Framework overlap

Does ISO 30401 cover ISO 22301:2019?

You hold ISO 30401 and have been told to do ISO 22301:2019. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

49% of ISO 22301:2019 you already have

ISO 30401 already covers about 49% of ISO 22301:2019, leaving 20 of 39 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 10 Likely covered 9 New work 20

What is genuinely new work

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

4.1
Understanding the organization and its context
4.3
Determining the scope of the management system
4.4
Management system
5.2
Policy
6.1.2
Risk assessment
6.1.3
Risk treatment
6.2
Objectives and planning to achieve them
7.5.2
Creating and updating
7.5.3
Control of documented information
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
8.3.3
Selection of strategies and solutions
8.3.5
Implementation of solutions
8.4.2
Response structure
8.4.3
Warning and communication
8.4.4
Business continuity plans
8.4.5
Recovery
8.6
Evaluation of business continuity documentation and capabilities
Show the 19 you already have
10.1
Continual improvement
10.2
Nonconformity and corrective action
5.1
Leadership and commitment
5.3
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
9.3
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
Business impact analysis and risk assessment
8.3.4
Resource requirements
8.4
Business continuity plans and procedures
8.5
Exercise programme

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