Executive Summary Regulation isn’t slowing down—and neither are the expectations placed on organizations operating in regulated environments. Whether the business is regulated in the United States or (more challengingly) across multiple international jurisdictions, the need is the same: fully understand the applicable regulatory regimes and be able to demonstrate compliance with confidence. That takes dedicated GRC capability, smart enablement through RegTech, and a disciplined process for mapping obligations to controls, identifying gaps, and executing remediation. Most importantly: you are not alone in this. Across industries and geographies, GRC practitioners are facing the same pressures—more requirements, more scrutiny, more stakeholders, and less tolerance for ambiguity. The good news is that there is a proven path forward, and when it’s done well, it doesn’t just reduce risk—it elevates the credibility and influence of the GRC function. The Reality We’re All Living: More Complexity, More Accountability If you’ve felt like the regulatory landscape is getting harder to navigate, you’re right.
Many GRC teams are operating in an environment shaped by: ● Constant change: regulatory updates, new guidance, evolving enforcement priorities ● Jurisdictional overlap: multiple regimes applying to the same process, product, or dataset ● Higher proof standards: regulators and auditors increasingly expect traceable evidence, not general assurances ● Operational sprawl: controls executed across teams, tools, vendors, and geographies This is the shared challenge space for modern GRC. And it’s exactly why compliance must be treated as a capability—not an annual project. Why Dedicated GRC Resources Are Essential (and a Sign of Maturity) Any regulated company—especially one operating internationally—needs dedicated resources to manage compliance effectively. When GRC is under-resourced or overly decentralized, the organization tends to fall into 1 of 9 reactive patterns: last-minute evidence requests, inconsistent interpretations of requirements, duplicated effort, and “hero mode” before audits.
A well-supported GRC function brings structure and stability through: ● Regulatory interpretation and applicability: determining what applies and to whom ● Horizon scanning: anticipating change before it becomes urgent ● Control governance: consistent standards for control design, ownership, and testing ● Audit/exam readiness: predictable evidence collection and defensible narratives ● Risk transparency: helping leaders understand exposure and prioritize investment Encouragingly, many organizations are now recognizing GRC as a strategic function.
The mandate is expanding—and so is the opportunity to modernize how compliance is delivered. RegTech: The Force Multiplier We Need to Keep Up Let’s be direct: for most organizations, manual compliance management cannot scale. Spreadsheets, static trackers, shared folders, and email threads may work temporarily, but they struggle under the weight of multi-jurisdiction obligations, frequent updates, and evidence demands. That’s where RegTech (regulation technology) becomes essential.
The right third-party tools can help a GRC team: ● Centralize regulatory obligations and link them to business scope (entity, region, product) ● Operationalize workflows (ownership, due dates, approvals, attestations) ● Enable requirement-to-control mapping with traceability ● Standardize evidence collection and improve audit readiness ● Provide reporting that leadership can actually use A helpful mindset: RegTech doesn’t replace GRC expertise—it amplifies it. Tools reduce friction; practitioners provide judgment, interpretation, prioritization, and credibility.
The Core Work: Obligation Analysis and Mapping to Controls & Policies Once the organization has access to the right toolset, the next logical step is a detailed assessment of regulatory obligations and their mapping to existing internal controls, policies, and procedures. This is the step that separates “we think we comply” from “we can prove it.” A practical mapping effort typically includes: 2 of 9
1. Applicability assessment: Which regulations apply to which parts of the organization (products, regions, legal entities, processes)?
2. Obligation decomposition: Translating regulatory language into discrete, actionable obligations that can be owned and tested.
3. Mapping to internal control structure: Connecting each obligation to relevant controls, policies, standards, training, and monitoring activities.
4. Evidence definition: Agreeing on what “proof” looks like (logs, reports, tickets, approvals, access reviews, incident records, vendor attestations, etc.).
5. Coverage and effectiveness evaluation: Do we have a control? Is it designed appropriately? Is it operating consistently? Is it producing evidence? This assessment can take a couple of months, especially in complex international environments. That timeline is normal—and worth it—because the outputs become reusable: for audits, for leadership reporting, and for future regulatory change management. The Payoff: A Clear View of Strengths and Gaps This is where GRC teams gain an “intimate view” of the organization’s control posture. Mapping almost always reveals one (or more) of these realities: ● Controls exist, but evidence is inconsistent (a common audit pain point) ● Controls exist, but don’t fully meet regulatory intent (design gap) ● Controls are missing for certain obligations (coverage gap) ● Controls are overbuilt in low-risk areas (opportunity to streamline) Finding gaps isn’t failure—it’s progress.
