 program, a chief risk officer (CRO) is critical. They oversee the organization's risk management processes and understand what risks need to be identified and mitigated. But if compliance risks aren't properly assessed, the CRO may not see them until a regulatory enforcement action occurs.

A CRO is just that — focused on enterprise risks generally. They need the assistance of a chief compliance officer (CCO) and internal auditors — specialists — to get a real view of the compliance and control risks to the organization. The same principle applies to enterprise risk and compliance.

There's currently a debate about whether compliance should be subsumed into a singular risk function. The market is moving toward integrated ERM-compliance models where compliance maintains independence while its risk assessment process works in seamless coordination with enterprise risk management.

However, the execution gap remains significant — while 59% of organizations report improved coordination benefits per 

, only 16% have successfully integrated data systems, according to a 

This comprehensive guide explains the critical balance between compliance independence and risk integration, covering:

The relationship between enterprise risk and compliance teams?

Why compliance risk requires specialized expertise and separate governance

10 best practices for enterprise risk and compliance coordination

How AI-powered governance, risk and compliance (GRC) platforms transform enterprise risk and compliance management

What is the relationship between enterprise risk and compliance teams?

Enterprise risk and compliance teams operate as coordinated but independent functions. Enterprise risk aggregates and reports on all organizational risks to support 

, while compliance independently manages regulatory and legal risk through specialized expertise and direct board oversight. They share data and align on risk priorities but maintain separate accountability structures.

Think of enterprise risk as the orchestra conductor and compliance as the lead violinist. The conductor needs the violinist's expertise and the violinist benefits from the conductor's broader perspective, but the violinist must maintain independent judgment about their performance.

Strategic context connecting compliance risks to business objectives

Risk appetite frameworks that guide compliance control decisions

Coordination mechanisms between compliance, audit and operational risk functions

Specialized expertise in regulatory requirements and legal obligations

Direct board access for material compliance matters

Authority to challenge business decisions based on regulatory considerations

1. Shared visibility, separate accountability:

 Both teams need access to the same risk information, but they use it differently. Enterprise risk synthesizes compliance data into strategic risk reporting for the C-suite, while compliance maintains detailed regulatory risk registers that require specialized interpretation.

 Compliance coordinates with enterprise risk without reporting through it. This distinction matters because regulators evaluate whether compliance has sufficient independence to challenge business decisions and escalate concerns directly to the board. A compliance function that reports exclusively through enterprise risk fails this independence test.

3. Integration of systems, not organizations:

 The teams should share technology platforms, risk taxonomies and reporting calendars. This integration enables efficient collaboration. However, organizational integration — making compliance a division within enterprise risk — compromises the independence that regulatory guidance requires and effective compliance programs demand.

Corporate compliance departments manage a critical subset of enterprise risk. These include bribery, antitrust, trade compliance, data privacy, modern slavery, conflict minerals and 

. The laws governing these areas carry severe consequences — fines in the billions and the imposition of corporate monitors for several years when companies act unethically.

This regulatory landscape has intensified. Beyond traditional compliance domains, organizations now face complex requirements around ESG disclosure (

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

 in the EU), AI governance and supply chain due diligence (

EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

These emerging areas demand specialized expertise that extends beyond general risk management capabilities.

"There needs to be collaboration between risk and the business, vertically up and down, but then also horizontally across the organization. It is absolutely essential — collaboration across risk departments. The problem is that there are silos. Risk and audit are interconnected and interdependent. Collaboration helps provide audit's perspective, their insight across company policies and procedures that help improve risk's function," says Michael Rasmussen, CEO of GRC Report.

Enterprise risk management can work effectively with the compliance function to ensure compliance risk is understood and appropriately addressed. Here are ten best practices to ensure smooth sailing.

, C-suite, enterprise risk management lead and chief compliance officer need alignment on risk appetite before implementing any controls. Risk appetite defines the organization's tolerance for risk — some companies embrace a "move fast" mentality while established enterprises maintain conservative approaches.

Defining risk appetite is critical for ensuring enterprise risk and compliance work with the same expectations. Strict compliance controls can slow business processes. For instance, comprehensive due diligence on high-risk third parties may delay important contracts. The board and C-suite must articulate the company's risk appetite, enabling enterprise risk and compliance functions to determine appropriate control stringency.

2. Compliance completes separate risk assessments

Globally, regulators expect companies to have compliance-specific risk assessments from which compliance programs are built. The

 instructs prosecutors to evaluate the effectiveness of the company's risk assessment and how the compliance program has been tailored based on that assessment. 

 requires bribery-related risk assessments to defend against strict liability offenses.

