Regulatory & ESG Compliance in Third Party Risk for 2025
Quick Summary
This blog provides a deep dive into how organizations can stay ahead of regulatory and ESG compliance in third-party risk management (TPRM) for 2025. It explores the expanding role of AI, the evolving global regulatory environment, and the increasing demand for supply chain transparency. You’ll learn how to build a proactive, tech-enabled TPRM program that meets complex compliance needs and drives business resilience.
Jump directly to your favourite topic:
2025 Regulatory Shifts Impacting TPRM
The year 2025 marks a pivotal moment for third-party risk management (TPRM), characterized by a significant tightening of regulatory frameworks and an unprecedented surge in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) demands. As organizations increasingly rely on a complex web of external vendors, partners, and cloud service providers for critical operations, they face a dual challenge: leveraging opportunities while meticulously managing escalating compliance risks. This heightened reliance inherently expands the attack surface and introduces new vulnerabilities, particularly concerning cybersecurity threats and potential service outages. The traditional view of TPRM as a peripheral IT concern is rapidly dissolving; it is now recognized as an enterprise-wide responsibility demanding a collaborative, integrated approach across all business functions.
While cybersecurity threats and service outages are prominent concerns arising from third-party vendors, the scope of risk management has broadened considerably. Continuous monitoring now encompasses multiple domains cyber, operational, reputational, ESG, and financial making it standard practice. This implies that a failure in one area, such as a third-party cyber breach, can trigger a cascading effect, impacting operational continuity, reputational standing, and potentially revealing underlying ESG compliance deficiencies related to data privacy. This interconnectedness necessitates a holistic, integrated third-party risk management framework. Such a framework must be capable of identifying, assessing, and mitigating these interconnected risks effectively. This calls for robust cross-functional collaboration and the implementation of centralized risk reporting mechanisms to offer a unified, comprehensive view of risk across the entire extended enterprise, which is vital for building true organizational resilience.
This report will provide a forward-looking perspective on the critical regulatory and ESG compliance challenges and opportunities in third-party risk for 2025, offering actionable strategies to transform these complexities into sustainable growth and success.
The Evolving Regulatory Landscape: A Global Perspective for 2025
The year 2025 is poised to be a landmark for regulatory compliance, with numerous new laws coming into full effect and existing frameworks seeing stricter enforcement across various sectors. Businesses must navigate a dynamic environment where regulatory scrutiny of third-party relationships is intensifying globally.
Financial Services Under Scrutiny
FINRA has significantly elevated third-party risk management, dedicating an entirely new category to it in its 2025 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report.1 This underscores the critical and growing risks associated with third-party vendor relationships, particularly cybersecurity threats and service outages. The report reinforces firms’ supervisory obligations under FINRA Rules 3110 (Supervision) and 4370 (Business Continuity Planning), as well as broader requirements like Regulation S-P (Customer Information Protection), which now mandates oversight and timely notification (within 72 hours) of service provider incidents.
The FINRA guidance offers a clear roadmap for improvement, highlighting areas where firms have fallen short in examinations. Key compliance considerations from FINRA include strengthening vendor oversight through comprehensive third-party risk management policies, enhancing incident response planning by involving third-party vendors in cybersecurity and incident response testing, and addressing fourth-party risks by assessing vendors’ use of subcontractors and ensuring contractual safeguards.1 Furthermore, FINRA emphasizes adapting to emerging risks, specifically evaluating vendors’ use of Generative AI (Gen AI), adjusting contracts to prohibit unauthorized data ingestion into open-source AI models, and reviewing AI-powered tools for recordkeeping and supervisory compliance.
FINRA advises proactive measures for financial institutions such as reviewing and updating vendor contracts to include specific cybersecurity, data protection, and termination provisions. It also recommends implementing strong due diligence protocols with regular security and operational reliability assessments, enhancing internal training and supervision, and maintaining a centralized inventory of all third-party and fourth-party relationships for better risk monitoring.