It’s the moment compliance becomes manageable because it becomes visible and structured. From Findings to Action: Building and Executing a Remediation Plan After the mapping assessment, the organization needs a detailed remediation plan to address gaps through one of three approaches: ● Risk assessment / risk acceptance: When appropriate, document rationale, secure approvals at the right level, and define monitoring. ● Policy and documentation enhancements: New or revised policies, standards, procedures, recordkeeping expectations, training, and governance routines. 3 of 9 ● New or improved controls: Technical or operational controls, monitoring, testing cadence, clear ownership, and measurable outcomes.
The key is to run remediation like a program, not a collection of tasks: ● Prioritize by regulatory criticality and risk ● Assign accountable owners ● Define milestones and evidence of completion ● Validate that changes are operating, not just “implemented” This is also where GRC practitioners can (and should) encourage the organization: remediation is not just fixing problems—it’s building a stronger compliance operating system. Conclusion: We’re All Facing This—And We Can Absolutely Master It If your workload has grown, if the regulatory environment feels louder, if proving compliance takes more energy than it used to—welcome to modern GRC. These challenges are widely shared across our profession.
The encouraging part is that the path forward is clear: dedicated GRC capability, RegTech enablement, disciplined obligation mapping, and structured remediation. When we execute this well, we don’t just survive audits—we create clarity, consistency, and confidence. And in a world where trust matters more than ever, that is meaningful work. 4 of 9 Practitioners checklist GRC Practitioner Beginner Checklist (Quick Start)
1) Confirm scope (don’t skip this) ● Identify entities, regions, products/services, and processes in scope. ● List in-scope regulators / regulatory regimes (US + international). ● Document assumptions and get stakeholder sign-off early.
2) Build your obligation inventory ● Break each regulation into clear, testable obligations (plain-language statements). ● Tag each obligation by jurisdiction, business owner, and risk criticality. ● Track effective dates and known upcoming changes (horizon scanning).
3) Get RegTech in place (and configured for how you work) ● Ensure the tool can support: obligations, control mapping, evidence links, workflows, reporting. ● Define naming conventions (controls, policies, artifacts) to avoid chaos later. ● Assign tool roles: admin, control owners, reviewers, auditors/read-only.
4) Map obligations to what exists today ● Map each obligation to: ● Policies/standards/procedures ● Controls (prevent/detect/correct) ● Training / communications ● Monitoring and testing ● For each mapped control, capture: ● Owner ● Frequency ● System/process ● Evidence source
5) Define “evidence that counts” ● Agree what “proof” looks like (examples): ● Access reviews, approvals, logs, tickets, reports, vendor attestations ● Make evidence repeatable: same place, same format, consistent cadence. ● Validate evidence is retrievable (audit-ready) before you need it.
6) Identify and classify gaps ● Categorize gaps into: ● Coverage gap (no control exists) ● Design gap (control exists but doesn’t meet intent) ● Operating gap (control not performed consistently) ● Evidence gap (control performed but proof is weak) ● Prioritize using regulatory criticality + impact + likelihood.
7) Build a remediation plan that will actually execute ● For each gap, choose a path: ● Remediate with new/improved controls ● Update/create policies & documentation ● Assess and formally accept risk (with approvals and monitoring) ● Assign: owner, milestones, due dates, success criteria, validation method.
8) Validate, then operationalize ● Test that remediations operate in practice, not just on paper. ● Set ongoing cadence for: ● Control execution ● Control testing/monitoring ● Obligation updates and re-mapping as regulations change
9) Communicate progress in a way the business understands ● Use a simple dashboard view: ● Coverage %, high-risk gaps, remediation status, upcoming regulatory changes
● Translate compliance work into outcomes: ● reduced audit friction, fewer surprises, faster decisions, lower exposure Common beginner pitfalls (avoid these) ● Starting mapping before confirming scope and applicability ● Treating RegTech as a “plug-and-play” fix without governance ● Over-indexing on documentation while under-investing in evidence and monitoring ● Creating too many bespoke controls instead of reusing and strengthening what exists ● Running remediation without clear ownership, milestones, and validation
