ISO 27001 Annex A 5.5: Contact with authorities

What Control 5.5 means in practice

Maintain usable routes for regulatory, law-enforcement and emergency contact when events or obligations require coordination. Test the control through the organisation's actual scope, decisions, ownership and operating records rather than relying on a policy reference alone.

For contact with authorities, proportional design depends on the affected services, information, people and dependencies. The evidence below should be adapted to that real boundary.

Implementation steps

1. Step 1. Define ownership, scope and operating criteria for contact with authorities.
2. Step 2. Implement compliance process that fits the organization’s risks, services and working practices.
3. Step 3. Integrate the activity with relevant change, exception and review processes.
4. Step 4. Review performance and improve the arrangement when risks, technology or obligations change.

What good implementation looks like

• recent samples show contact with authorities operating across the intended scope
• exceptions and adverse results have accountable decisions and verified closure
• review results lead to measurable correction or improvement

Implementation evidence and effectiveness evidence

How an auditor may test Control 5.5

1. Select a representative in-scope service, asset or process.
2. Confirm the accountable owner and expected operation.
3. Trace a recent example: An applicable obligation is traced to an owner, implemented control, operating evidence and periodic review.
4. Inspect the operating record and corroborating technical evidence.
5. Compare the design with evidence that the control operated effectively.
6. Follow an exception or adverse result through decision and closure.
7. Review trends, metrics and improvement decisions.

Questions to prepare for

• How is contact with authorities implemented in practice?
• Who owns the activity and how are decisions approved?
• Show me a recent example from operation through review.
• How are exceptions, changes or overdue actions handled?

Practical examples

Illustrative decision and evidence record

Reviewer note: Test contact with authorities with a recent real example; a current operating record normally reveals more than policy wording alone.

Useful performance and coverage measures

• in-scope coverage for contact with authorities
• overdue exceptions or actions by age
• repeat findings identified through review

Approach for smaller and mature organizations

Smaller organization

Use a clear owner, a proportionate working record, built-in platform capability and a scheduled review. Sample real activity instead of creating duplicate paperwork for contact with authorities.

Mature or complex organization

Define service-level ownership, automated coverage reporting, integrated workflow, risk-based exceptions and independent assurance across business units and technology platforms.

Practical implementation checklist

• □ Define ownership, scope and operating criteria for contact with authorities.
• □ Implement compliance process that fits the organization’s risks, services and working practices.
• □ Integrate the activity with relevant change, exception and review processes.
• □ Review performance and improve the arrangement when risks, technology or obligations change.
• □ Sample evidence has been checked for operation and effectiveness.
• □ Exceptions have owners, rationale, review dates and closure evidence.

Common implementation mistakes

• documenting contact with authorities without consistent operation
• unclear ownership or review frequency
• evidence that does not cover the full ISMS scope
• exceptions accepted without risk-based approval or follow-up

Related controls, clauses and resources