Beyond FINRA, broader supervisory expectations are emerging across Europe. The EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), applicable as of January 17, 2025, is a critical regulation mandating rigorous vendor risk assessments, comprehensive exit strategies, and audits of critical ICT services for financial institutions.2 This regulation pushes for a proactive approach to operational resilience across the digital supply chain. The European Banking Authority (EBA) launched a public consultation on draft Guidelines for the sound management of non-ICT related third-party risk, revising its 2019 outsourcing guidelines to align with DORA. The consultation runs until October 8, 2025, with a two-year transitional period for financial entities to review and amend existing arrangements, indicating a concerted effort to harmonize and strengthen third-party risk management across the EU financial sector.7 Additionally, on June 12, 2025, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published non-binding principles on third-party risk supervision, addressing the growing risks observed from outsourcing and delegation.8 These principles provide a common supervisory basis for national competent authorities and ESMA, signaling increased scrutiny.
In the EU financial sector, DORA and the EBA’s revised guidelines demonstrate a clear trend towards harmonized and comprehensive digital operational resilience standards. This aims to create a consistent regulatory environment across member states. This contrasts sharply with the US data privacy landscape, where fragmentation is more prevalent. Companies operating internationally or across multiple US states thus face a significant dual challenge. They must invest in understanding and implementing comprehensive, harmonized frameworks in regions like the EU, while simultaneously developing agile and adaptable compliance programs to navigate the disparate, sometimes overlapping, and often inconsistent requirements of individual US states. This often necessitates adopting a “most stringent” approach to data handling and privacy by default, as well as leveraging technology to manage the complexity of multiple compliance frameworks.
Regulators are increasingly demanding that organizations demonstrate robust, continuous oversight, scenario testing, and pre-defined contingency plans for their third-party relationships. FINRA’s 2025 report explicitly moves beyond merely listing rules, instead reinforcing supervisory obligations and highlighting past shortcomings while providing a roadmap for improvement.1 Similarly, DORA mandates exit strategies and critical ICT service audits, pushing organizations to plan for contingencies before incidents occur. The EBA guidelines also focus on the entire lifecycle of third-party arrangements, emphasizing continuous oversight.7 This shifts the compliance burden from merely reacting to incidents to proactively proving resilience and preparedness. Firms are expected to build inherently resilient systems and processes, rather than just having a plan for when things go wrong. This proactive stance requires deeper due diligence, continuous monitoring, and integrated incident response capabilities.
While the FDIC reported that 98% of supervised institutions maintained satisfactory consumer compliance programs in 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has continued to issue significant enforcement actions in late 2024 and early 2025. These actions have targeted major entities like Equifax, Block, Inc. (Cash App), and a consortium of banks (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo) regarding the Zelle network, often citing failures to safeguard consumer information and prevent fraud involving third-party networks.11 This highlights that despite generally good compliance ratings, specific, large-scale third-party related failures are still leading to significant regulatory penalties.
Data Privacy’s New Frontier
The year 2025 marks a significant expansion of data privacy laws across various US states, creating a complex and fragmented regulatory environment. Key requirements emerging across these new state laws directly impact third-party data handling. Many states, including Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Tennessee, mandate the implementation of universal opt-out mechanisms (e.g., Global Privacy Control) for data sales and/or targeted advertising, often with specific deadlines in 2025 or 2026. This requires businesses to ensure their third-party partners honor these consumer preferences.
Furthermore, Delaware’s DPDPA, for instance, explicitly mandates disclosure of third-party data recipients in response to access requests. High-risk processing activities, including those involving third parties, require data protection assessments in states like Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Maryland’s MODPA specifically requires risk assessments for AI/ML systems impacting privacy, a critical consideration given the increasing use of AI by third-party vendors. Additionally, Nebraska and Tennessee mandate opt-in consent for sensitive data processing.
The proliferation of these state laws necessitates robust vendor contracts that clearly define data handling responsibilities, strict adherence to opt-out requests, and continuous monitoring of third-party privacy practices. Organizations are expected to adopt security and compliance platforms that centralize third-party risk assessments and compliance monitoring to maintain a comprehensive view of their supply chain and ensure partners adhere to required privacy standards.9
FINRA’s guidance specifically addresses Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Considerations, including the need to evaluate vendor use of Gen AI, adjust contracts to prohibit unauthorized data ingestion, and ensure AI-powered tools comply with recordkeeping. Concurrently, Maryland’s MODPA requires risk assessments for AI/ML systems impacting privacy. This demonstrates that regulators are keenly aware of the new risks introduced by AI. At the same time, AI is predicted to drive predictive insights and streamline processes in TPRM, automating risk assessments and helping organizations prioritize data privacy. AI thus presents a complex challenge and opportunity for TPRM. While it offers powerful capabilities for automating and enhancing risk management processes, its adoption by third parties or within an organization introduces new, complex compliance and privacy risks, such as data security, bias, transparency, and explainability. Organizations must develop comprehensive AI strategies that not only leverage AI for their own compliance efforts but also meticulously govern and audit how their third-party vendors utilize AI, particularly concerning sensitive data and ethical considerations. This requires explicit contractual clauses and ongoing monitoring of AI-related risks.