The compliance risk assessment should be separate from enterprise risk to conform to regulatory expectations. At a high level, compliance risks should appear on the enterprise-wide risk register. However, compliance should maintain a detailed risk register that feeds into the enterprise-wide one but includes specific details about risk and mitigation plans that require specialized compliance expertise to interpret and manage effectively.

3. Leverage AI and data analytics for continuous monitoring

Traditional periodic compliance reviews no longer satisfy regulatory expectations or business needs. Leading organizations implement AI-powered continuous monitoring that analyzes 100% of transactional data rather than relying on sampling methodologies.

 enables compliance teams to identify emerging patterns, detect anomalies in real time and respond proactively to potential violations before they escalate. This shift from periodic to continuous oversight represents a fundamental transformation in how enterprises manage compliance risk at scale.

4. Define clear ownership for cross-functional risks

Some risks necessarily span multiple functions. Managing modern slavery and human trafficking risk often involves compliance, 

 and procurement departments. Risks that bleed across departments must have a primary owner assigned. As the saying goes, the fastest way to starve a pet is to give everyone the responsibility to feed it.

Document these ownership arrangements explicitly. Create RACI matrices (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) that clarify who owns risk identification, assessment, mitigation and monitoring for each cross-functional compliance domain. Review and update these assignments annually as the organization evolves.

Guidance from regulators is clear: Compliance needs an independent relationship with the board. The DOJ specifically instructs prosecutors to assess whether compliance has direct access to the board of directors or the audit committee.

Allowing enterprise risk to report exclusively on compliance risk creates communication breakdowns. No matter how skilled the enterprise risk manager, the depth of knowledge required to explain compliance risk and risk-based approaches will be missing when filtered through another function.

Compliance should always have access to and be able to report to the board. This is critical in three instances:

When the company's compliance risk profile changes

: If the company expands into new regions or creates new product lines, new compliance risks emerge that require direct board briefing

When major compliance laws come into effect

: The compliance lead should report on new regulations and the implementation plan to address them

When significant investigations or allegations of misconduct occur

: Direct reporting ensures board oversight without delay or filtering

Many organizations now use dual reporting lines where compliance reports operationally to the CEO but functionally to the audit committee. This structure maintains independence for governance oversight while enabling effective operational coordination.

Beyond traditional compliance areas, organizations must now address:

: Implementing policies for responsible AI development, deployment and monitoring

: Managing increasingly complex sustainability reporting requirements across multiple jurisdictions

 compliance with broader enterprise risk frameworks

These emerging domains require the same rigorous risk assessment and independent oversight as traditional compliance areas. Yet many organizations struggle with this integration — particularly around AI governance.

 from Corporate Board Member and Diligent Institute, while 29% of companies report having comprehensive AI governance policies and another 38% are drafting them, 44% acknowledge their policies need refinement and 33% say they're entirely insufficient.

“Organizations leading the way in compliance are leveraging technology and procedural reviews not just to meet regulatory obligations but also to strengthen their overall risk posture,” says Kristy Grant-Hart, Vice President and Head of Advisory Services for Spark Compliance, a Diligent Brand. “When companies prioritize advanced compliance tools and ongoing risk assessments, they're better equipped to anticipate regulatory changes and minimize exposure to emerging risks.”

Organizations should conduct gap assessments to determine whether existing compliance structures adequately address these evolving requirements or whether specialized resources are needed.

7. Coordinate systematically with internal audit

It's impossible to know how the controls work without testing them. Enterprise risk and compliance should work with 

 to ensure perceived risks are explored and control failures are investigated. Compliance should champion and devise risk mitigation strategies while the internal audit team validates their implementation effectiveness.

This coordination requires regular communication and shared planning. Quarterly meetings between compliance, risk and audit leadership should review:

Upcoming compliance assessments and audit plans

Control deficiencies identified in recent audits

Emerging risks requiring new control frameworks

Technology implementations affecting risk and compliance monitoring

Enterprise risk can stay apprised of this progress while allowing compliance to be primarily responsible for such activity.

8. Implement unified GRC technology platforms

Siloed point solutions for risk, compliance and audit create integration challenges that undermine effective enterprise compliance risk management. Disparate systems lead to duplicative data entry, inconsistent reporting and gaps in oversight where risks fall between functional boundaries.

 platforms enable collaboration through shared data, standardized risk taxonomies and integrated workflows while maintaining functional independence through role-based access controls and distinct reporting structures. This technology architecture supports the organizational principle of integrated data with independent accountability.

