What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 6.2 Privacy objectives and planning to achieve them?

Documented privacy objectives with measures at relevant functions and levels; Plans naming actions, resources, owners, dates and evaluation; Monitoring of achievement against each objective.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 6.2?

Objectives stated as aspirations with no measure

ISO/IEC 27701:2025 · Planning

`6.2` Privacy objectives and planning to achieve them

The organization shall set privacy objectives for the relevant functions and levels. They shall align with the privacy policy, be measurable where practicable, reflect the requirements that apply and the outcomes of privacy risk assessment and treatment, be monitored, be communicated and be revised when appropriate, and shall be kept as documented information. In planning how to meet them, the organization shall decide the actions to take, the resources needed, the person responsible, the completion date and the way results are to be evaluated.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, 6.2. 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/IEC 27701:2025 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

Plans naming actions, resources, owners, dates and evaluation · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented privacy objectives with measures at relevant functions and levels · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Monitoring of achievement against each objective · 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

Objectives stated as aspirations with no measure
Objectives set for the privacy function only, none for the functions that process PII
Objectives unchanged after the risk assessment identifies new risks

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

6.1.3 Privacy risk treatment · 6.3 Planning of changes