ESG Compliance: From Niche to Core in Third-Party Risk
In 2025, ESG considerations have definitively moved from voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives to mandatory, regulated components of third-party risk management. This shift is driven by a confluence of evolving regulations, mounting pressure from investors and communities, and a growing recognition that sustainability and ethical practices are fundamental to long-term business resilience.
European Directives Driving Supply Chain Due Diligence
The sheer volume and specificity of new EU regulations explicitly target supply chain due diligence for human rights, environmental impacts (like deforestation), and forced labor. This demonstrates a clear global regulatory trend: corporate accountability no longer stops at direct operations but extends across the entire value chain, including subcontractors and suppliers’ suppliers (fourth parties). This means companies must significantly expand their ESG compliance efforts beyond their immediate internal practices, requiring unprecedented visibility deep into their third-party ecosystems. It necessitates robust supply chain mapping, continuous due diligence on all tiers of suppliers, and the implementation of strong contractual clauses that mandate ESG adherence. The focus shifts to ensuring ethical and sustainable practices throughout the entire product lifecycle and service delivery chain, making supply chain integrity a core business imperative.
CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive)
Adopted by the EU in 2024, the CSDDD mandates large companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations, those of their subsidiaries, and across their “chains of activities,” which explicitly includes business partners. Companies must integrate due diligence into policies, identify actual and potential impacts, prevent or mitigate them, establish and maintain complaint procedures, monitor effectiveness, and publicly communicate on their due diligence efforts. The directive applies to EU and non-EU companies meeting specific employee and turnover thresholds, with phased application dates from 2027 to 2029. Recent proposed changes (the “Omnibus” package in February 2025) suggest limiting due diligence obligations primarily to direct (Tier 1) suppliers, unless there’s a reason to suspect risks further down the supply chain. CSDDD necessitates deep assessment of supply chains for human rights and environmental risks, development/updating of due diligence policies, active engagement with suppliers, and robust mechanisms for monitoring and reporting.
EUDR (EU Deforestation Regulation)
The EUDR introduces a ban on placing “relevant commodities” (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soya, wood) and derived products on the EU market or exporting them unless they are “deforestation-free,” produced legally, and covered by a due diligence statement. Companies must exercise due diligence, including risk assessment, risk mitigation, and documentation. They must submit a Due Diligence Statement (DDS) to the EU’s Information System, providing details on product origin and geolocation. Strict record-keeping (5 years) and public reporting for non-SME operators are also mandated. Traceability is paramount, requiring segregation of compliant products and prohibiting mass balance systems. After a 12-month deferral, the EUDR is set to apply from December 30, 2025. The Commission classified countries by deforestation risk in May 2025, dictating due diligence levels.
EUBattR (EU Batteries Regulation)
This regulation imposes strict due diligence obligations on all companies dealing in batteries within the EU, covering human and labor rights risks throughout the battery value chain, especially concerning sourcing from Conflict Affected and High Risk Areas (CAHRA). Affected entities must establish management systems for identifying, assessing, mitigating, and removing human and labor rights risks, implement risk mitigation policies, carry out regular risk assessments, and require third-party verification. They must also establish grievance mechanisms and publicly disclose a battery due diligence policy. Company directors can face personal liability for non-compliance. While the regulation came into force earlier, the enforcement date for due diligence verification has been delayed to August 18, 2027. However, companies must achieve operational readiness well in advance, as due diligence is proactive.
