Annual Audit Plan 2025/26

2. Risk of deficiencies in public finances

Central government finances are facing heightened risks of inefficiency as central government debt increases and priorities alter as a result of rapid changes in the world around us. It is particularly important to apply the fiscal policy framework and to ensure that tax collection is effective and efficient. To manage limited financial resources prudently, it is also important for economic instruments to actually have the intended effect and not lead to undue payments or inefficient use of resources.

2.1 The Government’s application of the fiscal policy framework

For a number of years, we have been regularly examining the Government’s application of the fiscal policy framework. The fiscal policy framework is an assessment standard in our audit. The framework helps ensure long-term sustainable and transparent fiscal policy and serves an important purpose in maintaining sound public finances.

In view of the state of the economy and in light of the risks of inadequate budgetary discipline that I noted in last year’s audit, we will also audit the Government’s application of the framework in 2025. The audit covers the 2025 Spring Fiscal Policy Bill and the 2026 Budget Bill.

2.2 Tax administration and collection of taxes and fees

The central government relies on functioning tax administration to fund welfare and essential services. Inefficient tax administration can lead to tax losses that jeopardise both the budget balance and public trust in the tax system. We have identified several areas in which complex regulations, a lack of information or inadequate control mechanisms can lead to significant errors and financial losses for the central government.

Over the year, we will audit the Swedish Enforcement Authority’s responsibility for ensuring that the central government recovers unpaid debts and for the system of dealing with enterprises in crisis – that is, insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, we are auditing whether the Swedish Social Insurance Agency works efficiently to ensure correct decisions on sickness benefit qualifying income.

We also highlight the tax gap on travel deductions and property sales in income tax returns. The tax gap is estimated at several billion Swedish kronor annually, and I have decided to examine whether the Swedish Tax Agency’s control and information efforts are sufficient to reduce the gap. Over the year, the Swedish National Audit Office will explore the possibility of auditing the Swedish Tax Agency’s efforts to provide advice and information to citizens.

Furthermore, we assess that there is a high risk of material misstatements in annual reports in numerous government agencies dealing with tax collection and fees governed by public law. For agencies such as the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Enforcement Authority and Swedish Customs, collecting taxes and fees involves financial flows in proprietary IT systems, in which accounting is also complex. Government agencies are often dependent on automated checks in their IT systems functioning as intended. In addition, the Swedish Tax Agency and Swedish Customs are required to report the tax gap, which involves complex calculation models.

These factors increase the risk of deliberate and unintentional errors in the management of taxes and fees. We take this into account when planning our audit of government agencies’ annual reports and the underlying financial statements.

We note another risk of financial misstatement in the methods used to report tax revenues in annual reports. In government agencies’ annual reports, taxes and fees are to be reported on a cash basis, meaning that they are reported when payments are actually made. In the central government annual report, on the other hand, taxes are to be reported on a revenue basis; the Government uses a special method to calculate how much tax revenue is attributable to a certain budget year. As the method is based on estimates, we note a risk of accounting not being true and fair. We consider that this risk justifies an extended audit.

2.3 Effectiveness of economic instruments

Central government grants, subsidies and targeted initiatives must have the intended effect in society. When governance is unclear, the design of the measures falls short or follow-up is weak, this leads to a risk of inefficiency and misuse of funds.

We examine how economic instruments are applied and function in different sectors of society where the central government wants to steer behaviour or stimulate development. It is a question of whether these instruments are designed to achieve set objectives, whether they improve efficiency and whether they are used transparently to reduce the risk of undue payments or undesirable effects.

In numerous performance audit reports, the Swedish National Audit Office has observed inadequate efficiency in measures where governments have reduced taxes or fees to steer the economy. Over the coming year, we will examine reduced energy tax on electricity for industrial activities in Sweden. The reduction is significant and is one of the largest Swedish tax expenditures, with a forecast cost of approximately SEK 18 billion for 2025. Our audit aims to examine whether this reduction is effective, accurate and appropriate, and whether it is satisfactorily monitored and controlled.

