A.10.2·high·Component: Organizational controlsWhat this control requires
Responsibilities between the organization and external parties in AI relationships shall be clearly allocated and documented.
In plain English
Responsibilities between the organization and external parties in AI relationships shall be clearly allocated and documented. In practice, this means you can prove you document ai systems-level controls on a defined cadence.
Why it matters
ISO 42001 is the first audited evidence regulators, customers and investors can ask for that you are managing AI risk. Each Annex A control is a check-box in that audit; it is also the management system enterprises are starting to require from AI vendors before an MSA can be signed.
This control is rated high. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation.
What an auditor looks for
An ISO 42001 auditor verifies you have an AI policy, a risk-based system of impact assessments for each AI system, lifecycle controls from data acquisition through retirement, and third-party-AI controls that pierce the vendor's wrapper to underlying model behaviour.
Within Organizational controls, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Annex A A.10.2) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.
How to implement
- Write a short policy stating intent, scope and named owner.
- Encode it as a platform guardrail — SCP, Azure Policy initiative, Organisation Policy, or repository policy.
- Wire a monitoring signal that catches drift (CSPM rule, SIEM rule, scheduled query, Workspace alert) and ticket it.
- Review on a documented cadence and capture the review in the risk register or compliance tracker.
Operational checklist
- Document. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Allocate. Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
- Scope: ai systems, governance.
Evidence to collect
- Policy Document. A signed and version-controlled policy / standard / procedure document.
- Vendor Risk Management.
vendor_risk_managementevidence
Policies and vendor risk evidence should demonstrate that responsibilities between the organization and external parties are clearly allocated, documented, and reviewed across the AI lifecycle. Focus: Allocation of responsibilities.
How it maps to other frameworks
Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit.
- ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.5.19 — Information security in supplier relationships
- SOC 2 (2017 TSC) CC9.2 — Vendor Risk Management
- GDPR Article 76 — Confidentiality
- ISO/IEC 27701:2025 A.3.10 — Supplier agreements
- CIS Controls v8 9.1 — Ensure Use of Only Fully Supported Browsers and Email Clients
Related controls in ISO/IEC 42001:2023
- Annex A A.10.3 — Suppliers
- Annex A A.10.4 — Customers
- Annex A A.9.3 — Objectives for responsible use of AI systems
- Annex A A.5.3 — Documentation of AI system impact assessments
- Annex A A.5.5 — Assessment of societal impact
- Annex A A.2.2 — Policies for the responsible development or use of AI systems
References
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42 — ISO/IEC 42001:2023
- Catalogue identifier:
Annex A A.10.2
Topics: vendor riskthird party riskgovernance riskvendor managementthird party monitoringsupply chain security