GOV-09.1: Status Reporting To Governing Body
Mechanisms exist to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations enabling executives to make decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-01.2 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to its Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)?
General (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC2.2-POF2 CC2.3-POF3 CC2.3-POF5 CC3.1-POF10 CC3.1-POF11 CC4.2 CC4.2-POF1 CC4.2-POF2 |
| BSI Standard 200-1 | 4.3 7.5 8.4 |
| COBIT 2019 | BAI01.06 |
| COSO 2013 | 2.0 |
| IMO Maritime Cyber Risk Management | 3.3 |
| ISO 27001 2022 (source) | 7.4 7.4(a) 7.4(b) 7.4(c) 7.4(d) 9.1 9.1(a) 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 9.3.1 9.3.2(a) 9.3.2(b) 9.3.2(c) 9.3.2(d) 9.3.2(d)(1) 9.3.2(d)(2) 9.3.2(d)(3) 9.3.2(d)(4) 9.3.2(e) 9.3.2(f) 9.3.2(g) 9.3.3 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 5.1 5.3(b) 9.3.1 |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.2 6.6 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 5.1 9.3.3 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | GOVERN 2.3 MAP 3.5 |
| NIST 800-171 R3 (source) | 03.12.03 |
| NIST 800-171A R3 (source) | A.03.12.03[01] |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.OV GV.OV-01 GV.OV-03 GV.SC GV.SC-09 ID |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | PR.PO-P6 |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 11.5 11.8 |
US (9)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal C2M2 2.1 | PROGRAM-2g |
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | I.B IV.A.4 |
| USA Federal 33 CFR Part 101 Subpart F | 101.625(d)(14) 101.645(a) |
| USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 | 314.4(i) 314.4(i)(1) 314.4(i)(2) |
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1)(iii) 17 CFR 229.106(c)(1) 17 CFR 229.106(c)(2)(ii) 17 CFR 229.106(c)(2)(iii) |
| USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 | 609.930(e) |
| USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 | 5.260.4(b) 5.260.4(c) |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.4(b) 500.4(c) |
| USA Texas TRAIGA 2025 | 553.102(a) |
EMEA (12)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 | IV.A-39 IV.A-40 IV.A-41 IV.A-42 IV.A-43 IV.A-44 IV.A-45 IV.A-46 IV.E-95 V-105 |
| EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 | 3.11 4.10 7.5 |
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | OIS-01.02B.6 OIS-08.01AC.2 BCM-01.04B COM-04.01B COM-04.02AC COM-04.02AC.1 COM-04.02AC.4 |
| EMEA Spain CCN-STIC 825 | op.mon.2 |
| EMEA Spain Royal Decree 311 2022 | Article 31(6) |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 5.2(i) Article 13.5 |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 15.5 Article 25.5 Article 27.2(a)(iv) Article 27.2(b) Article 28.2(i) Article 40.3 Article 41.1 Article 41.2 Article 41.2(a) Article 41.2(a)(i) Article 41.2(a)(ii) Article 41.2(a)(iii) Article 41.2(a)(iv) Article 41.2(a)(v) Article 41.2(b) Article 41.2(c) Article 41.2(c)(i) Article 41.2(c)(ii) Article 41.2(d) Article 41.2(e) Article 41.2(f) Article 41.2(h) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1.13(e) 3.3.5.24 |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 1.2.3 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3.3 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.3.1-13.e 3.3.5-24 3.6.1-66 3.7.4-90 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 14.a 14.b 106 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 1-8-3 |
APAC (15)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia CCM 2026 | GOV-01 GOV-02 GOV-03 |
| APAC Australia ISM June 2026 | ISM-0718 ISM-1918 ISM-2000 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 58 |
| APAC India DPDPA 2023 | 10(2)(c)(ii) |
| APAC India RBI Data Localization 2018 | 2.iii |
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 5.0 |
| APAC India RBI PA 2025 | Annex 1.1.1 Annex 1.1.5 |
| APAC India RBI PPI 2025 | 17.11 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.OV.S1 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.6.1.1 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 8.4(a) 8.6(c) 8.7(b) 9.4(b) 9.5(c) 10.19(a) 12.3(g) |
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP46 HHSP75 HML12 HML46 HML75 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP10 HSUP38 HSUP65 |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 2.1.2(d) 2.1.4 3.1.5 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.4.1(d) |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 3.1.3 3.1.8(e) |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 | 03.12.03 |
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 1 1.1.2 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with GOV domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Governance-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists. GRC roles are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains an informal process to review and respond to trends.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to provide governance oversight reporting and recommendations to those entrusted to make executive decisions about matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- GOV-09.1_A01 governance oversight reporting and recommendations on matters considered material to the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) are provided to executives, per an organization-defined frequency, to enable decisions on those matters.
- GOV-09.1_A02 the frequency at which governance oversight reporting and recommendations are provided to executives is defined.
Evidence Requirements
- E-CPL-09 Non-Compliance Oversight Reporting
-
Documented evidence of governance oversight reporting of non-compliance to the organization's executive leadership.
Compliance - E-GOV-09 Charter - Cybersecurity Steering Committee
-
Documented evidence of an executive steering committee, or advisory board, that is formed to perform oversight of cybersecurity management decisions and is comprised of key cybersecurity, technology, risk, privacy and business executives.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-GOV-10 Charter - Data Privacy Steering Committee
-
Documented evidence of an executive steering committee, or advisory board, that is formed to perform oversight of privacy management decisions and is comprised of key cybersecurity, technology, risk, privacy and business executives.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-GOV-11 Charter - Audit Committee
-
Documented evidence of an executive steering committee, or advisory board, that is formed to perform oversight of internal and external audit management decisions and is comprised of key cybersecurity, technology, risk, privacy and business executives.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-GOV-12 Charter - Risk Committee
-
Documented evidence of an executive steering committee, or advisory board, that is formed to perform oversight of risk management decisions and is comprised of key cybersecurity, technology, risk, privacy and business executives.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-GOV-13 Charter - Data Management Board (DMB)
-
Documented evidence of the organization's Data Management Board (DMB) charter and mission.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-GOV-18 Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Status Reports
-
Documented evidence of status reports of the organization's security, compliance and/or resilience program that were submitted to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-PRM-06 Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
-
Documented evidence of a Quarterly Business Review (QBR), or similar process, to provide recurring status reports on the current state of the cybersecurity and data protection program.
Resource Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
- Simple security status dashboard (spreadsheet or slide deck)
- Email status updates to owner/manager
Small
- Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
- Structured security metrics report (incidents, patching status, training completion)
- Documented reporting cadence
Medium
- Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
- Formal security status reports to leadership
- KPI/KRI dashboard (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, or GRC tool reporting)
Large
- Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
- Executive security dashboard with KPIs/KRIs
- Board-level reporting on material risk indicators
- Automated reporting via GRC platform
Enterprise
- Quarterly Business Review (QBR)
- Board and audit committee cybersecurity briefings
- Integrated GRC dashboard with real-time metrics
- SEC cybersecurity disclosure-ready reporting processes (if applicable)