During the year, we will also examine whether the rules on student grants have the desired effect on educational participation, throughput and repayment. The audit focuses on the role played by requirements concerning previous academic performance and the weekly limit in the effects of the students grants.

Another far-reaching economic instrument is the central government effort to boost the status of the teaching profession. Two teacher pay initiatives have been implemented for particularly qualified teachers – the Career Stage Reform and the Teachers’ Salary Boost. Both initiatives aim to increase the attractiveness of the profession and help improve teaching and outcomes in schools. The audit will answer the question of whether the initiatives have been effective in achieving the reforms’ objectives for teacher salaries and mobility. Over the year, we will also explore the possibility of auditing central government venture capital as an economic instrument.

3. Risk of deficiencies in governance, follow-up and reporting

Governance, follow-up and reporting are fundamental to public-sector activities being – and being perceived as – effective and transparent, and to upholding public trust. It is essential that information on financial outcome and income/expense reporting in government agencies’ annual reports is true and fair, as this forms the basis for decisions by the Government and the Riksdag. Therefore, our auditing of annual reports focuses on areas that present an elevated risk of material misstatements in the accounting.

As society evolves and new challenges emerge, governance must swiftly adapt. Governance and follow-up within the welfare system, education and other central government activities have become increasingly complex, with the risk of inefficiency and lack of equivalence. The division of responsibilities between central government, regions and municipalities, as well as shortcomings in data infrastructure and supervision, can lead to suboptimal use of resources and a lack of equivalence in services for citizens. Furthermore, supervision is a concrete tool to ensure that regulations take effect as intended in society.

3.1 Efficiency and quality in welfare and education

Welfare makes up a substantial share of public expenditure. When quality varies and governance fails, efficient resource use, equivalence and trust risk being undermined. The efficiency of the welfare sector is crucial for the legitimacy of the central government and for individuals’ confidence in the central government’s ability to deliver support and services.

Over the coming year, we will be performing several audits in this field. We turn our attention to the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (1993:387). The purpose of the Act is to guarantee the rights of people with disabilities, and it is the municipalities’ responsibility to decide on and implement measures. In October 2024, 81,000 people had at least one implemented and municipally decided measure pursuant to the Act.[10] Our audit focuses on whether central government initiatives to ensure municipalities’ compliance with the Act function effectively.

Furthermore, education is an important component of the welfare system and a large part of the public commitment. Digitalisation and the COVID-19 pandemic have led to an increase in remote learning. We are examining whether the central government ensures quality and equivalence in higher education taught remotely. In the past, Swedish schools abroad have received government grants to facilitate Swedish education abroad, mainly for children of Swedes working or studying abroad. This audit focuses on the 14 schools approved by the National Agency for Education that receive government grants, their operations, funding and relevance in today’s global society.

Accessibility and equal treatment are two important aspects of public sector activities. Poor communication between government agencies and the general public increases the risk of incorrect decisions, additional work and unnecessarily lengthy processing times, both for individuals and agencies. We therefore examine whether government agencies ensure that cases are processed efficiently even for those who do not have a command of Swedish.

Discrimination in agencies’ decisions can have severely negative implications for the person concerned and is also an efficiency problem. Discriminatory processing risks prolonging processes, leading to more appeals and reducing trust in government agencies. Therefore, we are auditing agencies’ efforts to combat discrimination on ethnic grounds in decisions concerning individuals.

In addition, over the year, we will explore possibilities of auditing the Boost for Teachers programme and higher education institutions’ gender equality work when appointing professors. We will also explore possibilities of auditing higher education institutions’ costs for premises and central government knowledge management in health and social care.

3.2 Efficiency, control and supervision in central government activities

Central government control and monitoring of public sector activities is to guarantee efficiency, quality and legal certainty. Supervision is a key component of central government control and an important tool for ensuring that regulations have the intended effect. To contribute to effective public engagement, supervision not only needs to be conducted – it must also be efficient and accurate. Inefficiencies harm both results and trust.

