Introduction: The Cyber Resilience Act Transforms GRC and Cybersecurity

In today’s digital landscape, cyberattacks are no longer exceptions — they’re part of everyday business risks. With the introduction of the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), the European Union is setting a groundbreaking global standard for the security of digital products and software. Companies now face the challenge of embedding cybersecurity deeply into their Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) frameworks.

This article explains what the CRA entails, the obligations businesses must meet, and how a smart, AI-powered compliance strategy can help mitigate risks while creating competitive advantages.

1. What Is the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)

The Cyber Resilience Act is the first EU-wide regulation mandating cybersecurity requirements for all “digital products” — including software, connected devices, and IoT applications. Its goal is to systematically reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen Europe’s resilience against cyber threats.

Key Elements of the CRA:

• Mandatory security by design & by default
• Continuous vulnerability management throughout the product lifecycle
• 24-hour incident notification obligations
• Conformity assessments for high-risk products
• Strict rules for incorporating open-source software in commercial offerings

The CRA complements existing regulations like the NIS2 Directive and supply chain laws, creating a direct link between product responsibility and IT security.

2. The Impact on Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC)

The CRA redefines cybersecurity responsibilities. It’s no longer just an IT issue — cybersecurity becomes a board-level priority and a core component of GRC strategies.

Governance:

• Establishing cybersecurity policies at the executive level
• Defining clear responsibilities for security processes and product oversight

Risk Management:

• Systematic identification of cyber risks across the entire value chain
• Evaluating third-party software and supply chain dependencies

Compliance:

• Developing compliance frameworks aligned with technical security mandates
• Documenting all actions to meet CRA requirements
• Preparing for audits and avoiding significant penalties

Failing to act now could result in heavy fines and severe reputational damage.

3. Leveraging AI-Powered Compliance to Meet CRA Requirements

The CRA’s complexity is undeniable — but modern technology offers effective solutions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can streamline GRC processes, making them more efficient, accurate, and resilient.

How AI Supports CRA Compliance:

• Automated Vulnerability Management:
  AI-driven tools detect security gaps in real time and prioritize remediation efforts.
• Predictive Risk Analytics:
  Machine learning forecasts future cyber threats, enabling proactive risk strategies.
• Documentation & Reporting:
  Natural Language Processing (NLP) automates compliance reports and ensures timely incident notifications.
• Supply Chain Monitoring:
  AI continuously scans third-party software for known vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE databases).

The Advantage: Companies integrating AI into their GRC strategies not only meet regulatory demands faster but also foster an agile security culture that anticipates threats rather than merely responding to them.

4. Best Practices for Successful CRA Implementation

1. Conduct an Early Gap Analysis:
   Identify where current processes align with CRA requirements and where improvements are needed.
2. Build Cross-Functional Teams:
   Foster collaboration between compliance, IT, product development, and legal departments.
3. Invest in Technology:
   Deploy AI-powered GRC tools to automate tasks and increase efficiency.
4. Raise Employee Awareness:
   Cybersecurity is a cultural issue — ongoing training is essential.
5. Align with Existing Regulations:
   Leverage synergies with NIS2, GDPR, and supply chain compliance to optimize resources.

Conclusion: Turning Cyber Resilience Into a Competitive Edge

The EU Cyber Resilience Act signals a new era where cybersecurity is a foundational pillar of Governance, Risk & Compliance. Companies that act strategically today — and embrace modern, AI-driven solutions — can transform regulatory obligations into opportunities for trust, security, and market leadership.

---

FAQ: EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)

What is the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)?
The CRA is an EU regulation introducing mandatory cybersecurity requirements for all digital products and software to enhance resilience against cyberattacks.

Who is affected by the CRA?
All businesses that manufacture, distribute, or use digital products or software within the EU — from startups to large enterprises, including importers and resellers.

What obligations does the CRA impose?
Companies must implement security by design, maintain continuous vulnerability management, and report security incidents within 24 hours.

When does the CRA come into effect?
The CRA is expected to take effect in 2025, with transition periods of up to 36 months for certain provisions.

How can AI help with CRA compliance?
AI tools automate vulnerability detection, enhance risk analysis, and simplify compliance documentation and reporting processes.

What are the penalties for non-compliance?
Fines of up to €15 million or 2.5% of global annual turnover — whichever is higher.

Data is a non-rival good. They can be consumed many times without the fear that the supply can be dwindled. The volume of data is growing perennially. It was estimated that 33 zettabytes of data were generated in the year of 2018, and it is expected to reach around 175 zettabytes in 2025. It is an under-exploited and tapped prospect. Research shows that 80% of industrial data is never used. With the aim to bolster a sturdy and fair data-driven economy as well as to guide the Digital transformation by 2030, the EU Commission on 23 February 2022 proposed harmonized rules on fair access to and use of data known as the Data Act. These rules will ensure that data generated by Internet of Things (IoT) devices are used and distributed fairly between the relevant actors, and clarify at the same time as to who can create value from data and under which conditions. By creating opportunities for different actors involved in creating and keeping data, to earn incentives, the EU is expecting to create EUR 270 billion of additional GDP by 2028.

