C5 (Germany)ISO 22301:2019

C5 (Germany) covers 42.1% of ISO 22301:2019

24 of the 57 controls in ISO 22301:2019 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 33 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.

42.1%
of the target already covered
24
controls evidenced
33
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 22301:2019 your C5 (Germany) evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.

44 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

Where the gaps are

Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.

Leadership, ISO 22301:20193 of 5 evidenced, 2 to do
Performance evaluation, ISO 22301:20194 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
Improvement, ISO 22301:20191 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
Operation, ISO 22301:20199 of 19 evidenced, 10 to do
Planning, ISO 22301:20193 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
Support, ISO 22301:20193 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Context of the organization, ISO 22301:20191 of 8 evidenced, 7 to do

Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.

Claims that held

A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.

C5-COM-0410.2argued against and upheld
Continual improvement

C5 reports security performance to top management regularly and carries it into an annual management review.

C5-COM-014.2.2argued against and upheld
Legal and regulatory requirements

C5 explicitly defines and documents the legal, regulatory, self imposed and contractual requirements bearing on the service.

C5-BCM-015.1argued against and upheld
Leadership and commitment

C5 names a member of top management as accountable owner of business continuity and emergency management.

C5-SP-015.2.2argued against and upheld
Communicating the business continuity policy

C5 requires policies in a uniform structure stating objectives, scope, roles, execution steps and legal duties, approved and issued.

C5-BCM-015.3argued against and upheld
Roles, responsibilities and authorities

C5 names a member of top management as accountable owner of business continuity and emergency management.

C5-OIS-076.1.1argued against and upheld
Determining risks and opportunities

C5 runs the risk handling process at least annually with risk owners reviewing treatment and residual risk.

C5-OIS-076.1.2argued against and upheld
Addressing risks and opportunities

C5 runs the risk handling process at least annually with risk owners reviewing treatment and residual risk.

C5-BCM-036.2.1argued against and upheld
Establishing business continuity objectives

C5 requires one documented continuity and contingency planning framework with scope, owners, communication, recovery and activation.

Claims that did not hold

Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.

The full report

Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.

Buy this crosswalk