5 standards bodies wrote this down separately. None of them consulted the others. That is not a preference you can argue with, it is what happens.From 5 controls across our corpus
ISO 14001:2015 Evidence & Implementation Kit
This is the complete documentation set: an adopt-ready artifact for every control in policy and procedure text you edit rather than draft, and the evidence checklist an auditor asks for against each.
See what is in it, $249
The same set every buyer of this kit receives. Nothing here is produced on request.
Who warns about it
Every framework below independently names this failure. They were written by different
bodies, in different jurisdictions, for different industries, and they agree.
- ISO 14001:2015
- ISO 14001:2026
- ISO 37101:2016
- ISO 46001:2019
- ISO 55001:2024
What an auditor asks for
The artefacts named on the controls that warn about this failure. This is what closes
it, and what you will be asked to produce when somebody checks.
- Evidence of checks for similar nonconformities elsewhere
- Nonconformity register covering audit findings, incidents, complaints and compliance breaches
- Root cause analyses proportionate to environmental significance
- Corrective action records with effectiveness reviews
- Nonconformity and incident register covering assets, asset management and the system
- Root cause analyses with options considered
What closing it also buys you
The 5 controls that warn about this failure map onto controls in other
frameworks. Close them here and this much of each of those is closed too. It is the same work
counted once, which is usually the difference between a programme that finishes and one that
does not.
ISO 50001:20184
ISO 37001:20164
ISO 55001:20146
ISO 22000:20182
ISO 304014
ISO 373014
ISO 41001:20184
ISO 370014
ISO/IEC 27003:20173
ISO 90014
ISO 39001:20124
ISO 37002:20214
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| ISO 50001:2018 International | 4.5% | 3 of 66 |
| ISO 37001:2016 International | 4.7% | 2 of 43 |
| ISO 55001:2014 International | 6.9% | 2 of 29 |
| ISO 22000:2018 International | 2.9% | 2 of 70 |
| ISO 30401 International | 4.8% | 2 of 42 |
| ISO 37301 International | 4.7% | 2 of 43 |
| ISO 41001:2018 International (ISO) | 4.2% | 2 of 48 |
| ISO 37001 International | 4.8% | 2 of 42 |
| ISO/IEC 27003:2017 International | 3.9% | 2 of 51 |
| ISO 9001 International | 4.2% | 2 of 48 |
| ISO 39001:2012 International | 4.3% | 2 of 46 |
| ISO 37002:2021 International (ISO) | 4.3% | 2 of 47 |
Read as: closing this failure reaches that share of the named
framework's control library through cross-framework mappings held in our corpus. It is not a
claim of compliance with that framework, it is a measure of how much of it you have already
touched.
Where this comes from
Harvested from the control library itself. Every control in our corpus carries the evidence an
auditor expects and the ways implementations commonly fail, recorded when that control was
verified against its source document. This page is those two fields, for one failure, across
every framework that names it.
The overlap is computed by traversing
332,959 cross-framework control mappings out from the specific controls that
warn about this failure, not from the frameworks they sit in. Those mappings were built control
by control against source documents.
Nothing here is inferred, predicted or scored. The number at the top
is a count of frameworks.
All failure modes ยท
The index