The proposed Data Act

1. provisions to allow the users of connected devices to have access to data generated by them, which is mostly seen to be garnered by the manufacturers unilaterally, to share such data with third parties for the purpose of providing aftermarket and/or other data-driven innovative services. This will enable the manufacturers to invest in high-quality data generation and claim incentives for the transfer accordingly which will obviously exclude the use of shared data in direct competition with their product.
2. measures to allow SMEs to rebalance negotiation power by preventing them from the abuse of contractual imbalances in data-sharing contracts. SMEs are often found to be on the weaker side as regards data sharing contracts and/or pre-contractual negotiation of data sharing contracts. The Commission, in this regard, has vowed to draft and negotiate fair data-sharing contracts in order to eradicate intricacies and help such companies.
3. provisions to allow public sector bodies to access and use data that are held by private sector entities. This will help public sector entities to acquire data that are necessary for exceptional circumstances such as floods, wildfires, and pandemics, where it could sometimes be seen that the data are not otherwise available.
4. provisions that will allow the customers to effectively switch between different cloud data-processing service providers that will also put the necessary protections in place for the customers against any unlawful data transfer.

The Data Act will enable consumers and businesses to have access to the data of their devices to use it for aftermarket and value-added services such as predictive maintenance which will be a great help for consumers such as farmers, airlines, or construction companies in taking better decisions for buying higher quality or more sustainable products and services especially to contribute to the Green Deal objectives. By virtue of this legislation, Business and industrial players will be predisposed towards having more data available and thus be able to benefit from a competitive data market.

Aftermarket service is one of the most crucial mentions of the Act. Aftermarket service providers, by dint of this Act, will be able to provide more personalized services and make them able to compete on an equal footing with other manufacturers or service providers who provide equivalent services. This Act, without a doubt, will create many economic opportunities for consumers, businesses, public sector entities, and private sector entities.

What this means

As Thierry Breton, Commissioner for Internal Market stated:

“It is an important step in unlocking a wealth of industrial data in Europe, benefitting businesses, consumers, public services, and society as a whole. So far, only a small part of industrial data is used and the potential for growth and innovation is enormous. The Data Act will ensure that industrial data is shared, stored, and processed in full respect of European rules. It will form the cornerstone of a strong, innovative, and sovereign European digital economy.”

GDPR and the EU view on privacy

The enactment of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has elevated the significance of personal data protection for institutions operating in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Global tech companies like Meta Platforms Inc. (Meta), Google, and Microsoft have faced heightened scrutiny in this regard. Meta and the EU have recently engaged in a diplomatic dispute over data protection issues affecting EU citizens. Meta has threatened to withdraw Facebook and Instagram from the EU unless data transfers to the US can continue, as negotiations are underway to replace the invalidated transatlantic data transfer pact.

Though it would be wrong to say that personal data protection issues were not stressed before the enactment of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); however, ever since the advent of GDPR, the matter of data protection has been at the heart of importance for institutions whose activities involve keeping and/or sharing personal data in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere. It has been a superlative concern, particularly for major global tech companies such as Meta Platforms Inc. (Meta), Google, Microsoft etc.

Meta and the EU, in recent times, have been in a diplomatic brawl over the issues of data protection of EU citizens. Both Meta and the EU seem to be very bellicose in their approach which is indeed not a good thing for the overall U.S.-EU relationship and of course for the millions of Facebook and Instagram users in the EU.

META and the US view on privacy

Meta has warned to pull Facebook and Instagram from the EU if it cannot keep transferring data of the EU users back to the U.S. while negotiations are ongoing between the regulators to substitute the transatlantic data transfer pact that was struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in July 2020 in a case known as ‘Schrems II’ brought by an Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems, who complained that the Facebook data contract clauses do not provide adequate protection to the Europeans from the government inspection and monitoring in the U.S. The CJEU has categorically stated that it is impossible to ensure that the data of the EU citizens are adequately protected once they enter the U.S. According to some experts and renowned journalists such a decision will have a significant implication on the U.S. companies and the U.S. Congress, since it calls the adequacy of privacy protection in the United States into question.

Meta said in its annual report published on 3 February 2022, “If a new transatlantic data transfer framework is not adopted and we are unable to continue to rely on SCCs (standard contractual clauses) or rely upon other alternative means of data transfers from Europe to the United States, we will likely be unable to offer a number of our most significant products and services, including Facebook and Instagram, in Europe, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”

However, in an emailed statement a Meta spokesperson said, “We have absolutely no desire and no plans to withdraw from Europe, but the simple reality is that Meta, and many other businesses, organizations, and services rely on data transfers between the EU and the U.S. in order to operate global services.”

Conflicting views

Reactions are also coming from the EU counterparts with the same kind of pugnaciousness. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said that “digital giants must understand that the European continent will resist and affirm its sovereignty.”

A German Minister said, “Life has been fantastic without Facebook and Twitter.”

A European lawmaker said, “Meta cannot just blackmail the EU into giving up its data protection standards.” A counterargument can, however, be made that, are the U.S. data protection law standards not compatible with that of its EU counterpart. But frankly speaking, such conversational jousts will bring favorable outcomes for either of the parties.

Following these skirmish statements from both sides, Meta has already seen their shares fell as much as 4.5% in trading in New York earlier this month.

A meek statement has been put forward by a spokesperson of the European Commission who said, “Only an arrangement that is fully compliant with the requirements set by the EU court can deliver the stability and legal certainty stakeholders expect on both sides of the Atlantic.” The question therefore arises, is the ball in the court of the CJEU?

Closing thoughts

On a different note, while both sides are making aggressive statements over the shutting down of Facebook and Instagram in the EU, are they keeping the millions of Facebook and Instagram users in the EU into consideration, for whom using these social media has essentially become an inextricable part of their lifestyle, education, work and, professional activities? While we are concentrating outright on the legal aspects of personal data protection and rightly so, are we not advertently/inadvertently averting our eyes from the rights of the individuals to make personal choices? All we know today, the last word has not been spoken yet..