Discover how integrated GRC platforms enable coordination between risk, compliance, and audit functions.

Transform your GRC approach

9. Build board-ready reporting capabilities

Effective enterprise compliance risk management requires reporting that provides boards with clear visibility into compliance risk without overwhelming them with operational details. 

Highlight material changes in the compliance risk profile

Visualize risk through heat maps and trend analysis

Demonstrate control effectiveness through key performance indicators

Provide clear action items when board decisions are required

Automated reporting capabilities reduce the time compliance teams spend compiling board materials while improving consistency and quality. Templates and dashboards should be configured to answer the questions boards actually ask rather than providing generic compliance status updates.

10. Develop metrics that demonstrate compliance program effectiveness

: How quickly potential violations are detected and remediated

: Not just attendance, but actual knowledge transfer

: Percentage of high-risk vendors subject to appropriate due diligence

: Trends in control effectiveness across compliance domains

: Reports received and how they're investigated

These metrics should inform continuous improvement efforts rather than serving solely as reporting statistics. Quarterly reviews of compliance metrics should drive discussions about resource allocation, program enhancements and emerging risk priorities.

How AI-powered GRC platforms transform enterprise risk and compliance management

For organizations managing complex regulatory requirements across global operations, integrated governance technology addresses the coordination and independence challenges documented throughout this guide.

 provides enterprise-grade risk management with AI-powered risk identification that benchmarks against 180,000+ real-world risks from SEC filings and 

The platform enables comprehensive risk orchestration across business units and geographies while maintaining clear accountability structures. FedRAMP authorization and DoD IL5 certification support organizations with stringent security and compliance requirements.

 through Diligent combines AI-powered compliance assistance with Regology's continuously updated regulation library. The AI compliance assistant analyzes regulatory changes, identifies key requirements and suggests mitigating controls — addressing the regulatory monitoring burden that enterprise compliance teams face across multiple jurisdictions.

 unifies these capabilities into a single GRC ecosystem, eliminating the integration challenges created by disparate point solutions. Board-ready reporting templates deliver consolidated views of risk and compliance to directors while maintaining the detailed audit trails that regulators expect.

Enterprise risk and compliance: 10 best practices to optimize the relationship

Organizations don’t fail because they take risks — they fail because they mismanage them. In a world where regulatory pressures are rising, 

 are evolving and corporate accountability is under a microscope, governance, risk management and compliance (GRC) can no longer be an afterthought.

Yet, many companies still rely on disjointed processes, outdated tools and fragmented reporting — leaving them vulnerable to oversight failures, inefficiencies and strategic missteps.

 explores the shifting GRC landscape and the advantages of a unified, technology-driven approach. It highlights how organizations can move beyond fragmented systems and manual processes to build a more proactive, data-driven GRC strategy.

Here, we summarize the key insights from the report and explore how organizations are leveraging the 

 to enhance risk and compliance management.

What defines the future of GRC and why integration has become business-critical

How fragmented GRC systems create blind spots in risk visibility and compliance

Why unified platforms deliver competitive advantages in strategy execution

How Diligent enables unified GRC for the future

The future of GRC centers on unified platforms that connect 

 functions into integrated workflows supported by artificial intelligence and real-time analytics.

This transformation replaces the siloed, reactive approaches that characterized traditional GRC with proactive, intelligence-driven oversight that aligns with strategic business objectives.

Recent data reveals the urgency: According to 

Diligent Institute's Q3 2025 GC Risk Index

, business risk levels surged to 7.9 out of 10, representing a 36% increase since the start of the year.

Diligent’s Transaction Readiness Report

 found that 60% of organizations maintain siloed or only partially integrated GRC and finance systems, with a mere 4% achieving full platform integration. These statistics spotlight why unified GRC is now critical for effective governance.

From reactive compliance to strategic enablement

Traditional GRC operated as a cost center focused primarily on regulatory compliance and audit preparation. Organizations implemented separate systems for each function, creating disconnected islands of risk information that prevented comprehensive enterprise visibility.

The future of GRC repositions these functions as strategic enablers. Unified platforms provide leadership with enterprise-wide risk intelligence that informs strategic decisions, identifies growth opportunities and prevents governance gaps that could derail transactions or damage stakeholder confidence.

 from Corporate Board Member, FTI Consulting and Diligent Institute, 76% of directors now prioritize growth opportunities, a sharp turnaround from recent years' focus on cost-cutting measures.

