Skip to main content

PRI-15: Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

PRI 5 — Medium Identify

Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.

Renumbered: Formerly PRI-01.5 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, PRI-15 was Register As A Data Controller and/or Data Processor. That control is now PRI-45.

Control Question: Does the organization implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data?

General (1)
Framework Mapping Values
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 9.5.1 9.5.2 9.5.3
US (3)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal Data Privacy Framework 2023 II.3.a II.3.b III.9.b.i III.9.b.ii III.9.b.iii III.9.c.i III.9.d.i III.9.d.ii III.9.e.i III.10.a.i III.10.a.ii.1 III.10.a.ii.2 III.10.a.ii.3 III.10.a.iii III.10.b.i III.10.c.i
USA Montana CDPA 2025 30-14-2813(2)
USA Virginia CDPA 2023 59.1-579.B
EMEA (17)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Austria FAPPD 2000 § 58(1) § 58(2) § 58(3) § 59(1) § 59(2) § 59(3) § 59(5) § 59(6) § 59(7)
EMEA Belgium Act 8 1992 Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 66(1) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 66(2) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 67 Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 68(1) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 68(2) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 68(3) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 69(1) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 69(2) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 69(3) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 70(1) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 70(2) Title 2, Chapter V, Art. 70(3)
EMEA Switzerland FADP 2025 2.3.16.1 2.3.16.2 2.3.16.2.a 2.3.16.2.b 2.3.16.2.c 2.3.16.2.d 2.3.16.2.e 2.3.16.3
EMEA Germany FDPA 2017 3.4.62(3) 3.4.62(4) 3.4.62(5) 3.4.62(5)1 3.4.62(5)2 3.4.62(5)3 3.4.62(5)4 3.4.62(5)5 3.4.62(5)6 3.4.62(5)7 3.4.62(5)8 3.4.62(5)9 3.4.62(6) 3.4.62(7) 3.4.63 3.5.78(1) 3.5.78(1)1 3.5.78(1)2 3.5.78(2) 3.5.78(3) 3.5.78(4) 3.5.79(1) 3.5.79(1)1
EMEA EU GDPR 2016 Article 45.1 Article 46.1 Article 46.2(b)
EMEA UK DPA 2018 Section 78 Section 78(1) Section 78(1)(a) Section 78(1)(b) Section 78(1)(b)(i) Section 78(1)(b)(ii) Section 78(1A) Section 78(1A)(a) Section 78(1A)(b) Section 78(2) Section 78(3) Section 78(3)(a) Section 78(3)(b) Section 78(3)(c) Section 78(4) Section 78(5) Section 78(5)(a) Section 78(5)(b) Section 78(6) Section 78(7) Section 78(7)(a) Section 78(7)(b)
EMEA Greece PIRPPD 1997 B.9.1.b B.9.2
EMEA Hungary Act CXII 2011 II.7.8(1)(b) II.8.9(3) II.8.9(5)
EMEA Ireland DPA 2018 s.96 s.97 s.98 s.99 s.100
EMEA Kenya DPA 2019 IV.25(h) VI.49(1) VI.49(2) VI.49(3) VI.50
EMEA Nigeria DPR 2019 2.11 2.11(a) 2.11(b) 2.11(c) 2.11(d) 2.11(e) 2.12
EMEA Qatar PDPPL 2020 3.15
EMEA Russia 152-FZ 2025 Art. 12
EMEA Saudi Arabia PDPL Article 29.2.b
