Dejan Jasnic · Co-founder & Compliance Lead, Trusty · 20+ years anti-fraud & compliance · ACFE Swiss Chapter Board
Most growing companies spend time reviewing contracts, negotiating terms, and managing delivery. Far fewer spend time asking a simpler question.
Who are we actually doing business with?
In 2026, that question is becoming more important. Not only from a compliance perspective, but as a basic part of managing business risk. Third party screening for growing companies is no longer something reserved for banks or large corporations. It is becoming part of everyday operations.
Risk starts before the contract
When problems arise in business relationships, they are often treated as operational issues. A supplier fails to deliver. A partner creates legal exposure. A transaction leads to unexpected consequences.
In many cases, the root cause sits earlier.
It sits in the onboarding decision.
Choosing the wrong partner can create legal, financial, and reputational risks that are difficult to manage later. Third party screening is the process of identifying those risks before they materialise.
For growing companies, the goal is not to investigate every detail. It is to avoid obvious and preventable exposure.
The three signals that matter
At a practical level, most third party screening processes focus on three types of risk indicators.
Sanctions checks answer a fundamental legal question. Are you allowed to do business with this person or company? If a counterparty appears on an official sanctions list, engaging with them may be prohibited or restricted. This is not a grey area. It is a direct compliance risk.
PEP screening looks at whether an individual is a politically exposed person. This does not mean wrongdoing, but it signals a higher level of risk related to corruption or bribery. For growing companies, this is particularly relevant when operating across borders or in sectors with public interaction.
Adverse media screening focuses on publicly available information. This includes credible reports of fraud, misconduct, environmental harm, or other issues that may not yet be reflected in official lists. It provides context that structured databases alone cannot capture.
Individually, each of these checks offers a different perspective. Together, they provide a more complete picture of who you are working with.
Why growing companies often skip this step
Despite the risks, many growing companies do not perform structured screening.
There are understandable reasons for this. Business relationships are often built on trust, referrals, or long-standing connections. There is also a perception that these types of checks are only necessary for large organisations or regulated industries.
In some cases, the barrier is practical. Manual checks can be time-consuming, inconsistent, and difficult to document. As a result, they are either skipped or performed informally.
The assumption is that risk is low.
The reality is that risk is simply unmanaged.
What can go wrong
The consequences of not screening counterparties are not always immediate, but they can be significant.
A growing company may unknowingly enter into a relationship with a sanctioned entity, creating legal exposure and potential disruption to operations. A partner may be linked to corruption or financial misconduct, increasing both regulatory and reputational risk. Negative media coverage associated with a supplier can affect not only public perception, but also relationships with clients or financial institutions.
These situations are not hypothetical. They reflect the type of issues that increasingly surface through due diligence processes, audits, or external scrutiny.
For growing companies, the impact is often disproportionate. A single issue can affect multiple relationships at once.
What a practical approach looks like
Third party screening for growing companies does not need to be complex.
At its core, it involves applying a consistent process before entering into a business relationship and maintaining basic visibility over time. This means checking counterparties against relevant sanctions lists, identifying potential PEP exposure where relevant, and reviewing credible adverse media signals.
Just as importantly, it means keeping a record of what has been checked and when. In many cases, the ability to demonstrate that a reasonable process was followed is as important as the outcome itself.
This approach can be applied proportionately. Not every counterparty carries the same level of risk, and not every situation requires the same depth of review. The key is consistency.
Making screening work in practice
One of the main challenges for growing companies has been turning this concept into something operational.
Traditional compliance tools are often built for large organisations, with complex workflows and pricing structures that do not fit smaller teams. As a result, growing companies are left with a gap between what is expected and what is practical.
Tools like Trusty QuickScreen360 are designed to close that gap.
By allowing businesses to screen counterparties against sanctions, PEP, and adverse media sources in a structured way, screening becomes part of a simple workflow rather than a separate task. Results are consolidated, false positives are reduced through AI-assisted filtering, and each check is documented with a timestamp and source references.
This makes it easier not only to identify potential risks, but also to demonstrate that appropriate checks have been carried out.
For growing companies, the benefit is not additional complexity. It is clarity.
It is not about distrust
Third party screening is sometimes perceived as a sign of distrust. In reality, it serves a different purpose.
It is about creating transparency in business relationships and reducing avoidable risk. It allows growing companies to operate with greater confidence, particularly when working across borders or entering new partnerships.
In a business environment where expectations around compliance and due diligence are increasing, this type of process is becoming part of normal practice.
Conclusion
Third party screening for growing companies is no longer a niche compliance activity. It is a practical tool for understanding who you are doing business with and avoiding unnecessary risk.
The process does not need to be complex or resource-intensive. What matters is that it is consistent, proportionate, and documented.
In 2026, that is often enough to make a meaningful difference.
Frequently asked questions
Whether the counterparty appears on an official sanctions list, whether an individual is a politically exposed person, and whether credible adverse media points to fraud, misconduct, environmental harm or other issues not yet reflected in official lists.
No. Screening can be applied proportionately, because not every counterparty carries the same level of risk. What matters is that the process is consistent and that a record is kept of what was checked and when.
Relationships are often built on trust and referrals, checks are seen as something for large or regulated companies, and manual checks are time-consuming and hard to document. The result is risk that is unmanaged rather than low.
No. It creates transparency in business relationships and reduces avoidable risk, which lets a growing company work with greater confidence across borders and in new partnerships.
Related reading: PEP screening explained, vendor due diligence in 2026, and sanctions compliance.
THIRD-PARTY RISK SCREENING
QuickScreen360: screen suppliers and partners for compliance risks. Send due diligence requests, assign training and monitor results in one platform.