EUFLR (EU Forced Labour Regulation)
This new legislation prohibits products made wholly or in part with forced labor from being sold in or exported from the EU market, regardless of their origin.22 It aims to eliminate forced labor from global supply chains. The regulation primarily targets customs authorities and national competent supervisory authorities for enforcement. Member states must designate these competent authorities by December 14, 2025.6 An EU network and a specialized database providing information on forced labor risks will be launched.24 The regulation entered into force on December 14, 2024, with implementation starting in 2025 for national authorities. However, the obligations on economic operators for full applicability will begin on December 14, 2027.
Integrating ESG into Financial Crime & Operational Resilience
ESG factors are increasingly integrated into financial crime frameworks, enhancing due diligence processes. Bribery, corruption, illegal mining, pollution, and carbon credit fraud are examples of financial crime risks with direct ESG dimensions.Evaluating ESG compliance among suppliers helps mitigate risks tied to corruption, forced labor, and environmental crimes.3 This reveals a symbiotic relationship where ESG compliance is not merely a separate regulatory burden but a critical enabler for broader risk management objectives, specifically combating financial crime and ensuring business operational continuity. Organizations should strategically view ESG compliance as an opportunity to fortify their overall risk posture. By integrating ESG considerations into existing financial crime, cybersecurity, and operational resilience frameworks, they can achieve a more comprehensive and proactive approach to risk identification, mitigation, and reporting. This holistic integration fosters cross-functional collaboration and leads to a more robust, resilient, and ethically sound business model, ultimately enhancing long-term value.
Integrating ESG offers benefits like reputation enhancement, improved regulatory compliance, investor attraction, and operational efficiency.3 However, challenges include data limitations (inconsistent or unavailable ESG data), the risk of “greenwashing” (overstating ESG compliance), and access barriers for SMEs. Despite the regulatory push for ESG due diligence, practical execution of collecting verifiable, granular, and consistent ESG data from diverse third parties across complex global supply chains remains a significant hurdle. This indicates that while the regulatory mandate is clear, the practical execution of collecting verifiable, granular, and consistent ESG data from diverse third parties across complex global supply chains remains a significant hurdle. To overcome this, companies need to invest significantly in technology solutions that can automate data collection, enhance transparency, and manage complex documentation. Furthermore, building strong, collaborative relationships with suppliers is crucial to ensure data sharing, verification, and a shared understanding of ESG expectations. This also underscores the need for organizations to develop their “Customization and Data Control” capabilities, prioritizing “raw datasets” over potentially opaque bundled ESG scores to ensure accuracy and defensibility.
While distinct from TPRM, ESG is fundamentally linked to business continuity and resilience. A lack of sustainability or poor alignment with values can directly threaten continuity. Strong ESG practices begin internally and extend into the supply chain, benefiting from shared information, risk/threat intelligence, and early-warning networks.Real-world enforcement cases, such as the Hyundai Motor incident in 2024, illustrate the direct consequences of ESG non-compliance in third-party contexts. The Department of Labor’s lawsuit against Hyundai Motor and its suppliers for employing a 13-year-old girl highlights the critical failure in third-party vetting for workers and the increasing scrutiny on child labor in US supply chains.27 This underscores the need for thorough risk assessments and robust oversight of third-party labor practices.
Cybersecurity & Data Breaches: The Persistent Third-Party Threat
In 2025, cybersecurity is no longer confined to protecting an organization’s internal network. It has fundamentally evolved into securing the entire “extended enterprise,” encompassing every third-party vendor, cloud provider, and external platform an organization connects with. This paradigm shift is driven by the increasing reliance on external services, which, while offering agility, simultaneously expand the attack surface and introduce new vulnerabilities. This signifies a fundamental paradigm shift from a traditional, internal perimeter defense model to a distributed security model that encompasses the entire supply chain and digital ecosystem. Organizations must fundamentally rethink their cybersecurity strategies. This means treating third-party vendors as an integral extension of their own digital infrastructure, applying the same level of scrutiny, control, and defense mechanisms to external partners as they do internally. It necessitates a “zero-trust” approach to third-party access, a continuous rather than periodic assessment of their security posture, and a deep understanding of fourth-party risks, as highlighted by FINRA.
