SUSAN helps organizations map ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and the EU AI Act into one unified compliance model through the GCT (Global Compliance & Trust) module which includes the Unified Privacy Module for mapping GDPR, DPDP, CCPA, UAE PDPL and other privacy frameworks supported by reusable evidence and audit-ready governance workflows.
Instead of managing five separate compliance programs, teams can maintain one harmonized obligation set, map each obligation to multiple frameworks, track gaps in one view and reuse evidence across audits. This reduces duplicated work, improves ownership and gives leadership clearer visibility across security, privacy, operational resilience and AI governance.
Executive Summary
Most organizations no longer answer to a single regulation. They must satisfy ISO 27001 for information security, GDPR and India’s DPDP Act for data protection, DORA for operational resilience, and the EU AI Act for trustworthy AI often at the same time. Managed separately, these frameworks create duplicated effort, conflicting evidence, and fragmented audits.
The SUSAN GRC Platform addresses this through the GCT (Global Compliance & Trust) module, which maps all five frameworks into a single unified compliance model. Within the GCT module, the Unified Privacy Module specifically maps privacy regulations including GDPR, DPDP, CCPA, UAE PDPL and others into one cohesive privacy obligation set. Together, these capabilities allow an organization to implement a requirement once and demonstrate compliance across every framework that requires it.
The Problem: Framework Overload
Each new regulation typically arrives with its own project, its own spreadsheet, its own owner, and its own audit. The result is “framework overload,” where the same underlying obligation such as access management or incident response is documented several times in slightly different language for several different auditors.
This creates real costs:
- The same evidence is collected repeatedly for different frameworks.
- Obligations are duplicated, and updates in one place are missed in another.
- Audits overlap, consuming the same teams multiple times a year.
- Gaps appear between frameworks because no one owns the overlap.
- Leadership cannot see a single, reliable picture of compliance posture.
The deeper issue is that these frameworks are treated as unrelated, when in practice they share a large common core.
Why a Unified Compliance Model Matters
ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA, and the EU AI Act differ in scope and intent, but they ask for many of the same things: govern risk, secure data, manage third parties, respond to incidents, and keep auditable evidence. A unified compliance model recognizes that overlap and manages it once.
The benefit is “implement once, comply many.” Instead of maintaining five parallel programs, an organization maintains one set of harmonized obligations each mapped to every framework it satisfies. Evidence is collected a single time and reused across audits. Coverage and gaps become visible in one view rather than scattered across documents.
The benefit is “control once, comply many.” Instead of maintaining five parallel programs, an organization maintains one set of harmonized controls, each mapped to every obligation it satisfies. Evidence is collected a single time and reused across audits. Coverage and gaps become visible in one view rather than scattered across documents.
ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and EU AI Act at a Glance
ISO 27001 is the international standard for an Information Security Management System (ISMS). It is risk-based and centers on governance, a defined set of security obligations, and continual improvement. It is the natural backbone for a unified model because its structure already resembles a general-purpose obligation library.
GDPR is the EU’s data protection regulation. It governs how personal data is processed, establishes data subject rights such as access and erasure, and requires accountability, lawful basis, security of processing, breach notification, and data protection impact assessments.
DPDP Act is India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act. It defines obligations for Data Fiduciaries and rights for Data Principals, with a strong emphasis on valid consent, consent records and withdrawal, notice, and reasonable security safeguards.
DORA is the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act for the financial sector. It focuses on ICT risk management, incident reporting, operational resilience testing, and oversight of third-party ICT providers, ensuring firms can withstand and recover from disruption.
EU AI Act is the EU’s risk-based regulation for artificial intelligence. It classifies AI systems by risk, prohibits certain uses, and places obligations on high-risk systems, including risk management, data governance, technical documentation, human oversight, transparency, accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity.
