Cross-Framework Mapping

IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive ProductionvsISO 22000

See exactly how IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls map to ISO 22000. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
21
Gaps Found
16%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production maps to ISO 22000 with 16% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls identifies 21 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Clause 8 - Operation.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 25 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Clause 10 - Improvement(1 mappings)

IATF-10.2Nonconformity and Corrective Action
ISO22000-15Corrective actions and lessons learned

Clause 4 - Context of the Organization(1 mappings)

IATF-4.4Quality Management System and Its Processes
ISO22000-15Corrective actions and lessons learned

Clause 6 - Planning(1 mappings)

IATF-6.1Actions to Address Risks and Opportunities
ISO22000-02Hazard identification and risk assessment

Clause 8 - Operation(1 mappings)

IATF-8.1Operational Planning and Control
ISO22000-02Hazard identification and risk assessment

Related Comparisons

Other IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production comparisons

Other ISO 22000 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 IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production and ISO 22000?

IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production has 25 controls across its framework, while ISO 22000 covers 15 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (16% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Clause 8 - Operation, where 4 IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls have no direct ISO 22000 equivalent.

How many controls map between IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production and ISO 22000?

Of 25 total IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls, 4 map directly to ISO 22000 controls — representing 16% coverage. The remaining 21 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production to ISO 22000?

21 IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls have no direct equivalent in ISO 22000. The highest concentration of gaps is in Clause 8 - Operation with 4 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 IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production and ISO 22000?

The domain with the highest gap count is Clause 8 - Operation (4 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.