I have three potential change pathways for your consideration.

• If you want a the mission fulfilled, it would be best work backwards and start with the Terms of Reference or Charter for the Audit Committee. UNEP FI issued a helpful document some years ago that informs on three stages of integrated reporting. You would find some guidance here http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/UNEPFI_IntegratedGovernance.pdf

• That said, if you are not able to tinker with the Terms of Reference, developing a proper audit manual would be next consideration. A health list of non-compliances when reported to the Board can energize change.

• Lastly, I would consider connection the organizations outcomes to sort and long term pay incentives for the directors involved in the Audit Committee, also including specific targets for sustainability performance.

I’ll respond from two experiences in this regard:
·        From my more corporate board experience, the audit committee would often hold special sessions with the accountable parties and/or CEO to discuss these issues. If the issue was significant enough and the Board Chair wasn’t already a member of the audit committee, the Board Chair would typically be invited to these sessions as well. This would allow for more focused attention on the matter at hand including gaining an understanding of the issues management is facing in improving the processes, aligning resources, etc. The Committee would then request and follow-up to ensure management provided regular updates on progress at future audit committee meetings. Being held accountable for improvement, even if in baby steps, often made a difference.
·        From pseudo government non-profit board experience thus far, the audit committee in some senses seems to wield a little more power in that they can make more demands and sometimes back it up with increased funding. However, in this experience the board also set an exception for an internal audit review committee made up of key executives and the CAE to ensure audit plans were properly focused and thereby audit results were taken seriously. The review committees must receive and ensure follow-up on all audit results and the CAE reports out on these matters at scheduled audit committee meetings and/or executive sessions if warranted. Audit plans can then be directed by the audit committee to include risk related audits that allowed them and executive management to identify where key opportunities exist and then manage the follow-up to ensure those opportunities are addressed.

Senior management, not the Board nor the Audit Committee, runs the organization and business every day.  The only workable approach to addressing some concerns (in this case at the Audit Committee) is to engage with the management. It is not the Audit Committee's role (unless there is an ethical or legal/governance matter) to intervene directly in the organization.  In many cases, the CEO and/or the CFO sits on the Audit Committee so the concerns can be aired and the information requested.