Cross-Framework Mapping

21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing PracticevsCOSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)

See exactly how 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice controls map to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

2
Controls Mapped
55
Gaps Found
2%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice maps to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) with 2% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 57 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice controls identifies 56 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Subpart J — Records and Reports.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 57 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 2 of 2 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Subpart A — General Provisions(2 mappings)

CFR211-A-3Section 211.3 — Definitions2 targets
Principle 3Defines Desired Culture
Principle 7Defines Risk Appetite

Related Comparisons

Other 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice comparisons

Other COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 693 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice has 57 controls across its framework, while COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) covers 20 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (2% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Subpart J — Records and Reports, where 9 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice controls have no direct COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) equivalent.

How many controls map between 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

Of 57 total 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice controls, 1 map directly to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) controls — representing 2% coverage. The remaining 56 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

56 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice controls have no direct equivalent in COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017). The highest concentration of gaps is in Subpart J — Records and Reports with 9 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Subpart J — Records and Reports (9 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.