How to Harmonize a Multi-Framework Security Compliance Program across SOC 2 ISO 27001 PCI DSS and More

# How to Harmonize a Multi-Framework Security Compliance Program across SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, and MoreSecurity teams across Europe are facing a growing challenge that's rarely discussed openly but universally acknowledged behind closed doors: the near-impossible task of managing multiple security frameworks simultaneously. Gone are the days when an organization could focus on a single standard like ISO 27001. Today's market demands and regulatory pressures push companies toward maintaining parallel compliance with SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, GDPR, NIS2, and more – often all at once.According to Forrester Research, the average enterprise now maintains compliance with 3.5 distinct security frameworks, up from 1.8 five years ago [1]. This proliferation isn't just a statistical curiosity. It creates genuine operational headaches, with security teams reporting that nearly 60% of their time disappears into compliance-related activities rather than addressing actual security improvements.## When Frameworks CollideThe complexity begins with a practical question that security leaders struggle to answer: how do you efficiently maintain compliance with SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, and GDPR without quadrupling your workload? Each framework speaks its own language and maintains its own structure, even while addressing fundamentally similar security principles.Most organizations tackle each framework as an independent project, creating separate documentation, control implementations, and evidence repositories. This approach might seem logical initially, but it rapidly creates an unsustainable workload that fragments security efforts.Research published by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) highlighted that siloed compliance approaches were the primary factor contributing to excessive resource allocation in regulated industries [2]. Organizations without unified compliance strategies spent 3 times more staff hours on compliance activities than those with harmonized approaches.This siloed approach leads to compliance activities consuming disproportionate resources. **Security engineers spend their days mapping controls between frameworks**. Risk managers struggle to maintain consistent risk assessments across different methodologies. Evidence collectors chase the same stakeholders for similar documentation, formatted slightly differently for each framework.Meanwhile, the people doing the actual security work – from system administrators to developers – face a barrage of seemingly contradictory requirements from different compliance teams. The inevitable result is compliance fatigue, where teams go through the motions without engaging meaningfully with the security objectives underlying the frameworks.## A Path Through the Compliance MazeThere's a better way. Forward-thinking organizations are implementing unified approaches to multi-framework compliance – harmonizing their programs to leverage the substantial overlaps between standards while efficiently addressing the genuine differences.The Cloud Security Alliance's research revealed organizations with harmonized compliance programs complete audits 40% faster than those using siloed approaches [3]. More importantly, these organizations report higher stakeholder satisfaction and improved security outcomes, suggesting harmonization delivers both efficiency and effectiveness.Developing a harmonized approach requires rethinking fundamental assumptions about how compliance programs operate. At its core, this transformation involves four key elements:### Building a Unified Control FrameworkThe foundation of any successful multi-framework program is a unified control framework – essentially a "master template" of security controls that maps to all relevant compliance requirements. This isn't a theoretical exercise but a practical tool that transforms how teams implement and measure security.Creating this framework begins with detailed analysis of each standard's requirements to identify overlaps and unique elements. Take access control, for instance. ISO 27001 addresses this in control A.9.4.1 (Information access restriction), SOC 2 covers it in CC6.1 (Manage points of access), and PCI DSS details it in Requirement 7.1 (Limit access to system components). Each approaches the same fundamental security concept from a slightly different angle.A unified framework might establish "Access Control Management" as a parent control, with sub-controls like User Registration and Privilege Management that satisfy requirements across all three frameworks. Where a framework has unique requirements – like PCI DSS's highly prescriptive password configurations – these become supplementary controls linked to the parent.The work involved in creating this mapping is substantial, but it delivers transformative results. **Security teams implement controls once instead of three times**. Stakeholders receive consistent guidance rather than contradictory requirements. And the organization gains a comprehensive view of its security posture rather than framework-specific snapshots.Research by the International Information System Security Certification Consortium (ISC)² found organizations with unified control frameworks reduce their total control count by 30-40% while maintaining or improving compliance coverage [4]. This reduction doesn't indicate less comprehensive security – rather, it reflects the elimination of redundancy and contradiction that plague siloed approaches.