Top management makes an anti-bribery compliance function responsible for, and gives it authority to: oversee how the organization designs and implements the system; advise and guide staff on the system and on bribery questions; make sure the system meets the standard; and report on the system's performance to the governing body, top management and, where appropriate, other compliance functions. The function needs adequate resources, must be held by people with the right competence, standing, authority and independence, and must be able to reach the governing body as well as top management directly and without delay whenever a bribery issue or concern arises. If top management places some or all of the function with outside persons, it must still make particular staff responsible for, and give them authority over, the outsourced parts.
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.