This strategic shift requires GRC infrastructure that accelerates rather than impedes business velocity.

"There needs to be collaboration between risk and the business, vertically up and down, but then also horizontally across the organization," says Michael Rasmussen, CEO of GRC Report. "The problem is there are silos."

These silos create dangerous blind spots. Organizations cannot effectively assess enterprise risk exposure when threat information remains trapped in departmental systems.

They struggle to demonstrate comprehensive compliance when control evidence lives in disconnected repositories. Additionally, they fail strategic objectives when governance processes operate independently from business operations.

The future of GRC eliminates these barriers through unified platforms that break down organizational silos and create single sources of truth for 

Real-time intelligence over periodic reporting

 and quarterly compliance updates no longer provide the velocity that business decisions require.

The future of GRC delivers real-time intelligence through continuous monitoring, automated alerts and dynamic dashboards that give stakeholders immediate visibility into emerging threats and compliance status changes.

This shift from periodic reporting to continuous intelligence fundamentally changes how boards and executive teams engage with GRC. Rather than reviewing historical summaries, they assess current conditions and predict future scenarios using AI-powered 

 that surface patterns human analysis might miss.

From siloed to strategic: A new era of GRC

Governance, risk and compliance have traditionally been treated as separate disciplines, each managed with its own systems, teams and reporting structures. This fragmented approach leads to blind spots, inefficiencies and increased risk exposure.

Connecting GRC vertically and horizontally

, highlights key pain points organizations face when GRC functions remain disconnected:

Limited visibility into enterprise-wide risks

Compliance gaps due to inconsistent data and reporting

Inefficiencies from manual workflows and redundant processes

Lack of alignment between governance, risk, and strategic priorities

To overcome these challenges, organizations must adopt a unified 

 — one that connects governance, risk and compliance in a holistic framework.

Key findings on the future of governance, risk and compliance

The report emphasizes that companies embracing an integrated GRC platform see measurable improvements in risk management, compliance efficiency and governance effectiveness.

Instead of reacting to risks as they arise, these organizations use real-time insights, automation, and cross-functional collaboration to anticipate challenges, drive smarter decisions and align GRC with the 

1. Breaking down barriers: Seamless integration & collaboration

One of the most significant barriers to effective GRC is organizational silos — where risk, compliance and audit teams operate in isolation, each relying on separate tools and datasets.

Technology plays a critical role in dismantling these silos. Platforms like Diligent One integrate seamlessly with existing workflows, eliminating manual data entry, reducing errors and ensuring real-time visibility across departments.

By connecting teams, automating processes and delivering real-time risk intelligence, organizations can proactively manage threats rather than react to them.

2. Scalability and adaptability: Future-proofing GRC

As regulatory landscapes shift and risks evolve, organizations need GRC solutions that scale and adapt over time. A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach no longer works.

 are designed for flexibility — allowing companies to customize their GRC framework to fit their unique needs. With modular capabilities spanning enterprise risk, audit, third-party risk, policy management and more, organizations can evolve their GRC strategy in lockstep with their growth.

Missed the Diligent AI Innovation Summit? Access expert sessions on-demand to discover how AI is transforming governance, risk and compliance.

See AI's impact on GRC firsthand

3. The value of a unified GRC platform: What organizations are achieving

The report highlights how companies that transition to a centralized, technology-driven GRC platform experience tangible benefits, including:

Proactive risk identification and prioritization — reducing surprises and crisis management

Increased compliance efficiency — minimizing regulatory penalties and audit failures

Significant time and resource savings — freeing teams for more strategic initiatives

Enhanced resilience and agility — adapting quickly to emerging threats

Greater accountability and transparency — ensuring governance aligns with business strategy

Streamlined reporting — delivering leadership with real-time, data-driven insights

 integrates governance, risk, audit, compliance and ESG functions on a single cloud-based infrastructure with 100+ third-party system connections, including Salesforce, SAP, Microsoft and Oracle.

AI capabilities embedded across the platform accelerate risk identification through benchmarking against 180,000+ real-world risks, automate regulatory monitoring and synthesize complex data into board-ready intelligence.

 delivers centralized enterprise risk management with Moody's benchmarking data, real-time dashboards and workflow automation. Organizations achieve significant cost savings versus manual management and FedRAMP and DoD IL5 authorization for stringent security requirements.

 provides AI-powered analytics and continuous assurance with integrated 

, enabling 100% data coverage rather than sample-based testing.