How SUSAN's Unified Model Works
GCT (Global Compliance & Trust) Module
The unification across ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and the EU AI Act rests on SUSAN’s GCT module. Many frameworks share the same expectations across access management, incident response, data protection, governance, and vendor oversight. The GCT module connects these shared requirements, mapping each obligation to every framework it satisfies and letting a single piece of evidence serve several regulations.
For example, access management evidence can support ISO 27001, GDPR, and DPDP simultaneously, while incident response evidence can support ISO 27001, DORA, and GDPR at once. Teams map obligations to frameworks, reuse evidence, and see where gaps remain moving compliance from point-in-time checks to Continuous Assurance.
Unified Privacy Module
For privacy-specific obligations, the GCT module includes the Unified Privacy Module, which maps GDPR, DPDP, CCPA, UAE PDPL and other privacy regulations into one cohesive privacy obligation set. Rather than maintaining separate programs for each privacy law, organizations maintain a unified privacy obligation view within the GCT module. Framework-specific requirements such as DPDP’s consent withdrawal rules or CCPA’s opt-out rights are clearly flagged and tracked alongside the shared privacy obligations, so nothing is lost.
Where the frameworks overlap
The unified model is possible because these frameworks converge on a shared set of obligation domains. The intent and wording differ, but the underlying requirement is the same.
| Obligation Domain | ISO 27001 | GDPR | DPDP | DORA | EU AI Act |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance & accountability | ISMS, leadership, documented information | Accountability, records of processing, DPO | Data Fiduciary accountability, consent records | Management body responsibility | Quality management system, technical documentation |
| Risk management | Risk assessment and treatment | Data protection impact assessment, DPIA | Reasonable security obligations | ICT risk management framework | Risk management system for high-risk AI |
| Security & access management | Annex A security obligations | Security of processing | Reasonable security safeguards | ICT protection and prevention | Accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity |
| Incident & breach response | Incident management obligations | Personal data breach notification | Breach notification duties | ICT-related incident reporting | Serious incident reporting |
| Third-party risk | Supplier relationship obligations | Processor obligations and contracts | Data Processor engagement | ICT third-party risk oversight | Obligations across the AI value chain |
Example: One Obligation, Five Frameworks
Consider a single requirement: restrict and monitor access to systems holding personal and sensitive data.
Implemented once with identity and access management, role-based access, and access logging this obligation simultaneously supports:
- ISO 27001 access management
- GDPR security of processing
- DPDP reasonable security safeguards
- DORA ICT protection
- EU AI Act cybersecurity for high-risk systems
In the unified model, the organization implements and evidence this a single time, and SUSAN’s GCT module maps that evidence to all five frameworks.
Benefits of a Unified Compliance Model
Less duplication: obligations and evidence are maintained once, not per framework.
Faster audits: shared evidence and crosswalks shorten audit cycles.
Fewer gaps: overlaps are owned and visible rather than falling between programs.
Clearer posture: leadership sees one view across security, privacy, resilience, and AI.
Easier expansion: new regulations map onto existing obligations instead of new silos.
Unified Compliance Checklist for GRC Teams
Organizations building a unified compliance model across ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and the EU AI Act should validate the following:
- Establish one unified obligation set through the GCT module instead of separate lists for each framework.
- Map each obligation to all applicable framework requirements.
- Use the Unified Privacy Module within the GCT module to consolidate GDPR, DPDP, CCPA, UAE PDPL and other privacy obligations in one view.
- Identify framework-specific requirements that cannot be covered by shared obligations.
- Assign obligation owners across security, privacy, resilience, AI governance and compliance teams.
- Link each obligation to reusable evidence.
- Track evidence freshness, owner, review date and audit status.
- Maintain risk assessments for cybersecurity, privacy, operational resilience and AI governance.
- Connect incident response evidence to ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP and DORA obligations where applicable.
- Map third-party risk evidence to supplier, processor, ICT provider and AI value-chain requirements.
- Use dashboards to show gaps, remediation status and obligation coverage.
- Review new regulations against the existing unified model before creating new compliance silos.
