AEO
WCO trusted trader program for secure global trade
APRA CPS 234
Australian prudential standard for information security resilience.
Quick Verdict
AEO offers voluntary global trade facilitation through supply chain security certification, while APRA CPS 234 mandates cyber resilience for Australian financial firms with strict board oversight and incident reporting. Companies pursue AEO for faster customs clearance; CPS 234 ensures regulatory compliance.
AEO
Authorized Economic Operator (WCO SAFE Framework)
Key Features
- Low-risk status with reduced inspections and priority clearance
- Harmonized SAQ criteria A-M for compliance and security
- Mutual Recognition Arrangements for cross-border benefits
- Robust records management and full audit trails
- Supply chain-wide security including trading partners
APRA CPS 234
APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security
Key Features
- Board ultimate responsibility for information security
- 72-hour APRA notification for material incidents
- Asset classification by criticality and sensitivity
- Systematic independent control testing program
- Third-party capability and control assessments
Detailed Analysis
A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.
AEO Details
What It Is
Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) is a voluntary certification framework under the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards. It approves supply chain parties as low-risk and reliable, providing trade facilitation. Scope includes importers, exporters, carriers worldwide. Key approach: risk-based validation using SAQ.
Key Components
- Four pillars: compliance history, records/internal controls, financial solvency, security/safety.
- 13 criteria groups (A-M) in harmonized Self-Assessment Questionnaire.
- Built on WCO SAFE and WTO TFA principles.
- Model: application, site validation, certification, periodic re-validation.
Why Organizations Use It
- Reduces inspections, clearance times, costs (e.g., avoided exams).
- Voluntary but enables competitive edge via MRAs.
- Manages customs risks, boosts reputation.
- Builds stakeholder trust as global trust standard.
Implementation Overview
- Gap analysis, procedures, training, security hardening, audits.
- Suits all supply chain actors, sizes, geographies.
- Project lifecycle: 6-12 months typically, ongoing monitoring required.
APRA CPS 234 Details
What It Is
APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 (Information Security) is a binding prudential regulation for Australian financial institutions. It mandates resilience against information security incidents, including cyber-attacks, through a risk-based, assurance-driven approach focused on governance, controls, and third-party oversight.
Key Components
- 11 core requirements spanning board accountability, role definitions, capability maintenance, asset classification, lifecycle controls, incident response, systematic testing, and internal audit.
- Built on CIA triad (confidentiality, integrity, availability) with commensurability to threats and asset criticality.
- No certification; compliance via evidence-based assurance and APRA notifications.
Why Organizations Use It
- Mandatory for APRA-regulated entities (banks, insurers, super funds) to avoid penalties, directions, and scrutiny.
- Enhances operational resilience, stakeholder protection, and third-party risk management.
- Builds trust, reduces incident impact, and aligns with CPS 220/230.
Implementation Overview
- Phased: gap analysis, policy framework, asset inventory, controls/testing, incident plans.
- Applies to all sizes in Australian financial sector; group-wide for heads.
- Requires annual testing, board reporting, 72-hour incident notifications; audited internally.
Key Differences
| Aspect | AEO | APRA CPS 234 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Supply chain security, customs compliance, financial viability | Information security, cyber resilience, third-party controls |
| Industry | Global trade, logistics, supply chain actors | Australian financial services (banks, insurers, super) |
| Nature | Voluntary customs certification, risk-based validation | Mandatory prudential regulation, board accountability |
| Testing | Site validation, periodic re-validation, internal audits | Systematic control testing, annual independent assurance |
| Penalties | Status suspension/revocation, lost trade benefits | Regulatory sanctions, fines, heightened supervision |
Scope
Industry
Nature
Testing
Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about AEO and APRA CPS 234
AEO FAQ
APRA CPS 234 FAQ
You Might also be Interested in These Articles...
DORA Third-Party Risk Management: A Consultant’s Guide to Mapping Critical ICT Service Providers in 2026
Navigate DORA's complex third-party risk pillar. Step-by-step consultant guide to identify critical ICT providers, remediate Article 30 contracts, and build the
CIS Controls v8.1 IG1 Ransomware-Resilience Sprint: A 30-60-90 Day Action Plan (With Evidence Checklist)
Tactical CIS Controls v8.1 IG1 playbook for ransomware resilience. 30-60-90 day sprint with tool-agnostic tasks, ownership & evidence checklists to prove progre
Beyond Reactive: Transforming Compliance into Real-Time Threat Prevention
Discover how modern compliance monitoring tools leverage continuous, real-time oversight and automated alerts to shift organizations from reactive problem-solving to proactive threat detection and prevention, safeguarding against emerging risks before they escalate.
Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM
Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform
Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.
Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages
IEC 62443 vs ISO 22000
Compare IEC 62443 vs ISO 22000: OT cybersecurity powerhouse meets food safety FSMS. Unpack risks, zones/SLs vs PRPs/HACCP, and implementation for resilient ops. Optimize now!
IEC 62443 vs MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)
Compare IEC 62443 vs MLPS 2.0: Global OT cybersecurity framework meets China's graded protection regime. Discover differences, compliance tips, and strategies for secure IACS. (152 characters)
Six Sigma vs UL Certification
Compare Six Sigma vs UL Certification: data-driven DMAIC mastery meets rigorous safety testing & marks. Unlock differences, benefits & strategies for peak process excellence. Choose wisely now!