### Reimagining Evidence ManagementFor many security teams, evidence collection represents the most time-consuming aspect of compliance work. Each framework requires documentation proving controls operate effectively, and traditional approaches treat these as separate activities. The result? The same screenshots, configuration exports, and policy documents are collected repeatedly, formatted differently, and stored in separate repositories.A harmonized approach centralizes evidence management. This means establishing a single repository for compliance documentation and evidence, with clear links to the unified control framework. Evidence collected once serves multiple frameworks, drastically reducing the collection burden.Beyond simple centralization, effective evidence management requires standardized procedures. This includes consistent naming conventions, collection frequencies based on control type, and quality assurance processes. These seemingly bureaucratic elements deliver substantial efficiency gains by creating predictability and clarity for everyone involved in the compliance process.The European Banking Authority's financial technology survey found institutions with centralized evidence repositories spent 40% less time on compliance documentation than peers using framework-specific approaches [5]. More notably, they reported significantly higher audit pass rates, suggesting centralization improves not just efficiency but accuracy.### Transforming Governance StructuresTraditional compliance programs often establish separate governance structures for each framework – different steering committees, distinct escalation paths, and framework-specific reporting. This fragmentation creates confusion, competing priorities, and inefficient resource allocation.A harmonized approach establishes unified governance that addresses compliance holistically. This typically includes a cross-functional compliance committee with representatives from security, IT, legal, business units, and executive leadership. This committee sets priorities across frameworks, resolves conflicts, and ensures resources align with strategic objectives.An essential tool for this unified governance is an integrated compliance calendar that consolidates assessment timelines across frameworks. This calendar helps prevent "audit fatigue" by spacing assessments appropriately and identifying opportunities to combine evidence collection efforts. It also enables better alignment with business cycles to minimize operational disruption.According to the State of Cybersecurity report from ISACA, organizations that implemented consolidated governance structures for compliance reduced their audit preparation time by 35% while improving executive visibility into compliance status [6]. This improvement stems from clearer accountability, more consistent prioritization, and better resource allocation across compliance activities.### Leveraging Appropriate TechnologyTechnology platforms play a crucial role in enabling harmonized compliance programs. The right solutions provide built-in mappings between common frameworks, customizable control hierarchies, centralized evidence repositories, and integrated workflow management.The most valuable platforms automate evidence collection from connected systems, reducing the manual burden on security teams and improving accuracy. They also provide real-time visibility into compliance status across frameworks, enabling proactive management rather than reactive scrambling before assessments.The Ponemon Institute's Cost of Compliance study found organizations using dedicated compliance platforms completed certifications 50% faster than those relying on spreadsheets and shared drives [7]. More importantly, they achieved a 60% reduction in post-audit findings, suggesting technology-enabled approaches deliver more thorough compliance coverage.## Framework-Specific NuancesWhile harmonization creates significant efficiency, each framework maintains unique elements requiring specialized attention. Recognizing these distinctions prevents the common pitfall of oversimplification.**ISO 27001** functions as a management system standard, focusing heavily on risk assessment methodology, the Statement of Applicability, management review processes, and continual improvement documentation. A harmonized approach must maintain these process-oriented elements alongside the control implementations themselves.**SOC 2** centers on the trust service criteria with particular emphasis on clear system descriptions and boundaries, complementary user entity controls, and evidence covering the entire audit period. The distinction between point-in-time assessments (Type I) and period-of-time coverage (Type II) creates different evidence requirements that harmonized programs must accommodate.**PCI DSS** stands out for its highly prescriptive technical requirements, including specific technology implementations (like TLS versions and password requirements), defined testing procedures, and quarterly validation activities. These elements require integration into the unified control framework as supplementary requirements where they don't align with other frameworks.The **GDPR** and other privacy frameworks introduce requirements extending beyond traditional security controls, including data subject rights management, consent mechanisms, and cross-border transfer controls. Effective harmonization incorporates these privacy-specific elements while leveraging security controls that support privacy objectives.