One example of a supervision audit concerns asbestos. Asbestos is a durable but hazardous material that is estimated to lead to about 270 work-related deaths in Sweden every year. Despite being banned, asbestos is present in buildings, and in 2022, almost 27,000 reports were filed concerning work on materials containing asbestos. We examine whether supervision is sufficiently effective to protect health and the work environment.

In all central government activities, there must be general IT systems, such as accounting and human resources systems, digital meeting solutions and storage. Lack of competence, inadequate information classification and a poor cost structure pose risks of inefficiency. We audit whether government agencies’ administration of these systems is efficient.

In addition, over the year we will explore the possibility of auditing processing times in the planning and building permit process. Another possible performance audit concerns the central government’s efforts to combat unscrupulous private-sector providers of municipal social services.

3.3 Risk of misstatements related to transfers

In our audit of annual reports, we estimate that some fifty government agencies are at high risk of misstatements in their reporting on transfers. The frequent risk of incorrect reporting of transfers is due to:

• extensive or complex regulations governing grants, with agencies sometimes basing decisions on subjective assessments concerning to whom the grants should be awarded;
• the fact that the government agency processes several different grant types, for which both regulations and handling procedures may differ;
• major IT dependencies in processing and disbursement processes.

Complex regulations present a risk of agencies making errors when processing grants. The same applies if an agency has several different grant types that administrators need to understand, and that are managed in completely or partly different processes. For some grant decisions, agencies need to make subjective assessments to determine beneficiaries, because of how the rules for grants are devised. In such cases, it is important that procedures and processes are clear and guide administrators in making uniform assessments. When there is heavy dependency on information technology, it is essential that systems operate as intended, as errors may otherwise arise that can become systematic.

The financial audit examines both government agencies’ compliance with prevailing rules governing the use of appropriations and whether the funds have been correctly reported. This often means that we audit their procedures for both deciding on and following up on grants.

3.4 Powers to place orders

Although their budgets have a one-year time frame, for agencies to perform their remits, they may need to make financial commitments that extend over several years. Government agencies may therefore have powers to place orders linked to their appropriations, which means that they have the right to enter into commitments that entail expenditure in future budget years, thereby tying up part of their future appropriations. This primarily applies to appropriations for transfers and infrastructure investments.

For some fifteen government agencies, the Swedish National Audit Office considers there to be a high risk of error linked to powers to place orders. Some examples of such government agencies are the Swedish Energy Agency, the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth and the Swedish Transport Administration. This involves both a risk of government agencies exceeding their authorisation frameworks and a risk of accounting errors.

Our risk assessment is related, in part, to the large amounts involved, while manual processing of the commitments is still common. Some government agencies also need to make assessments to calculate commitments, which increases the risk of error. Another reason is a lack of clarity in the Government’s management of powers to place orders, which leads to ambiguities at the agencies, which can in turn lead to accounting errors. The financial audit examines whether all outstanding commitments are reported, whether they are accounted for in the correct amount and whether the government agencies have not exceeded the allotted frameworks for their powers.

3.5 Risks of accounting errors linked to fee-based activities

Many government agencies finance parts of their activities with fees. For some thirty government agencies, we consider that there is a high risk of misstatement in the annual report linked to fee-based activities.

The economic objective of fee-based activities is full cost coverage, unless otherwise decided by the Riksdag or the Government. This means that government agencies are to calculate fees so that, in the long term, revenues cover all costs. In my 2025 Annual Report, I noted that we regularly make observations of misstatements in government agencies’ reporting of fee-based activities.

