PES-01: Physical & Environmental Security Policy
Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented physical and environmental security policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, PES-01 was Physical & Environmental Protections. That control is now PES-02.
Control Question: Does the organization establish a formal, documented physical and environmental security policy that: (1) Conveys executive management's intent; (2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors; (3) Is reviewed at least annually; and (4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization?
General (20)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| CSA CCM 4.1.0 | DCS-01 |
| GovRAMP | PE-01 |
| GovRAMP Low | PE-01 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | PE-01 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | PE-01 |
| GovRAMP High | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-53 R5.2 | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | PE-01 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | PE-1 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | PE-1 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | PE-1 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | PE-1 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 | PE-1 |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | NFO - PE-1 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | PR.PO-P4 |
US (10)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 | PE-1 PE-1.a |
| USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 | PE-1 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) | PE-01 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) | PE-01 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) | PE-01 |
| USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) | PE-01 |
| USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 | PE-1 |
| USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 | PE-01 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 | PE-01 |
| USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 | PE-01 |
EMEA (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | PS-01.02B |
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 18.1 Article 18.2 Article 18.2(a) Article 18.2(c) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.4.1.30(c) 3.4.3.33 |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.4.3-33 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 2-14-1 2-14-4 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.3.2.1 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC New Zealand HISF MLHSP 2023 | HHSP13 HML13 |
| APAC New Zealand HISF Suppliers 2023 | HSUP11 |
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
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PES 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 PES domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Physical security / facilities management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Physical security / facilities management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 — Well Defined
Physical & Environmental Security (PES) 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 PES 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 PES domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A facilities management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain NET domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of physical and environmental security operations (e.g., facility management solution, visitor log management automation and proximity badge access). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PES 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).
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
- PES-01_A01 a formal, documented physical and environmental security policy is approved by executive management, or a formally delegated authority, and conveys executive management's intent for physical and environmental security.
- PES-01_A02 the physical and environmental security policy provides organizational direction and states the behaviors expected of personnel and other applicable parties with respect to physical and environmental security.
- PES-01_A03 the current version of the physical and environmental security policy is communicated to, and accessible by, the personnel and other applicable parties who are expected to comply with it.
- PES-01_A04 the physical and environmental security policy is reviewed at least annually.
- PES-01_A05 the physical and environmental security policy is updated, as necessary, in response to changes in risks, threats, business practices and/or statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations that affect the organization.
Evidence Requirements
- E-GOV-01.22 Physical & Environmental Security Policy
-
Documented evidence of a physical and environmental security policy.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
- Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
Small
- ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
- Executive-approved written policy with documented annual review
- Policy acknowledgement tracking (e.g., HR onboarding records)
Medium
- ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
- GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
- Documented annual policy review with version control
Large
- ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
- GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.) for policy lifecycle management
- Policy governance committee with formal annual review and approval workflow
- Automated policy attestation and acknowledgement tracking
Enterprise
- Steering committee
- ComplianceForge - Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) (https://complianceforge.com)
- Enterprise GRC platform (e.g., Cyturus, Archer, MetricStream, ServiceNow IRM) for policy lifecycle management
- Automated policy attestation, exception tracking and change history
- Annual executive approval and board-level reporting