## From Theory to Practice: Implementation RealitiesTransforming from siloed to harmonized compliance doesn't happen overnight. Organizations that successfully make this transition typically follow a phased approach that delivers incremental benefits while managing change effectively.The journey typically begins with assessment and planning – inventorying current frameworks, performing initial control mapping analysis, identifying key stakeholders, and developing a harmonization strategy. This foundational phase usually takes one to three months and establishes the vision and metrics for success.The next phase focuses on building core capabilities – developing the unified control framework, establishing the centralized evidence repository, creating governance structures, and selecting enabling technologies. This foundation-building phase typically spans three to six months and lays the groundwork for operational transformation.With foundations in place, organizations move to progressive implementation – applying the unified framework to one or two frameworks initially, implementing evidence management processes, refining approaches based on experience, and training stakeholders. This implementation phase usually covers six to twelve months and delivers the first tangible efficiency gains.The final phase involves expansion and optimization – extending the harmonized approach to all frameworks, implementing advanced automation, establishing continuous improvement mechanisms, and measuring efficiency gains. This maturation continues indefinitely as the organization refines its approach and adapts to changing compliance requirements.The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) published an implementation study on harmonized compliance approaches across member states. The study found that organizations following structured implementation methodologies were 2.5 times more likely to achieve sustainable compliance programs than those pursuing ad hoc approaches [8]. More importantly, these structured programs showed significantly better resilience when facing new regulatory requirements.## Beyond Checkbox ComplianceThe multi-framework challenge isn't disappearing. If anything, regulatory requirements and customer expectations continue to increase, with frameworks like NIS2 and the EU AI Act adding to the compliance burden for European organizations. Those who develop harmonized approaches gain not just efficiency but strategic advantage in navigating this complex landscape.By implementing a unified control framework, centralizing evidence management, aligning governance structures, and leveraging appropriate technology, security teams can break free from endless documentation cycles. This shift allows them to focus on what matters most: improving actual security outcomes rather than simply satisfying auditor checklists.A harmonized compliance program transforms security frameworks from burdensome requirements into valuable tools that strengthen an organization's security posture while demonstrating trustworthiness to customers, partners, and regulators. It turns the compliance function from a cost center into a business enabler – accelerating certification timelines, reducing resource requirements, and improving security effectiveness.The choice facing security leaders is increasingly clear. Continue with fragmented, inefficient approaches that overwhelm teams and deliver questionable security value, or embrace harmonization to transform compliance from a necessary evil into a strategic advantage. For organizations serious about both security and operational efficiency, the path forward leads toward unification and integration rather than continued fragmentation.Are you struggling with managing multiple compliance frameworks? Kertos provides an all-in-one compliance automation platform that helps you implement, manage, and maintain compliance across frameworks like ISO 27001, SOC 2, GDPR, and NIS2. Our unified control framework approach can reduce your certification timeline by up to 80% while improving your overall security posture.## References[1] Forrester Research, "Security Compliance Benchmark Report," 2024, https://www.forrester.com/research/[2] European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), "Security Compliance Frameworks in Critical Infrastructure Sectors," 2023, https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/[3] Cloud Security Alliance, "State of Cloud Security Compliance," 2024, https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/research/[4] International Information System Security Certification Consortium (ISC)², "Cybersecurity Workforce Study," 2024, https://www.isc2.org/Research[5] European Banking Authority, "Financial Technology Risk Assessment," 2023, https://www.eba.europa.eu/risk-analysis-and-data[6] ISACA, "State of Cybersecurity 2024: Global Update on Workforce Efforts, Resources and Cyberoperations," 2024, https://www.isaca.org/resources/research[7] Ponemon Institute, "The True Cost of Compliance with Data Protection Regulations," 2024, https://www.ponemon.org/research/[8] European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), "Security Compliance Implementation Study," 2023, https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/*Note: Industry research statistics may come from reports requiring subscription access. General publication/research pages are linked where specific reports may not be freely available.*