- Maintain audit-ready evidence for leadership, internal audit, customers and regulators.
How ServQual and SUSAN Help
Mapping ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and the EU AI Act into one model requires more than a spreadsheet crosswalk. Organizations need governance, risk management, evidence tracking, remediation ownership and continuous assurance.
ServQual helps organizations strengthen cybersecurity, privacy, GRC, operational resilience, Secure by Design, Privacy by Design, incident response and audit readiness. SUSAN bridges the gap between governance and execution through the GCT (Global Compliance & Trust) module, which connects obligations from ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and the EU AI Act into a single unified compliance model with framework mapping, evidence reuse, gap tracking and audit-ready reporting. The GCT module includes the Unified Privacy Module, which maps GDPR, DPDP, CCPA, UAE PDPL and other privacy regulations into one cohesive privacy obligation view, clearly surfacing both shared and framework-specific requirements.
With SUSAN, organizations can:
- Map ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and EU AI Act obligations through the GCT module
- Consolidate privacy framework obligations through the Unified Privacy Module within GCT
- Maintain one harmonized obligation set
- Reuse evidence across multiple frameworks
- Identify framework-specific gaps
- Track remediation ownership
- Support audit-ready reporting
- Improve leadership visibility across security, privacy, resilience and AI governance
- Move from point-in-time compliance reviews to continuous assurance
Explore SUSAN: https://srql.com/services/susan/
Explore SUSAN Global Compliance & Trust: https://srql.com/services/susan-global-compliance-trust/
Explore SUSAN Unified GRC Dashboard: https://srql.com/services/susan-unified-grc-dashboard/
Explore SUSAN Continuous Monitoring & Evidence: https://srql.com/services/susan-continuous-monitoring-evidence/
Explore Governance, Risk, Compliance & Audits: https://srql.com/services/governance-risk-compliance-audits/
"A unified compliance model turns framework overload into reusable evidence."
Vaishnavi Pawar
Security Researcher | ServQual
FAQ
Most frequent questions and answers
Because the frameworks share a large common core. Managing them separately duplicates controls, evidence, and audits. A unified model maintains the shared controls once and maps each to every obligation it satisfies.
Yes. Governance, risk management, security and access control, incident response, and third-party risk appear in all five, expressed in different regulatory language. The unified model manages each shared theme once.
No. Each framework retains its unique obligations. The model harmonizes the common controls and clearly flags the requirements that are specific to a single framework, so nothing is lost.
Evidence is collected once and reused, and crosswalks show which obligations a control satisfies. This reduces repeated evidence requests and shortens overlapping audit cycles.
A new framework is mapped against the existing common control set. Controls that already exist are reused, and only the genuinely new obligations are added, rather than launching a separate program.
A unified compliance model is a governance approach where overlapping requirements from multiple frameworks are mapped to one common control set. This allows teams to manage shared controls once and reuse evidence across audits.
Reusable evidence reduces audit effort by allowing one approved evidence record to support multiple framework obligations. For example, access control evidence may support ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and EU AI Act requirements when mapped correctly.
Unify Compliance Across Frameworks
Compliance complexity grows with every new regulation, but many underlying controls repeat across security, privacy, resilience and AI governance.
ServQual helps organizations strengthen governance, risk, compliance, audit readiness and control evidence across multiple frameworks. Explore SUSAN or contact ServQual to map ISO 27001, GDPR, DPDP, DORA and EU AI Act obligations into shared controls, reusable evidence and one continuous assurance view.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal or compliance advice. Obligations under ISO 27001, GDPR, the DPDP Act, DORA, the EU AI Act, and other frameworks vary by sector, jurisdiction, and risk profile, and mapping controls across frameworks does not guarantee compliance with any one of them. Organizations should seek qualified legal and privacy guidance before acting on this content. ServQual and SUSAN support compliance and audit readiness but do not guarantee any specific regulatory outcome.
