Cross-Framework Mapping

Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR)vsCOSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)

See exactly how Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) controls map to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

5
Controls Mapped
45
Gaps Found
4%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) maps to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) with 4% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 50 Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) controls identifies 48 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Compliance and Enforcement.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 50 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 5 of 5 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Compliance and Enforcement(5 mappings)

EU-NIS2-EN-CE-02Supply Chain and SBOM3 targets
Principle 17Pursues Improvement in ERM
Principle 18Leverages Information and Technology
Principle 19Communicates Risk Information
US-SEC-DA-CE-02Custody and Reporting2 targets
Principle 3Defines Desired Culture
Principle 7Defines Risk Appetite

Related Comparisons

Other Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) 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 Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) has 50 controls across its framework, while COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) covers 20 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (4% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Compliance and Enforcement, where 36 Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) controls have no direct COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) equivalent.

How many controls map between Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

Of 50 total Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) controls, 2 map directly to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017) controls — representing 4% coverage. The remaining 48 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) to COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

48 Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) controls have no direct equivalent in COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017). The highest concentration of gaps is in Compliance and Enforcement with 36 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 Australia Consumer Data Right — Banking (CDR) and COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework (2017)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Compliance and Enforcement (36 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.