive conditions required for meaningful accountability, and underscores a key legitimacy risk for RAIs: transparency alone is insufficient if stakeholders cannot understand or track the consequences of audit work. These shortcomings highlight the need for organizations to work internally to transform their technical work into information that is understandable, accessible, and actionable for stakeholders, given that inefficient communication limits the social value and institutional impact of audit institutions (Torres et al., 2020).

Second, the analysis confirms that the governing bodies of SAIs play a decisive role in shaping institutional accountability and communication. They are responsible for defining strategies, approving reports, and establishing communication priorities. According to Grossi et al. (2023), virtually all SAIs have formalized strategic plans, which underscores the importance of assessing the perceptions of institutional leaders themselves as an indicator of their internal capacity to ensure transparency and legitimacy. This approach is novel, as most previous studies have focused on communication products or the views of external users (González-Díaz et al., 2013; Garde-Sánchez et al., 2014; Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grima, 2023), without exploring in depth the perspective of those responsible for running the institutions.

Third, the findings reinforce the importance of organizational structure as one of the fundamental pillars that shape the actions and performance of SAIs, along with the regulatory framework and the influence of INTOSAI (Ferry et al., 2023). Understanding how internal structures and collegiate boards manage communication allows for the identification of strengths and weaknesses in accountability mechanisms, as well as alignment with international principles of transparency, usefulness, and effectiveness (INTOSAI-P 20; GUID 9040).

The results offer several implications for institutional management. First, it is essential to strengthen the communicative dimension of public auditing. Undoubtedly, the technical quality of reports must be complemented by strategies that ensure the clarity, accessibility, and relevance of information for different audiences. Inefficient communication can reduce the legitimacy and influence of RAIs. Second, internal leadership and communication skills should be further developed. This could be achieved by training board members and management teams in strategic communication and transparency management skills, thereby promoting an organizational culture geared towards dialog with stakeholders. Third, communication should be fully integrated into strategic planning. Explicitly including communication objectives and performance metrics in RAIs’ strategic plans would contribute to more effective accountability and the consolidation of legitimacy before society and regional parliaments. Finally, efforts should be made to ensure consistency between international standards and local practices, translating INTOSAI guidelines into concrete procedures for communication and follow-up of recommendations.

Specifically, weaknesses identified in follow-up and comprehensibility indicates areas where RAIs can reinforce communication and accountability. Enhancing follow-up through public dashboards, periodic reports, and service-level agreements would increase transparency regarding recommendation status and implementation progress. Improving comprehensibility by providing executive summaries, infographics, glossaries, and plain-language report versions would make audit findings more accessible. Recommendation matrices could further clarify required actions for diverse audiences. Collectively, these measures would strengthen RAIs’ capacity to demonstrate the clarity, relevance, and practical impact of their work while mitigating legitimacy risks stemming from high formal transparency but limited usability for both experts and the wider public community.

This study has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.

First, it relies exclusively on the perceptions of governing body members, which may introduce a positive self-assessment bias. This limitation was addressed through two measures: (a) the survey questions were explicitly framed in terms of perceptions of the institution’s ability to meet stakeholder needs, rather than personal satisfaction, and (b) the results were interpreted as reflections of institutional self-awareness, not as direct indicators of stakeholder opinions. Second, the number of respondents is limited, restricting the generalizability of the findings to other national or institutional contexts.

Future research should triangulate perceptions with external evidence, such as: (1) content analysis of RAI websites and published reports, (2) usage and access metrics (downloads, views, citations), and (3) surveys or interviews with audited entities, parliamentarians or citizens. Such triangulation would enhance validity and reduce the risk of internal bias. Additionally, comparative studies between countries or regions with different organizational models would be valuable. Likewise, investigations into the impact of digitization and artificial intelligence on the communication practices of audit institutions would be beneficial.

By integrating Legitimacy Theory with empirical evidence from institutional leaders, as conducted in the present study, future research will underscore the significance of aligning the communicative, organizational, and normative dimensions of audit work to enhance the democratic value of RAIs.