Analyzing the Surge in Third-Party Cyber Incidents
Third-party cybersecurity incidents have surged dramatically, affecting over 60% of companies in 2024, with a projected increase in severity and impact in 2025. Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting third parties, especially those supporting high-profile industries like healthcare, finance, and education, recognizing them as “softer entry points” with potentially weaker security controls.2 The primary weaknesses exploited include unsecured APIs, compromised credentials of third-party users, inadequate security hygiene among vendors, and insufficient access controls and monitoring. A single misstep in vendor oversight can open the door to devastating consequences, including ransomware attacks, massive data breaches, and severe regulatory penalties.
Reshaping Cybersecurity Strategies for the Extended Enterprise
Global regulations such as GDPR, HIPAA, and the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) are enforcing increasingly stricter controls around third-party security. These regulations hold enterprises accountable not just for their own security posture but also for that of their vendors. Cybersecurity strategies in 2025 are characterized by layered, integrated, and intelligence-driven approaches, necessitating a proactive stance rather than reactive measures.
Best practices for third-party cybersecurity include conducting thorough security due diligence before onboarding any vendor, reviewing security certifications (e.g., ISO 27001, SOC 2), penetration test results, incident history, and risk ratings from third-party monitoring services.28 Risk assessments are no longer one-time events; modern cybersecurity requires ongoing vendor risk tracking using external threat intelligence, behavioral analytics, and Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools for cloud-based vendors. Real-time alerts for non-compliance or suspicious activity are becoming standard.5 Vendors should be granted access strictly on a “need-to-know” basis, and implementing Identity and Access Management (IAM), zero trust architectures, and microsegmentation is crucial to minimize potential damage from compromised third parties. Organizations must maintain and regularly update a centralized registry of all third-party vendors, detailing their roles, access levels, and risk ratings.1 It is also essential to categorize vendors based on factors like data access levels, integration depth, and regulatory exposure, tailoring monitoring and controls accordingly. Furthermore, third-party incident response plans must be tightly coupled with internal processes, establishing clear communication protocols, escalation paths, and forensics guidelines.1 Finally, clear security expectations, breach notification clauses, and compliance requirements must be included in all vendor contracts, making vendors contractually obligated to maintain adequate security controls.
The Transformative Role of AI in Cybersecurity Risk Management
AI’s role in Cyber Risk Management (CRM) is moving beyond experimentation, gaining significant traction. Nearly half of surveyed organizations are already utilizing AI in their CRM programs, with an additional third actively piloting AI solutions.30 AI is being employed to process telemetry data, automate and enhance third-party risk assessments, and improve incident response capabilities.30 Large Language Models (LLMs) are specifically being used to identify inconsistencies in documentation and responses, streamlining processes. The use of AI is correlated with higher CRM maturity across the board, leading to stronger business outcomes, including enhanced risk reduction, optimized cybersecurity spending, and greater operational alignment.30
Despite its benefits, successful AI implementation requires robust data security, governance, and transparency frameworks.2 Regulators like FINRA are already scrutinizing vendor use of Generative AI, requiring adjustments to contracts to prohibit unauthorized data ingestion into open-source AI models and ensuring AI-powered tools comply with recordkeeping and supervisory requirements.1 This indicates that while AI can significantly enhance security, its uncontrolled or unmonitored use by third parties can inadvertently create new vulnerabilities, data leakage risks, and compliance challenges. Organizations need a sophisticated, two-pronged AI strategy for TPRM. First, they must actively leverage AI tools to enhance their own risk management processes, gaining predictive insights and streamlining operations. Second, and equally critical, they must meticulously govern and audit how their third-party vendors utilize AI, especially concerning sensitive data, intellectual property, and ethical considerations. This requires explicit contractual clauses, robust due diligence on AI models, and ongoing monitoring of AI-related risks introduced by third parties.
The FAIR Institute’s 2025 report explicitly articulates a significant shift: cyber risk management is “shifting from a compliance-driven obligation to a competitive differentiator”. The report provides strong evidence that organizations that quantify cyber risk in financial terms, integrate CRM into enterprise risk management, and automate processes achieve “stronger business outcomes,” including risk reduction, optimized cybersecurity spending, and greater operational alignment. This goes far beyond merely meeting regulatory minimums. Mature TPRM, particularly in the cybersecurity domain, is no longer just a cost center or a reactive burden. It is a strategic investment that yields tangible business benefits. This includes improved decision-making at the executive and board levels, better allocation of cybersecurity resources, enhanced credibility with internal and external stakeholders, and a more proactive cybersecurity posture. Organizations that embrace this shift will gain a significant competitive edge, turning what was once a compliance cost into a driver of business value and resilience.
