Let Us Guide You Through Your InfoSec & Compliance Journey.
Learn how to use the Compyl Platform.
Watch all Security Session Episodes
Real-world stories on how we help our customers.
There’s no question that risk management needs to be a priority for modern enterprises. Data breaches, ransomware, natural disasters, and internal IP theft are just a few of the concerns affecting businesses. These risks can lead to significant financial losses and damage to a company’s reputation, making effective risk management necessary. What type of risk framework should you implement? Some industry leaders insist that GRC is the way to go while others say that IRM is optimal. To make a smart decision, you need to compare GRC vs. IRM.
GRC stands for governance, risk, and compliance. The GRC framework looks at data security through the lens of complying with accepted industry best practices, such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, and NIST 800-series guidelines.
IRM is integrated risk management. IRM frameworks address data security risks by integrating with every department and process, from production and sales to IT and customer service.
While risk management is part of GRC, IRM is a distinct framework with its own focus and method of achieving objectives. In fact, one of the reasons Gartner shifted to the IRM framework in 2018 was to provide solutions to perceived problems with many GRC systems of the time.
GRC has been around for nearly 20 years, but that doesn’t mean today’s version has the same guidelines as in 2007. The GRC framework has undergone many iterations since then.
For organizations that keep up with industry changes, the gaps in GRC vs. IRM have gotten much smaller. Integration is a major part of modern GRC.
On the other hand, some legacy businesses still follow outdated practices. In our experience, when organizations place too much emphasis on the bottom line instead of cybersecurity best practices, it often results in increased vulnerability and compliance failures, regardless of the framework chosen on paper.
Even though GRC and IRM go about things differently, they have several areas of common ground:
GRC and IRM get along well, even though they don’t see eye to eye on every topic.
Integrated risk management involves understanding the unique risk profile of your organization and creating cohesive risk management, mitigation, and remediation strategies in response. As you might suspect, IRM is heavily customized and designed to fit your organization’s InfoSec needs like a glove.
The main pillars of the IRM framework are:
IRM is holistic. The idea is that by integrating risk management and the appropriate mitigations in the fabric of an organization, compliance should follow naturally. Cybersecurity best practices are like leather furniture or hardwood floors: They never go out of style, regardless of evolving trends.
The success of IRM depends on the activities of all departments, not just IT. Employees of every level contribute to the security posture.
The purpose of GRC is to help your business comply with accepted data security standards for your industry and scope. For example, to do business in the EU, you need to follow GDPR restrictions. To accept credit card payments, merchants must meet PCI DSS requirements.
The GRC framework rests on three main pillars:
In a word, GRC is practical. It doesn’t get too caught up in hypotheticals. It helps you set and achieve InfoSec goals to pass audits, do business in your industry, and build trust in your products and services.
There are at least six core differences between GRC and IRM.
GRC puts risk on equal footing with policy creation and compliance goals. IRM is all about risk management, with regulatory concerns as a secondary goal.
With GRC, the main responsibility for cybersecurity controls and implementation falls on the GRC team (or IT). IRM makes data security the responsibility of every department. This is good if everyone follows the rules, but bad with poor communication or organizational direction.
GRC limits data security concerns to the areas required for compliance. IRM takes a broader view, frequently considering the impact of risk on profits, business efficiency, customer sentiment, overhead, and similar factors.
In some organizations, GRC overfocuses on compliance at all costs. Critics say this leads to poor cybersecurity, with enterprises more interested in checking boxes than building the most effective defenses.
IRM always depends on a centralized platform. Keeping this platform up-to-date and secure is everything. Vendor vulnerabilities can affect the entire supply chain, so choosing the right partner is vital.
GRC adds SaaS frameworks as needs and regulatory changes appear. This makes GRC more flexible but also more complex, relying more on expert IT.
Both frameworks can have problems with data silos, but for different reasons. GRC is vulnerable to silos when new compliance controls (e.g., PCI DSS workflows for some departments and NIST CSF for others) don´t have a central monitoring and reporting location. IRM data silos are usually the result of departments failing to communicate with each other.
At Compyl, we believe that insisting on GRC vs. IRM is the wrong way of looking at things. Why be so rigid? Thanks to modern technology, it’s easier than ever to customize risk management to your organization’s priorities and needs.
Implement a GRC framework that pulls from IRM principles as needed. Compyl is a powerful platform for automating GRC and IRM workflows, adapting to risks, and complying with InfoSec best practices. Take it for a test drive right away.
