Managing Remote Work Quality: Evidence from Management Systems Standards Auditing

Remote work has become more common, providing operational flexibility and productivity benefits, but questions remain about whether and how it affects quality. This study investigates the quality effects of remote work in a diagnostic service context in which remote work separates workers from the subject of their work: remotely auditing sites’ compliance with management system standards. We analyze nearly 30,000 audits conducted in-person or remotely across thousands of sites around the world by auditors of one global company during 2019–2021, when remote auditing accelerated due to COVID-19 pandemic travel restrictions. We theorize that remote audits will be of lower quality (less comprehensive) than in-person audits because remote auditors face greater difficulties (a) obtaining information critical to detecting violations and (b) coordinating and exchanging information with fellow auditors. We find evidence of these theorized mechanisms: remote audits report fewer violations and quality problems are especially pronounced for (a) standards clauses in which auditors assess compliance via direct observation as opposed to document review and (b) audits conducted by multi-auditor teams. We also find the quality problems of remote audits partially mitigated when the auditors had previously conducted in-person audits of the site and when auditors’ prior experience was more concentrated on the standard being audited. Understanding mechanisms by which remote work can erode quality and revealing attributes that exacerbate or attenuate such quality concerns can help companies and regulatory agencies better manage remote work.