Framework overlap

Does ISO 27005:2022 cover ISO 22301:2019?

You hold ISO 27005:2022 and have been told to do ISO 22301:2019. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

36% of ISO 22301:2019 you already have

ISO 27005:2022 already covers about 36% of ISO 22301:2019, leaving 25 of 39 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 5 Likely covered 9 New work 25

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO 27005:2022 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

4.1
Understanding the organization and its context
4.2
Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties
4.4
Management system
5.3
Roles, responsibilities and authorities
6.1.2
Risk assessment
6.2
Objectives and planning to achieve them
7.1
Resources
7.2
Competence
7.3
Awareness
7.5.2
Creating and updating
7.5.3
Control of documented information
8.1
Operational planning and control
8.2
Business impact analysis and risk assessment
8.2.2
Business impact analysis
8.2.3
Risk assessment
8.3
Business continuity strategies and solutions
8.3.2
Identification of strategies and solutions
8.3.4
Resource requirements
8.3.5
Implementation of solutions
8.4
Business continuity plans and procedures
8.4.2
Response structure
8.4.4
Business continuity plans
8.4.5
Recovery
8.6
Evaluation of business continuity documentation and capabilities
9.1
Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
Show the 14 you already have
10.1
Continual improvement
5.1
Leadership and commitment
7.4
Communication
7.5
Documented information
9.3
Management review
10.2
Nonconformity and corrective action
4.3
Determining the scope of the management system
5.2
Policy
6.1
Actions to address risks and opportunities
6.1.3
Risk treatment
8.3.3
Selection of strategies and solutions
8.4.3
Warning and communication
8.5
Exercise programme
9.2
Internal audit

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO 27005:2022 to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition