ISO/IEC 27001:2022, published in October 2022, sets requirements for an information security management system (ISMS). ISO/IEC 42001:2023 on iso.org, published on 18 December 2023, sets requirements for an AI management system (AIMS). Both use the same clause 4 to 10 structure, so a team that runs ISO/IEC 27001 already has most of the management machinery that ISO/IEC 42001 needs.
What differs is the risk each system manages. ISO/IEC 27001 protects information. ISO/IEC 42001 governs the AI systems you develop, provide or use, including their effects on people outside the organization. That difference adds three pieces of new work: AI roles, the AI system impact assessment and a different control set.
ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 Compared, Attribute by Attribute
ISO/IEC 42001 and ISO/IEC 27001 share a structure and a certification model but differ in scope object, risk focus, annexes and control guidance. The table sets the two side by side, with the source for each row.
| Attribute | ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | ISO/IEC 42001:2023 |
| Management system | Information security management system (ISMS) | AI management system (AIMS) |
| Published, edition, pages | 25 October 2022, edition 3, 19 pages | 18 December 2023, edition 1, 51 pages |
| ISO/IEC JTC 1 subcommittee | SC 27, information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection | SC 42, artificial intelligence |
| Scope object | The organization’s information and the risks to its security | AI systems the organization develops, provides or uses (clause 1) |
| Risk focus | Confidentiality, integrity and availability of information | AI risk to the organization’s objectives, plus consequences for individuals, groups and societies |
| Dedicated impact assessment | None | AI system impact assessment (6.1.4, performed again in 8.4) |
| AI roles in clause 4.1 | Not required | Required: determine your role for each AI system (provider, producer, customer, partner, subject) |
| Climate change in clause 4.1 | Added by Amendment 1:2024 | In the 2023 text from the start |
| Normative annexes | Annex A, reference controls | Annex A, reference controls; Annex B, implementation guidance |
| Control guidance | A separate standard, ISO/IEC 27002:2022 (152 pages), which cannot be certified to | Annex B inside ISO/IEC 42001 |
| Controls in Annex A | 93 controls in four themes (organizational, people, physical, technological) | Published summaries commonly count 38 controls under nine objective areas |
| Statement of Applicability | Required | Required (definition 3.26) |
| Standard for certification bodies | ISO/IEC 17021-1 plus ISO/IEC 27006-1:2024 | ISO/IEC 17021-1 plus ISO/IEC 42006:2025 |
| iso.org price, October 2026 | CHF 155 | CHF 225 |
Sources: iso.org records for ISO/IEC 27001, 27002, 27006-1, 42001 and 42006; ISO/IEC 42001:2023 official preview (clauses 1 to 4, definitions, table of contents); ANAB’s 2013 vs 2022 comparison for the 93 controls.
The control count needs care. ANAB’s ISO/IEC 27001:2013 vs 2022 comparison confirms 93 controls, down from 114, with 11 new ones. ISO does not publish an ISO/IEC 42001 control count on a free page, so the figure of 38 is the market’s reading. The nine objective areas match the nine control areas listed in the IAPP’s summary of the ISO/IEC 42001 controls, from policies related to AI to third-party and customer relationships.
The annex row trips people up. Under ISO/IEC 27001, the implementation guidance for each control lives in ISO/IEC 27002, a separate purchase. Under ISO/IEC 42001, Annex B carries that guidance inside the standard and is normative. A side-by-side reading of what Annex A of ISO 42001 contains shows how little of it overlaps with security controls.
Do We Need ISO 42001 if We Already Have ISO 27001?
Not by law, and not always in practice. No US law requires either certificate, and ISO/IEC 27001 already covers the security of AI systems as information assets: access to models, logging, supplier security, incident response. What it does not ask is how an AI system affects the people it makes decisions about, whether it is used for its intended purpose, or what your role is in the AI supply chain.
That is the fair answer to a question small SaaS teams often ask once they have earned an ISO/IEC 27001 certificate. If you only use AI tools internally, an ISMS plus an AI acceptable use policy may carry you for now. If you build or sell AI features, or customers send AI governance questionnaires, ISO/IEC 42001 covers the ground ISO/IEC 27001 does not. For a refresher on the scope and purpose of ISO/IEC 42001, start with the clause 1 scope: any organization that provides or uses AI systems.
ISO/IEC 42001 imports security vocabulary rather than replacing it. Its definition 3.23 of information security, “preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of information”, comes from ISO/IEC 27000:2018. If the US framework is your other reference point, see ISO 42001 compared with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.
What an ISO 27001 Program Reuses, and What Is New for an AIMS
An ISO/IEC 27001 program reuses the management system processes of clauses 4 to 10 and builds new AI content inside them. ISO/IEC 42001 says it applies the harmonized structure, with “identical clause numbers, clause titles, text” and common terms, so the shared clauses work the same way.
| Clause | Reuse from your ISMS | New for the AIMS |
| 4.1 Context | Issues method, context record | AI role per AI system; intended purpose of each AI system |
| 4.2 Interested parties | Register format and review cycle | People affected by AI decisions; AI-related legal requirements |
| 4.3 Scope | Scope statement format | Boundary drawn around AI systems, not only sites and data |
| 5.2 Policy | Approval route, document template | An AI policy |
| 5.3 Roles | Roles matrix | AI-specific owners, such as impact assessors and AI system owners |
| 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 Risk | Risk process skeleton, scales, risk owners, SoA format | AI risk sources and criteria; Statement of Applicability against the 42001 Annex A |
| 6.1.4 and 8.4 Impact | Nothing directly; a privacy DPIA is the nearest input | AI system impact assessment process and records |
| 6.2 Objectives | Objective tracking method | AI objectives |
| 6.3 Changes | Change planning process (in ISO/IEC 27001 since 2022) | Applied to AIMS changes |
| 7 Support | Competence, awareness, communication and document control processes | AI competence for assessors and system owners |
| 8.1 Operation | Supplier management, change control | AI life cycle records, data provenance, intended use controls |
| 9 and 10 | Internal audit program, management review, corrective action log | AIMS scope added to each; AI performance and incident inputs |
Sources: clause titles from ISO/IEC 42001:2023 (official preview); ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clause 6.3 from ANAB’s comparison. The reuse and new columns are an AI Training Skool mapping of typical overlap, not a measured saving.
The biggest real saving is in clauses 7, 9 and 10. One document control process, one internal audit program and one management review can serve both systems. Most of the new hours sit in 4.1, 6.1.4 and the Annex A controls. That is the work described in day-to-day work as an ISO 42001 Lead Implementer.
Example (fictional): a 200-person US SaaS company with an ISO/IEC 27001 certificate adds a support chatbot built on a vendor’s model. It keeps its audit program and management review and adds the chatbot to an AI system register. It records that it is an AI provider to its customers and an AI customer of the model vendor, then runs an impact assessment before go-live.
Do not merge the two risk registers by default. A security risk method asks what could happen to information; the impact assessment asks what an AI system could do to people. Keep the impact assessment as its own process, and feed its results back into the AI risk register.
Can One Audit Cover Both ISO 27001 and ISO 42001?
Yes, a combined audit is recognized in the standards themselves. ISO/IEC 42001 definition 3.18 notes that an audit “can be a combined audit (combining two or more disciplines)”. ISO/IEC 42006, the standard for bodies that certify AI management systems, includes a sub-clause titled Multiple management systems (9.1.6 in the final draft text).
You still get two certificates, each with its own scope, and each auditor must be competent for that discipline. Ask your certification body three things: whether it is accredited for both standards, how it calculates combined audit time, and whether it aligns surveillance dates. The end-to-end route is in the ISO 42001 certification process for companies.
Check accreditation scope before you sign. A body accredited for ISO/IEC 27001 is not automatically accredited for ISO/IEC 42001, which is assessed against ISO/IEC 42006:2025. The directory checks are in who accredits ISO 42001 certifications.
Which Should You Certify First, ISO 27001 or ISO 42001?
Certify first whichever standard your buyers ask for, then add the other into the same management system. The rules below are our guidance for US organizations, not ISO text.
- Choose ISO/IEC 27001 first if customers and security questionnaires ask about data protection, you hold customer data at scale, and AI is a feature you use rather than sell.
- Choose ISO/IEC 42001 first if AI is your product or a core feature, enterprise buyers ask how you govern AI, and your security controls are already evidenced another way, such as a SOC 2 report.
- Choose both together if you are starting from no management system and your product is AI that processes customer data. Build one set of clause 4 to 10 processes with two scopes and two Statements of Applicability.
- Add ISO/IEC 42001 to an existing ISMS if you hold ISO/IEC 27001 and AI is moving into your product. Your audit program, management review and corrective action log become shared from day one.
Whichever comes first, the Statement of Applicability is where the two diverge most visibly: each standard has its own Annex A, so each needs its own SoA. Row format and justifications are covered in the SoA an ISO 42001 audit is planned around.
Where ISO/IEC 27701 Fits Beside Both
ISO/IEC 27701 covers privacy, the third system many US companies are asked about. Its second edition, ISO/IEC 27701:2025, was published in October 2025 and iso.org now describes it as an independent management system standard for a privacy information management system (PIMS). The 2019 edition, which extended ISO/IEC 27001, is withdrawn.
| Standard | Management system | What a certificate covers |
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Information security management system (ISMS) | Confidentiality, integrity and availability of information in scope |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | AI management system (AIMS) | AI systems the organization develops, provides or uses, and their impacts on people |
| ISO/IEC 27701:2025 | Privacy information management system (PIMS) | Processing of personally identifiable information (PII) |
Sources: iso.org records for ISO/IEC 27001, 42001 and 27701. Each certificate names its own scope, so check the scope statement, not only the standard number.
In practice the privacy team’s data protection impact assessments are the closest existing input to the AI system impact assessment. Share the inventory of personal data and the DPIA findings, but do not treat a DPIA as an impact assessment: it looks at personal data, while ISO/IEC 42001 asks about consequences for individuals, groups and societies.
Who Should Run an ISO 42001 Program Inside a 27001 Company?
The person who already runs your information security management system under ISO/IEC 27001 is usually the best candidate to lead the AIMS, with AI system owners, legal and privacy signing their own records. The skills that carry over are document control, internal audit, risk methods and management review. The new skills are AI roles, impact assessment and AI life cycle controls.
If you are deciding between building the system and auditing it, compare how a Lead Implementer differs from a Lead Auditor first. To add the AI layer to a running ISMS, ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Implementer training for teams already running ISO 27001 covers clauses 4 to 10 and Annex A in 32 CPD hours. Its case study builds an AI register, impact assessment, risk register and SoA.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Is the Main Difference Between ISO 27001 and ISO 42001?
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 manages information security risk: the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 manages the AI systems an organization develops, provides or uses, including their consequences for individuals, groups and societies. Both follow the same clause 4 to 10 structure, but ISO/IEC 42001 adds AI roles (4.1), an AI system impact assessment (6.1.4, 8.4) and its own Annex A and Annex B.
Is ISO 27001 a Prerequisite for ISO 42001?
No. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 can be implemented and certified on its own; it has one normative reference, ISO/IEC 22989, not ISO/IEC 27001. Holding ISO/IEC 27001 shortens the work because document control, internal audit, management review and corrective action processes already exist, but a certification body will audit the AI management system against ISO/IEC 42001 alone.
How Many Controls Are in ISO 27001 and ISO 42001?
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A has 93 controls in four themes, down from 114 in the 2013 edition, according to ANAB. ISO does not publish a free count for ISO/IEC 42001. Published summaries commonly count 38 Annex A controls under nine objective areas, with implementation guidance for each in Annex B of the same standard.
Does ISO 27001 Cover AI Risks?
Partly. ISO/IEC 27001 covers security risks to AI systems treated as information assets, such as unauthorized access to models or training data. It does not require an assessment of how an AI system affects people, a decision on the organization’s AI role, or controls on data provenance and intended use. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 adds those through clauses 4.1, 6.1.4 and 8.4 and its Annex A.
Is ISO 27001 the Same as SOC 2?
No. SOC 2 is an attestation, not an ISO certification. Under AICPA guidance, a CPA firm examines a service organization’s description of its system and the controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality or privacy, then issues a report. ISO/IEC 27001 certification comes from a certification body that audits a whole management system against the standard. A company can hold both, and neither replaces an AI system impact assessment.
Is ISO 27001 Outdated?
No. ISO/IEC 27001:2022, the third edition, is current on iso.org as of October 2026, with one amendment published in 2024 on climate action. Certification bodies accredited by ANAB had to transition to the 2022 edition by 31 October 2023, and certified organizations by 31 October 2025, according to ANAB.
