What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 6.1.2 Addressing risks and opportunities?

Action plan naming owner, target date and the BCMS process the action lands in; Updated BCMS procedures, plans or BIA records showing where each planned action was built in; Effectiveness evaluation carried out through performance evaluation.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 6.1.2?

Actions closed on completion with no evaluation of whether they worked

ISO 22301:2019 · Planning, ISO 22301:2019

`6.1.2` Addressing risks and opportunities

Plan the actions that will address those risks and opportunities, and plan how each action will be integrated into and implemented within BCMS processes and how its effectiveness will subsequently be evaluated.

Source: ISO 22301:2019, 6.1.2. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open ISO 22301:2019 in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Updated BCMS procedures, plans or BIA records showing where each planned action was built in · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Effectiveness evaluation carried out through performance evaluation · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Action plan naming owner, target date and the BCMS process the action lands in · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Actions closed on completion with no evaluation of whether they worked
Actions held in a standalone tracker that never touches a BCMS process
No effectiveness criterion set, so evaluation has nothing to test against

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

6.1.1 Determining risks and opportunities · 6.2 Business continuity objectives and planning to achieve them