EMEA Serbia 87/2018 V.63 V.63(1) V.63(2) V.63(3) V.63(4) V.64 V.64(1) V.64(2) V.64(3) V.65-1 V.65-1(1) V.65-1(2) V.65-1(3) V.65-1(4) V.65-1(5) V.65-2 V.65-2(1) V.65-2(2) V.66 V.66(1) V.66(2) V.67-1 V.67-1(1) V.67-1(2) V.67-1(3) V.67-2 V.67-2(1) V.67-2(2) V.67-2(3) V.67-2(4) V.67-2(5) V.67-2(6) V.67-2(7) V.67-2(8) V.67-2(9) V.67-2(10) V.67-2(11) V.67-2(12) V.67-2(13) V.67-2(14) V.68 V.69-1 V.69-1(1) V.69-1(2) V.69-1(3) V.69-1(4) V.69-1(5) V.69-1(6) V.69-1(7) V.69-2 V.69-2(1) V.69-2(2) V.69-2(3) V.69-2(4) V.70 V.70(1) V.70(2) V.70(3) V.70(4) V.70(5) V.71 V.71(1) V.71(2) V.71(3) V.71(4) V.71(5) V.72 V.72(1) V.72(2) V.72(3) V.72(4)
EMEA Turkey LDDP 2016 9(1) 9(2) 9(3) 9(3)(a) 9(3)(b) 9(3)(c) 9(3)(ç) 9(3)(d) 9(3)(e) 9(4) 9(4)(a) 9(4)(b) 9(4)(c) 9(4)(ç) 9(5) 9(6) 9(6)(a) 9(6)(b) 9(6)(c) 9(6)(ç) 9(6)(d) 9(6)(e) 9(6)(f) 9(7) 9(8) 9(9) 9(10) 9(11)
EMEA South Africa POPIA 2013 9.72(1) 9.72(1)(a) 9.72(1)(a)(i) 9.72(1)(a)(ii) 9.72(1)(b) 9.72(1)(c) 9.72(1)(d) 9.72(1)(e) 9.72(1)(e)(i) 9.72(1)(e)(ii) 9.72(2) 9.72(2)(a) 9.72(2)(b)
APAC (7)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australian Privacy Principles 2026 3.8.1 3.8.1.a 3.8.1.b 3.8.2 3.8.2.a 3.8.2.a.i 3.8.2.a.ii 3.8.2.b 3.8.2.b.i 3.8.2.b.ii 3.8.2.c 3.8.2.d 3.8.2.e 3.8.2.f 3.8.2.f.i 3.8.2.f.ii
APAC China Privacy Law 2021 Article 38
APAC India ITR 2011 7.0
APAC Japan APPI 2020 IV.1.24(1) IV.1.24(2) IV.1.24(3)
APAC Malaysia PDPA 2010 129(1) 129(2) 129(2)(a) 129(2)(b) 129(3) 129(3)(a) 129(3)(b) 129(3)(c) 129(3)(c)(i) 129(3)(c)(ii) 129(3)(d) 129(3)(e) 129(3)(e)(i) 129(3)(e)(ii) 129(3)(e)(iii) 129(3)(f) 129(3)(g) 129(3)(h) 129(4) 129(4)(a) 129(4)(b)
APAC New Zealand Privacy Act of 2020 3.1.22.12(1) 3.1.22.12(1)(a) 3.1.22.12(1)(b) 3.1.22.12(1)(c) 3.1.22.12(1)(d) 3.1.22.12(1)(e) 3.1.22.12(1)(f) 3.1.22.12(2) 3.1.22.12(3)
APAC Singapore PDPA 2012 6.26(1)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Brazil LGPD 2018 V.33 V.33.I V.33.II V.33.II(a) V.33.II(b) V.33.II(c) V.33.II(d) V.33.III V.33.IV V.33.V V.33.VI V.33.VII V.33.VIII V.33.IX V.34 V.34.I V.34.II V.34.III V.34.IV V.34.V V.34.VI

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Privacy (PRI) 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 PRI 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 PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution). ▪ 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 PRI 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). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.

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

  1. PRI-15_A01 Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) are used to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their Personal Data (PD).

Evidence Requirements

E-PRI-05 Data Sharing Agreement

Documented evidence of formal data sharing practices that address, at a minimum: • The business justification for the data sharing; • The type / category of data being shared; • The third-parties the data is being shared with; • Lawful bases for data sharing; and • Data subject rights.

Privacy

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Data privacy program

Small

  • Data privacy program

Medium

  • Data privacy program

Large

  • Data privacy program

Enterprise

  • Data privacy program

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.