These solutions integrate on a unified platform, eliminating multiple vendors while enabling organizations to start with specific capabilities and expand as requirements evolve.

Client validation: Real-world GRC transformation

Organizations using the Diligent One Platform consistently praise its ability to unify GRC functions, enhance board-level engagement and integrate seamlessly with existing systems.

"Diligent was an incredible partner in our implementation. They were open to our ideas and customer needs, ensuring we could be working in the tool immediately," shared a Chief Risk Officer at a global financial institution.

Beyond technology capabilities, Diligent's customer support and commitment to continuous innovation differentiate the platform. Clients highlight enhancements like advanced risk quantification, operational resilience and improved internal reporting already in development pipelines — ensuring long-term value rather than static solutions.

Ready to see how unified GRC transforms governance, risk and compliance oversight? 

 to discover how Diligent's AI-powered platform modernizes GRC infrastructure while delivering the real-time intelligence your board needs.

GRC is no longer just a compliance issue — It’s a competitive advantage

The insights from Michael Rasmussen’s report make one thing clear: A fragmented approach to GRC is no longer sustainable.

Organizations that continue to rely on disconnected processes and manual workflows are exposing themselves to greater risks — not just compliance failures, but strategic misalignment and missed opportunities.

A unified, technology-driven GRC approach is now a business imperative — not just for regulatory compliance, but for resilience, agility, and long-term success. The question isn’t whether your organization needs an integrated GRC strategy — the question is, how quickly can you implement one?

To explore the full findings and insights, download the complete GRC 20/20 Analyst’s Report.

Get the full GRC 20/20 report

What are the biggest mistakes organizations make when modernizing GRC?

The most common failure is implementing technology without addressing organizational silos and change management.

Even the most sophisticated platform delivers limited value if teams continue working in isolation using old processes. Successful GRC modernization requires executive sponsorship, cross-functional alignment and clear communication about how new workflows change responsibilities.

Another critical mistake is underestimating data quality requirements. AI-powered platforms require clean, consistent data to generate reliable insights. Organizations should establish data governance standards, conduct data cleansing and implement validation procedures before deploying unified platforms.

How long does unified GRC implementation typically require?

Implementation timelines vary based on organizational complexity, existing system landscape and integration scope. Most organizations see value in three phases:

 (3-6 months): Core platform implementation, essential data migration and initial user training. Organizations typically focus on the highest-priority capability areas, achieving quick wins that demonstrate value and build stakeholder support for broader rollout.

 (6-12 months): Aligning GRC processes across functions, establishing common frameworks and building cross-functional workflows. This phase addresses organizational change management alongside technical implementation.

 (12-24 months): Embedding risk-aware decision-making throughout the organization and realizing complete strategic value from integration. Most organizations see measurable benefits within the first 6 months, even while working toward full transformation.

What innovations will shape GRC in 2026 and beyond?

Several emerging trends will define the next evolution of GRC platforms:

: AI algorithms that forecast risk likelihood and potential business impact based on historical patterns, enabling organizations to allocate resources proactively rather than reactively addressing issues after they arise.

: Conversational AI that allows stakeholders to query GRC data using plain language questions, eliminating the need for specialized platform training and democratizing access to risk intelligence across organizations.

: Deeper connections between GRC platforms and broader enterprise systems, including ERP, CRM and financial planning tools, creating unified data flows that inform strategic decisions.

: Evolution from periodic board reports to continuous stakeholder dashboards providing investors, regulators and other external parties with real-time visibility into governance effectiveness and risk management performance.

Organizations selecting unified GRC platforms today should evaluate whether vendors demonstrate commitment to innovation and have roadmaps addressing these emerging capabilities.

 and discover how unified GRC platforms deliver the integrated oversight capabilities your board demands.

The future of GRC: Why a unified approach is no longer optional

Ten insights shaping boards in the year ahead

Boards entered 2025 facing rising risk, economic volatility, and an urgent mandate to modernize oversight. At Diligent, we recently hosted the Elevate Leadership Summit, a by‑invitation gathering of corporate directors and executives alongside a curated set of experts, for confidential, Chatham House Rule-style discussions to dissect these issues and look to the future of corporate governance.

Diligent

Blog

Enterprise risk and compliance: 10 best practices to optimize the relationship

The future of GRC: Why a unified approach is no longer optional

Your Data Matters