Governance, risk and compliance are already present in most organisations, but the difference between running them as a connected system and running them as three separate functions is what defines whether a business actually has a GRC framework.
According to Copla, the term is used in two distinct ways that are rarely separated out. One is the operating model a company builds itself: its own governance structure, risk process and compliance obligations, wired together so one team can run them from a single view.
The other is a named standard adopted from outside, such as COBIT, ISO 27001 or NIST CSF, each with its own documentation and, in some cases, a certification path. Neither replaces the other. Adopted frameworks are inputs used to build the operating model well, not substitutes for it.
Among adopted frameworks, five names recur most often: COBIT, ISO 27001, NIST CSF 2.0, COSO ERM and ISO 31000. Most organisations layer two or three rather than picking one. COBIT, maintained by ISACA, suits larger organisations formalising IT governance but is heavier than what a smaller team chasing an information security management system by a fixed deadline typically needs.
ISO 27001 is the framework most likely to be requested by procurement teams and regulators because it is independently certifiable through accredited audit bodies. NIST CSF 2.0, updated in 2024 to add a Govern function alongside Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond and Recover, offers a shared vocabulary between technical and executive teams but carries no legal standing in the EU.
COSO ERM and ISO 31000 sit on the risk side, feeding strategy-linked oversight and shared risk terminology respectively, without offering organisational certification.
For EU-regulated entities, building this structure has moved from best practice to obligation. DORA requires financial entities to maintain a documented ICT risk management framework, with the management body directly responsible for approving risk strategy and overseeing third-party arrangements.
NIS2 applies a comparable requirement to essential and important entities outside finance, with management bodies facing potential personal liability for failures. Under both, a documented, board-approved framework is something supervisors can request and expect to see, while COBIT and COSO remain optional add-ons.
Building a workable framework follows a sequence: governance ownership first, then an inventory of systems and dependencies, a business impact analysis, obligations mapped to controls once rather than per framework, monitoring connected back to governance, and review triggers tied to events rather than a calendar. Whether that runs on spreadsheets or dedicated GRC software depends on scale, not maturity.
Read the full Copla post here.
Read the daily FinTech news
Copyright © 2026 FinTech Global