Strategic Imperatives: Best Practices and Enabling Technologies for 2025
Navigating the increasingly complex regulatory and ESG landscape in 2025 demands a strategic, integrated, and technology-driven approach to TPRM. Organizations must move beyond traditional, siloed risk management to embrace holistic frameworks that leverage advanced tools and foster enterprise-wide collaboration. The sheer volume and complexity of new regulations across financial services, data privacy, and ESG make manual compliance efforts unsustainable and prone to error.5 Technology is no longer merely an aid but a fundamental, indispensable requirement for effectively managing the evolving, multi-faceted TPRM landscape at scale. Organizations cannot effectively navigate the 2025 TPRM challenges without strategic and significant investment in advanced, integrated technology solutions. These tools are critical for automating repetitive tasks, enabling real-time data collection and analysis, facilitating integrated reporting across various compliance domains, and providing predictive analytics. This technological backbone is essential for navigating fragmented regulations, ensuring continuous compliance, reducing operational burden, and ultimately gaining a competitive edge in a highly interconnected and regulated business environment.
Formalizing Governance & Due Diligence
Establishing a formal, centralized third-party risk policy that clearly defines ownership, risk tiers, and escalation paths is crucial for ensuring consistency and accountability across the organization.5 This should be complemented by a tiered approach to vendor classification based on factors such as access to sensitive data, depth of integration, and regulatory exposure, with high-risk partners requiring deeper, more rigorous due diligence.5 Enhanced pre-engagement due diligence involves conducting thorough security and operational due diligence before onboarding any vendor, including reviewing security certifications (e.g., ISO 27001, SOC 2), penetration test results, incident history, and risk ratings from third-party monitoring services.28 For ESG, this means creating ESG security questionnaires to evaluate vendor awareness and performance.29 Furthermore, robust contractual safeguards are essential, embedding explicit security expectations, breach notification clauses, compliance requirements, and measurable ESG requirements (KPIs) into all vendor contracts.1 Crucially, clear procedures for secure data return or destruction upon contract termination must be defined.
Leveraging AI & Automation
The strategic use of AI is paramount for predictive insights and streamlined processes. Organizations should utilize AI to automate risk assessments, identify patterns in large datasets, and spot potential issues faster, moving beyond experimental phases to full implementation.2 Automation should also be leveraged to handle repetitive tasks in compliance and data collection, significantly reducing manual effort and ensuring accuracy.9 AI-driven risk scoring can be employed for automated vendor risk profiling, enabling more efficient and objective measurement of third-party performance across multiple risk domains.28 Additionally, Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to identify inconsistencies in vendor documentation and responses, enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of due diligence.2
Building Resilience
Proactive, continuous oversight is vital, moving beyond periodic checks. Multiple sources consistently emphasize “continuous monitoring” 5 and “proactive risk management”. The shift from one-time vendor assessments to real-time tracking of cyber hygiene and the explicit requirement for operational readiness well in advance of compliance deadlines (e.g., EUBattR’s 2027 verification deadline requiring readiness much earlier) clearly indicate that regulators and market forces demand ongoing vigilance, not just periodic, static checks. Organizations must fundamentally transform their TPRM processes from reactive, point-in-time assessments to dynamic, continuous oversight of their third-party ecosystem. This necessitates significant investment in automated tools, real-time threat intelligence feeds, and the seamless integration of these insights into daily operational and strategic decision-making. It also implies a profound cultural shift towards proactive risk identification and mitigation across the entire enterprise, where risk is managed continuously throughout the vendor lifecycle.
