Framework overlap

Does ISO 30401 cover ISO 14001:2015?

You hold ISO 30401 and have been told to do ISO 14001:2015. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

50% of ISO 14001:2015 you already have

ISO 30401 already covers about 50% of ISO 14001:2015, leaving 18 of 36 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 11 Likely covered 7 New work 18

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO 30401 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

3.1
Terms related to organization and leadership
3.2
Terms related to planning
3.3
Terms related to support and operation
3.4
Terms related to performance evaluation and improvement
4.1
Understanding the organization and its context
4.3
Determining the scope of the environmental management system
4.4
Environmental management system
5.2
Environmental policy
6.1.2
Environmental aspects
6.1.3
Compliance obligations
6.1.4
Planning action
6.2
Environmental objectives and planning to achieve them
6.2.1
Environmental objectives
6.2.2
Planning actions to achieve environmental objectives
7.4.2
Internal communication
7.4.3
External communication
7.5.2
Creating and updating
7.5.3
Control of documented information
Show the 18 you already have
10.2
Nonconformity and corrective action
10.3
Continual improvement
5.1
Leadership and commitment
5.3
Organizational roles, responsibilities and authorities
6.1
Actions to address risks and opportunities
7.5
Documented information
8.1
Operational planning and control
9.1
Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
9.2
Internal audit
9.2.2
Internal audit programme
9.3
Management review
4.2
Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties
7.1
Resources
7.2
Competence
7.3
Awareness
7.4
Communication
8.2
Emergency preparedness and response
9.1.2
Evaluation of compliance

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO 30401 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