Ahead of next year as well, we consider that there is a risk of several government agencies failing to achieve full cost coverage for their activities, which may lead to major surpluses or deficits. We have also noted that the Government’s decisions on fees – in ordinances or appropriation directions – can in some cases lead to interpretation issues for government agencies unless the decision also specifies whether or not the general rule of full cost coverage applies. There are also other risks within fee-based activities that can lead to material misstatements in the annual report. This may concern, for example, how the government agency allocates its costs, or a complex model for calculating its fees. Some government agencies also have several different types of fees or manual steps in their fee processing, which may also increase the risk of error.

We check that government agencies adhere to the financial targets for their fee-based activities, that all income is reported and that material fees are correctly reported.

Government agencies’ activities are often financed through multiple funding sources, such as appropriations, grants and fees. It is also common for government agencies’ appropriations to be subject to financial terms and conditions that may be both extensive and ambiguous. These include temporary appropriations that the agencies are to use for special purposes, or the possibility of financing regular administrative costs with targeted appropriations.

The Government decides on appropriations terms and conditions in the agencies’ appropriation directions. An agency with multi-funded activities or funding subject to financial terms and conditions must have clear procedures for ensuring that appropriations and other revenue are properly used and finance the right costs. For some thirty government agencies, we consider that there is a high risk of misstatement in the annual report linked to their mixed funding or extensive or ambiguous appropriation terms and conditions. In these cases, we audit whether the agencies use and report appropriations and other revenue correctly.

3.6 Risk of misstatement in the recognition of assets, liabilities and loans

The Riksbank manages a large volume of capital assets and we see a risk of incorrect asset valuation and of recognition not being true and fair. Asset management affects the Riksbank’s entire balance sheet and income statement and is included in our audit of its annual report.

Some government agencies, such as the Swedish Armed Forces, the Nationalmuseum, the Swedish Transport Administration and the National Property Board, acquire and manage assets to large amounts. These mainly involve non-current assets such as infrastructure, contingency assets and real estate, as well as cultural assets. For these agencies, the Swedish National Audit Office sees risks linked to the valuation and scope of the assets and recognition of current investments. We focus our auditing on the risks that are relevant to the agency in question.

Some agencies may report and manage large debts. This includes the central government debt reported by the Swedish National Debt Office and pension liabilities reported by the Swedish Pensions Agency and the National Government Employee Pensions Board. Central government debt management involves multiple transactions and numerous financial instruments, which increases the risk of misstatements in the annual report.

Concerning pension liabilities, we need to take into account complex accounting rules, since the liabilities are recognised as actuarial provisions. The same applies to guarantees issued by the central government through the Swedish National Debt Office, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Swedish Export Credit Agency and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. Insurance accounting often features substantial elements of estimates and advanced calculations made in complex IT systems. For government agencies with this type of activity, the risk of misstatement in the annual report is often high. Since these calculations form the basis for fees and provisions in the annual report, the Swedish National Audit Office focuses its audit on ensuring the accuracy of the calculations.

The Swedish Board of Student Finance reports liabilities and receivables linked to student loans amounting to large sums. The Swedish National Audit Office considers that there are risks in the valuation of items such as the provision for loan losses and therefore focuses its audit on valuation.

3.7 Complex accounting rules

As mentioned above, insurance accounting is complex and often involves a higher risk of misstatement in the annual report. Insurance accounting affects several different parts of the annual report and is included in the audit. Another area with complex regulatory frameworks is the processing of EU funds by government agencies such as the Council of the European Social Fund in Sweden. This accounting also affects several different parts of the annual report and is therefore included in the Swedish National Audit Office’s audit of government agencies.

4. Risk of deficiencies in organisation, responsibility and coordination

Many central government areas of responsibility involve multiple actors, leading to a need for coordination and collaboration. Effective organisation and collaboration between government agencies is necessary, for example in the face of major societal challenges, such as the expansion of total defence, law enforcement, migration and work-related crime. Weak direction of collaboration and coordination may lead to inefficiency, for example if responsibilities are unclear or if conflicting objectives are not addressed. Shortcomings in logistics, information sharing and internal governance risk leading to inefficiency, thereby weakening the effect of central government efforts. At worst, this can harm society.