This continuous monitoring involves implementing tools for real-time tracking of vendor cyber hygiene (e.g., attack surface monitoring, breach alerts) and ongoing vendor risk tracking using external threat intelligence and behavioral analytics.5 This provides real-time visibility into emerging threats. An integrated incident response ensures third-party incident response plans are tightly coupled with internal processes, establishing clear communication protocols, escalation paths, and forensics guidelines.1 This minimizes the impact of third-party incidents. Comprehensive exit and contingency plans must define clear, documented procedures for disengagement from a vendor or in the event of vendor failure. These plans should cover data return/destruction protocols and identify backup providers to ensure operational continuity.5 Finally, geopolitical monitoring involves proactively scrutinizing extended ecosystems for geopolitical instability, analyzing ultimate business owners (UBOs) and regional concentration risks to anticipate disruptions and avoid sanctions.2
The Power of Centralized Platforms
Integrating TPRM into broader Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance (GRC) frameworks provides boards and senior leadership with a consolidated, unified view of internal and external risks, enabling more informed decision-making.2 Compliance mapping involves utilizing frameworks and software that align vendor controls with multiple regulatory requirements (e.g., DORA, GDPR, FFIEC, SOC 2) to streamline audits and ensure consistency across diverse mandates.5 Data Protection Management Systems (DPMS) or Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) centralize all essential compliance documents, streamline document creation, version control, and evidence collection, making audits less stressful and compliance efforts more scalable.9 Specialized Vendor Risk Management (VRM) solutions with dashboards, workflow automation, and integrations are crucial for ongoing vendor data collection, real-time security notifications, and tracking of ESG performance over time.5 With increasing cloud adoption, Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) tools are essential for continuously monitoring cloud environments used by third parties to prevent misconfigurations, non-compliance, and unauthorized data exposure in real-time.28
Effective TPRM in 2025 requires a fundamental cultural transformation where risk management is perceived and enacted as a shared responsibility across all business units. This means actively fostering collaboration between compliance, legal, IT, procurement, and business operations teams, providing comprehensive internal training on third-party risks, and ensuring that TPRM is seamlessly integrated into broader business processes, from vendor selection and onboarding to ongoing monitoring and offboarding.1 Technological solutions and robust policies, while necessary, are insufficient on their own.
Conclusion: Proactive TPRM as a Competitive Advantage in 2025
The year 2025 represents a critical inflection point for third-party risk management. The confluence of tightening regulatory frameworks across financial services and data privacy, coupled with rapidly expanding and increasingly mandatory ESG mandates, has transformed TPRM from a peripheral concern into a central pillar of organizational resilience and strategic success.5 The persistent threat of third-party cyber incidents further underscores the urgency of this evolution. The overarching objective of robust TPRM in 2025 is to achieve enterprise-wide resilience. This means ensuring that, despite increasing reliance on external partners, the business can consistently maintain continuity of operations, effectively protect its sensitive data, uphold its ethical and sustainability commitments, and rapidly adapt to evolving threats and regulatory changes. Integrated TPRM, therefore, serves as the fundamental pathway to achieving this comprehensive and adaptive resilience, safeguarding the organization’s future in a volatile landscape.
As demonstrated by the FAIR Institute’s 2025 report, cyber risk management, and by extension, integrated TPRM, is fundamentally shifting “from a compliance-driven obligation to a competitive differentiator”. Organizations that proactively invest in mature TPRM practices leveraging advanced technologies like AI and automation, formalizing governance, and fostering enterprise-wide collaboration are reporting stronger business outcomes. These include improved business alignment, greater risk reduction, optimized cybersecurity spending, and enhanced decision-making capabilities. This signifies that effective TPRM is not merely about avoiding penalties but about driving tangible business value. Organizations that proactively invest in sophisticated, integrated TPRM programs, leveraging advanced technologies and cultivating a pervasive risk-aware culture, will not only meet and exceed regulatory demands but also gain a significant strategic advantage. This translates into enhanced credibility with internal and external stakeholders, a more proactive and resilient security posture, and improved decision-making processes across all levels, positioning them for sustainable growth and market leadership amidst increasing complexity.
To thrive in this complex environment, organizations must embrace innovation, prioritize robust governance, and integrate their TPRM efforts holistically across the entire enterprise. By adopting proactive, continuous oversight mechanisms and leveraging the power of centralized platforms, businesses can effectively manage the evolving risk landscape. This strategic approach will enable them to turn compliance challenges into opportunities for sustainable growth, safeguard business continuity, protect their reputation, and secure a decisive competitive edge in an increasingly interconnected and regulated global economy.2
