As you add frameworks — ISO 27001, SOC 2, DPDP, HIPAA, PCI DSS — running them separately wastes effort and creates blind spots. Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) unifies them into one programme: a single control set, one risk register, and continuous evidence. Invitty builds and runs your GRC programme so compliance becomes a capability, not a fire drill.
What Our GRC Programme Covers
- Governance — policies, roles, responsibilities and board/management reporting.
- Risk management — a living risk register with assessment, treatment and acceptance, aligned to ISO 27005.
- Unified control framework — one set of controls mapped across ISO 27001, SOC 2, DPDP, HIPAA and PCI DSS — implement once, comply many times.
- Vendor & third-party risk — assess and monitor your supply chain.
- Continuous compliance & audits — internal audits, management review and audit coordination.
- GRC automation — Vanta, Drata, Sprinto and similar platforms for evidence and continuous monitoring.
Compliance as a Service
- Fractional compliance leadership — a virtual compliance/security officer without a full-time hire.
- One roadmap, many frameworks — sequence certifications efficiently and reuse evidence.
- Audit-ready year-round — dashboards and continuous monitoring so you are never scrambling before an audit.
Why a Unified GRC Programme
Most controls overlap across frameworks. By implementing a single, well-governed control set and automating evidence, you cut duplicate work, reduce audit cost, and give leadership a clear view of risk and compliance across the business — anywhere in India.
Risk & governance platforms we supply
One control set, several frameworks
Organisations pursuing more than one framework usually discover they are evidencing the same controls repeatedly for different audiences. The overlap between ISO 27001, SOC 2, PCI DSS, HIPAA and DPDPA is substantial — access control and review, logging and monitoring, change management, vendor and third-party oversight, incident response, encryption, backup and recovery, and awareness training appear in all of them in some form.
The efficient structure is a single internal control set that your frameworks map onto, rather than a separate programme per framework. A quarterly access review is performed once and satisfies several requirements at once; the evidence is produced once and presented in whichever format each assessor expects. What changes between frameworks is largely the vocabulary, the depth of evidence and who is entitled to ask for it.
The practical difference is visible in the second year. A mapped programme absorbs a new framework by identifying the handful of genuinely additional controls. An unmapped one starts again, which is why compliance cost tends to grow in proportion to the number of frameworks rather than flattening as it should.
Evidence is the actual work
Most compliance programmes do not fail on policy. They fail on evidence, because a control that operates without leaving a trace cannot be shown to have operated at all.
- Every control needs a named owner. Not a department. A person, who knows the control is theirs and what they produce each cycle.
- Evidence should be a by-product of doing the work — a ticket, a log, an approval record, a signed review — generated when the control runs rather than reconstructed afterwards.
- Dates are examined. A folder of screenshots all captured the week before an assessment demonstrates that evidence was collected, not that the control operated through the period.
- Exceptions need recording, not hiding. A documented, approved, time-bound exception is a functioning programme. An undocumented one found by an assessor is a finding about your governance rather than about the control.
- Gaps are better raised internally. Nothing is cheaper than a gap you found yourself, and an internal audit that never finds anything is not reassuring.
This is the unglamorous half of compliance, and it is the half that determines whether an assessment is a review or a scramble.