4.1 Effectiveness in defence and the judicial system

The state of national security and crime trends place great demands on effective defence and law enforcement. The Government has allocated significant resources in these areas. However, if organisation and responsibilities do not function properly, there is a risk of inefficiency.

The increased appropriations to the Swedish Armed Forces places considerable demands on an organisation with sound cost control, traceability and follow-up to ensure that the allocated funds generate the intended effect. We are therefore examining whether the Swedish Armed Forces’ governance ensures efficient use of resources.

Furthermore, functioning military logistics are crucial for the Swedish Armed Forces’ ability to mobilise and maintain its war organisation and for Sweden’s ability to receive and support allied troops in NATO. Inadequate logistics risk leading to low target fulfilment, inefficient resource utilisation and poor management of central government resources. Over the year, we will examine whether the Swedish Armed Forces’ work on military logistics is effective.

We will also examine whether the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service are taking effective measures to prevent infiltration. This involves individuals at a government agency acting disloyally by disclosing, destroying or altering sensitive data. This could have serious consequences, by damaging operations, the central government or society at large.

Another audit in this field concerns the Swedish Migration Agency’s handling of security matters. These cases, which are handled in collaboration with the Swedish Security Service, place special requirements on confidentiality, competence and effective information exchange between agencies. Failings in this handling can have serious implications, both for legal security in individual cases and for national security.

Over the year, we will also examine whether the Swedish Customs and the Swedish Police Authority are working effectively to reduce the presence of illegal firearms. To achieve this, the Swedish Customs must be able to detect arms smuggling at the border and the Swedish Police Authority must be able to effectively seize arms that are already in Sweden.

We will also explore the possibility of auditing communication in the event of crises, a secure military supply of equipment and efforts to ensure that the Swedish Armed Forces and other total defence actors have functional command centres, stocks and other infrastructure.

4.2 Effective action for a sound labour market and social sustainability

Working conditions and social sustainability are crucial both for individuals’ security and for stability in the public economy. When the systems function properly, they contribute to fair working conditions, competition on equal terms and efficient use of resources. Conversely, shortcomings in organisation, responsibilities and collaboration risk leading to human exploitation, increased costs for the central government and diminished confidence in government agencies.

Over the year, we will examine whether central government efforts to combat work-related crime are effective. Work-related crime can lead to tax losses, undue disbursements, accidents and distorted competition. Numerous government agencies are involved in these efforts. However, despite increased resources, there are indications of shortcomings in collaboration, information sharing, methodology development and governance. These shortcomings risk reducing the effectiveness and long-term perspective of efforts.

We are examining whether the Swedish Migration Agency’s work permit checks are effective in detecting and preventing errors and abuse, and whether collaboration with other government agencies works appropriately. In addition, we will examine the effectiveness of the efforts by the Swedish Migration Agency, the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Prosecution Authority to prevent, detect and investigate human trafficking for sexual purposes. While human trafficking for sexual purposes causes suffering for victims and generates profits for organised crime, it rarely leads to prosecution or conviction in Sweden.

Over the year, we will explore the possibility of auditing career transition study aid and the national European Social Fund’s processing of this aid. We will also explore the possibility of continuing to audit labour market policy initiatives, such as the Swedish Public Employment Service’s employer relations and the procurement of labour market training programmes.

4.3 Efficiency in welfare-related activities

Welfare-related activities require substantial resources and affect citizens directly – from procurement and social insurance to public transport and alternative dispute resolution for consumers. For these systems to function properly, governance is needed that ensures both legal certainty and prudent management of central government funds, a clear division of responsibilities and effective controls. When organisation and responsibilities fail, undue payments, corruption or ineffective agreements can incur major costs for society and erode confidence in the central government.

