Crosswalk pair
ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 42001, control by control
2 canonical controls in Keel’s library satisfy clauses of both ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 42001. Implement each once, attach the evidence once, and it counts toward each standard. The overlap is the work you don’t repeat.
The overlap
What the two libraries have in common
Every figure here counts canonical controls in Keel’s library, not clauses of either standard. Each standard’s own authored count is on its framework page.
2
Controls that satisfy both
Canonical controls that crosswalk to at least one clause of each.
47
In Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 27001
4% of them also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
16
In Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001
13% of them also map to ISO/IEC 27001.
7
Evidence artifacts expected
Across the shared controls, from Keel’s evidence guidance. Gathered once.
-
2 controls of 47 in Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 27001 also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
-
ISO/IEC 42001 13%
2 controls of 16 in Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001 also map to ISO/IEC 27001.
The mapping
Controls that satisfy both
Each row is one control in Keel’s library and the clauses it answers on each side. Do the work once; both columns are then evidenced by the same artifacts.
| Canonical control | ISO/IEC 27001 clauses | ISO/IEC 42001 clauses |
|---|---|---|
| Internal audit program A risk-based internal audit program evaluates conformity and effectiveness at planned intervals, and again when an environmental or operational change could have undermined what was last evaluated; each evaluation covers both technical testing and non-technical review of whether the documented policies and procedures are actually being met. The programme itself is written down - how often audits run, what methods they use, who is responsible for them, what each one covers and how it reports - and nobody audits their own work, so a finding is an independent judgement rather than a self-assessment. The results of each audit go to the management responsible for the area audited, and the programme and its results are retained as evidence that it ran. | 9.2, A.5.35 | 9.2 |
| Management-system awareness Everyone doing work under the organization’s control can say what the policy governing their work commits to, which of the objectives their own work affects, how what they do contributes to the management system working - including what improving it is worth - and what the consequences are when its requirements are not met. | 7.3 | 7.3 |
Beyond the pair
Where else this work counts
A framework is lit when a shared control above also maps to it. Unlit means none of them do — an absence, not a judgment about that standard.
Also reached by these 2 controls
- AI Governance Essentials
- Amazon Appstore Child-Directed Apps
- Apple App Store Kids Category
- CIS Critical Security Controls
- COPPA
- ESG Essentials
- EU AI Act
- GDPR
- Google Play Families
- HIPAA
- ISO 9001
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework
- NIST SP 800-171
- NIST SP 800-53
- PCI DSS
- SOC 2
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404
- US Employment Law - Federal Baseline
Nearby pairs
- ISO/IEC 27001 and NIST SP 800-53 27 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 25 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 27001 and HIPAA 24 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 27001 and SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 24 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 27001 and PCI DSS 20 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 27001 and CIS Critical Security Controls 17 shared controls
The thesis
Why this is one project, not two
On a crosswalk-native model, ISO/IEC 42001 mostly lights up controls you already built for ISO/IEC 27001. You’re not re-uploading the same screenshot for a second audit. You apply the framework and see the genuine delta worth working. That’s the whole idea behind collect once, comply everywhere.
Next step
Add ISO/IEC 42001 to the work you already did
Apply both frameworks in one workspace and see the overlap measured against the controls you already hold.