Top management must show leadership of and commitment to the AIMS by: making sure the AI policy and AI objectives exist and fit the organization's strategic direction; building AIMS requirements into business processes; making resources available; communicating why effective AI management and conformity matter; making sure the AIMS delivers what it is meant to; guiding and backing people to contribute; promoting continual improvement; and supporting other managers to lead in their own areas. The notes suggest modelling a culture of responsible AI use, development and governance.
This control maps to 57 controls across 35 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
NIST-CSF-GV.PO-01 Policy for managing cybersecurity risks is established based on organizational context, cybersecurity strategy, and priorities and is communicated and enforced
NIST-CSF-GV.RM-04 Strategic direction that describes appropriate risk response options is established and communicated
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-01 Organizational leadership is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity risk and fosters a culture that is risk-aware, ethical, and continually improving
NIST-CSF-GV.RR-03 Adequate resources are allocated commensurate with the cybersecurity risk strategy, roles, responsibilities, and policies
You are reading one control. How much of ISO/IEC 42001:2023 have you already done?
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 5.1 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of ISO/IEC 42001:2023 your existing evidence covers. Hold NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) and 30 of 38 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) pair alone.