Over the year, we will examine whether government agencies’ efforts to combat corruption and irregularities in procurement are effective. Central government procurement involves considerable sums of money and is particularly at risk of irregularities and corruption. Deficiencies in control, governance and follow-up can lead to higher costs, distorted competition and dented public confidence.

We will also examine whether the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and the Swedish Pensions Agency effectively manage risks of undue payments following changed circumstances. Recipients of social insurance benefits are obliged to report any change of circumstances. However, the current system often involves duplicated work, ambiguity and a risk of undue payments.

Another audit in this field focuses on one of the fundamental ideas of EU cooperation – that it should be easy to move between EU countries. Achieving this requires coordinating social security. At a time when an increasing number of EU citizens are crossing Sweden’s borders, it is important for the Swedish Social Insurance Agency to work effectively on family benefits in cross-border cases.

Furthermore, we will examine whether central government initiatives, through traffic agreements, contribute effectively to improving basic availability of inter-regional public transport. The Swedish Transport Administration enters into traffic agreements to ensure basic availability of public transport, including night trains, the Gotland ferry and certain air traffic. The costs of these agreements have increased while availability has deteriorated, and there are signs of shortcomings in both agreement design and follow-up. We will also examine whether central government initiatives to provide an alternative dispute resolution system for consumers are effective and adequate. Alternative dispute resolution through the National Board for Consumer Complaints or other dispute resolution bodies plays an important role in the smooth functioning of consumer markets, and can also offload the burden on courts.

Over the year, we will explore the possibility of examining access to and the quality of drinking water resources and climate adaptation issues, such as food production, in a changing climate.

5. Premises for the Swedish National Audit Office’s audit operations

In this chapter we describe the premises for our auditing operations within financial audit and performance audit based on legal provisions and international standards.

5.1 Remit and mandate of financial audit

The Swedish National Audit Office is to perform financial audit of annual reports of the central government and agencies under the Government and the Riksdag.[11] This audit aims to assess whether the accounts and underlying documentation are reliable and the accounting records true and fair, and whether the administration by the management complies with prevailing regulations and special decisions.

The audit covers 226 annual reports, the majority of which concern administrative agencies under the Government.

In the audit plan we present areas where we see a frequently high risk of material misstatement and for which auditing is more extensive in that case. However, a large proportion of financial audit resources are used to audit areas that have a lower level of risk, but that amount to considerable sums. An example of such an area is the government agencies’ personnel costs, which are often assessed to have a low risk of material misstatement.

5.1.1 Audit implementation

Financial audit is performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.[12] Generally accepted auditing standards for public sector audit are determined by the Auditor General, meaning essentially that, for its financial audit operations, the Swedish National Audit Office applies the International Standards for Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI). Financial audit of income/expense and other information in the annual reports complies with the Swedish National Audit Office’s internal policy documents, since there are no standards in these areas.

Our audit is based on the risk of material misstatement in the annual report. This means that we focus our audit on items or information in the annual report where there is a high risk of misstatement, but also that we audit less risky areas if they involve material amounts.

If there are no significant changes in the government agencies’ activities from year to year, the audit focus often remains the same over time. New risks can arise and former risks can subside in cases where government agencies are assigned new remits, new management or if there are external changes affecting them.

Every year, the financial audit performs a risk analysis and a materiality assessment of each agency. The purpose is to assess audit needs during the year and determine the most effective audit method. A higher risk of material misstatement leads to a more extensive audit.

Since the audit proceeds on the basis of risk of material misstatement, most of the audit normally focuses on major or complex items in the annual reports, which is often where material payment flows are found.

Important parts of the risk assessment include an analysis of the Government’s direction of the agency, the agency’s internal control environment and the processes that are material for its financial reporting in its annual report. The structure of the agency’s internal governance and control may also affect choice of audit method.

Over the course of the audit, we use various audit procedures to examine the agency’s internal control activities and financial flows. The audit is conducted throughout the year.

