Framework overlap

Does ISO 27018 cover ISO/IEC 27557:2022?

You hold ISO 27018 and have been told to do ISO/IEC 27557:2022. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

20% of ISO/IEC 27557:2022 you already have

ISO 27018 already covers about 20% of ISO/IEC 27557:2022, leaving 28 of 35 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 3 Likely covered 4 New work 28

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO 27018 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

27557-4.1
General principles
27557-4.2
Privacy risk integration
27557-5.1
Leadership and commitment
27557-5.2
Integration with organizational processes
27557-5.3
Design of framework
27557-5.4
Implementation and evaluation
27557-6.1
Communication and consultation
27557-6.5
Monitoring and review
27557-7.1
Types of privacy risk
27557-7.2
Organizational consequences of privacy events
ISO27557-10.1
Continual Improvement
ISO27557-10.2
Documentation Management
ISO27557-4.2
Privacy Context Establishment
ISO27557-5.1
Privacy Risk Management Leadership
ISO27557-5.2
Privacy Risk Roles and Responsibilities
ISO27557-6.1
Privacy Risk Assessment Methodology
ISO27557-6.2
Privacy Risk Identification
ISO27557-6.3
Privacy Risk Analysis
ISO27557-6.4
Privacy Risk Evaluation
ISO27557-7.1
Privacy Risk Treatment Options
ISO27557-7.2
Privacy Control Selection
ISO27557-7.3
Treatment Plan Documentation
ISO27557-7.4
Residual Privacy Risk Acceptance
ISO27557-8.1
Privacy Risk Communication
ISO27557-8.2
Consultation with Affected Parties
ISO27557-9.1
Privacy Risk Monitoring
ISO27557-9.2
Privacy Risk Review
ISO27557-9.3
Effectiveness Measurement
Show the 7 you already have
27557-4.3
Individual impact consideration
27557-6.2
Scope, context, and criteria for privacy
27557-6.3
Privacy risk assessment
27557-6.4
Privacy risk treatment
27557-6.6
Recording and reporting
27557-7.3
Risk-based privacy program implementation
ISO27557-4.1
Privacy Risk Management Scope

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO 27018 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