5.2 Remit and mandate of performance audit

The principal task of performance audit is to examine the implementation and outcome of central government activities and commitments. The purpose is to provide guidance on how central government efforts can be improved to generate greater benefit in relation to input of resources. The audits are also to provide the Riksdag with a basis for accountability.

Our performance audits are always focused on central government efforts. This means that we usually audit the Government and central government agencies. We may also audit the operations of state-owned enterprises or foundations. In some cases, we may also audit the use of central government resources by enterprises, associations, municipalities and other entities. Finally, we have a mandate to audit processing of unemployment benefit at unemployment insurance funds.[13]

5.2.1 Audit implementation

Choice of audit topic and method is made based on Swedish legislation and international standards that have been developed by the member countries of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI).[14] The audit must focus chiefly on prudent financial management, efficient use of resources and objective fulfilment.[15]

The Auditor General decides which audits are to be performed. Choice of audit is based on an analysis of efficiency problems of economic or principled importance in central government activities.

Performance audit is to generate added value for the Riksdag.[16] The Swedish National Audit Office’s constitutional mandate allows us to take a broader audit perspective than other actors. We give priority to audits of central government activities associated with material societal issues and areas of considerable principled or quantitative importance to the central government budget. We strive to audit the most essential elements of each parliamentary committee area over a term of office.[17]

We frequently audit the entire chain of command for responsibilities in the central government – from the Government to the actor(s) that perform various actions, and ultimately how the actions affect the business community and citizens. We can also audit multiple agencies that, with various initiatives, are supposed to help achieve objectives in a certain area, such as integration. The audits can also focus on activities that are not always particularly extensive at each individual government agency, but that have a highly significant combined outcome, such as procurement. Our audits can also draw attention to possible conflicting objectives within and between different policy areas.

The Swedish National Audit Office’s reports are quality assured internally and externally. External actors monitor our compliance based on various regulations and standards, while we ourselves have internal procedures for quality assurance. For example, draft reports are subject to factual examination by those most closely affected by the audit.

5.3 The audit is presented in numerous ways

Each year, the Auditor General submits a report to the Riksdag containing the most important findings from the performance audit of the central government and observations in agencies’ annual reports.[18] We also publish an annual follow-up report that is to provide the Riksdag with a basis for assessing the outcome of our audit, and whether it has helped to improve central government activities. In addition, we continuously report the results of financial and performance audits in different ways and to different recipients.

5.3.1 Financial audits are reported in writing and verbally

On concluding a financial audit, the Swedish National Audit Office submits one auditor’s report per government agency to the Government or the Riksdag.[19] If there are material misstatements in the annual report, the Swedish National Audit Office issues a modified auditor’s report. A modified auditor’s report is often supplemented by an audit report that describes the misstatement and our recommended measures. The audit reports are sent to the agency’s management, with a copy to the Government, where relevant.

The Swedish National Audit Office also issues audit reports when there are significant deficiencies in internal governance and control, even if the deficiencies have not led to material misstatements in the annual report. In the audit report, we describe the deficiency and explain its possible effects. In its audit reports, the Swedish National Audit Office also recommends that agencies take various measures to rectify the deficiencies. The Swedish National Audit Office follows up on the agency’s measures. Financial audit always reports observations and recommendations verbally to the agencies, in addition to written reporting.

5.3.2 Performance audit issues performance audit reports

Performance audit reports are submitted to the Riksdag.[20] The Riksdag forwards them to the Government. Within four months, the Government must report to the Riksdag, describing the implemented or intended measures in response to the findings of the report.[21]

The Swedish National Audit Office generally includes recommendations in its performance audit reports. The recommendations are directed at the actors covered by the audit and aim to promote effectiveness and efficiency in the audited activities. We can also issue recommendations with suggestions as to how the intended outcome can be achieved with alternative initiatives.[22]

Annex 1. Ongoing performance audits

Ongoing performance audits are presented below as at 31 October 2025. The estimated year of publication is given in brackets. Both title and year of publication are subject to change.