The trap: building two compliance programs
GDPR and ISO 27001 often start from different business pressures. GDPR might be triggered by customers, a legal requirement, or growth into new markets. ISO 27001 might be driven by enterprise sales or an internal maturity goal.
Many teams accidentally respond by building two parallel programs: duplicate policies, duplicate controls, duplicate screenshots, duplicate reviews. It feels productive at first, but it becomes fragile over time—especially when the team is remote, moving fast, and constantly changing systems.
The better model: one control library, many mappings
A control library is a single set of controls that describe what you do operationally: who owns each control, how often it is reviewed, and what evidence proves it. Frameworks then become mappings on top of that library rather than separate programs.
Remote Fort’s platform is designed for this approach. You build the library once, then map it to GDPR and ISO 27001 (and other frameworks later) without rewriting your operating reality.
- One control definition, multiple framework mappings.
- One evidence workflow, reused across requirements.
- One owner and review cadence—no conflicting copies.
Start with overlap, not perfection
You don’t need to “solve GDPR” and “solve ISO” separately. Start by mapping the overlap where teams waste the most time:
- Identity and access management
- Asset inventory and device security
- Vendor and third-party management
- Incident response and reporting
- Retention, deletion, and data handling processes
- Security awareness and onboarding/offboarding
This overlap becomes the spine of your control library. Once it’s healthy, you extend coverage.
What to standardize in your control library
The difference between a library that scales and a library that becomes a document graveyard is standardization. A scalable control entry should include:
- Intent: what the control is trying to prevent or ensure.
- Scope: systems, environments, and teams covered.
- Owner: who is accountable for operation and evidence.
- Cadence: how often the control is reviewed, tested, or approved.
- Evidence recipe: what counts as proof and where it comes from.
- Exceptions: how you document and approve deviations.
A simple mapping workflow that doesn’t explode
Mapping should be a lightweight layer that references your library. Here’s a practical approach:
- Build 20–40 core controls that match how you actually operate.
- Attach evidence recipes and owners to each control.
- Map each control to ISO 27001 clauses/annex controls and to GDPR obligations that apply.
- Review the mapping with stakeholders (security, legal, IT) and lock a baseline.
- Operate the cadence monthly/quarterly, and only adjust mapping when requirements or scope change.
The key is to avoid “rewriting” controls to match the framework language. Keep the controls operational, then map them.
Where teams usually overcomplicate it
- Trying to document everything at once: start with what buyers and auditors ask for first.
- Making mapping the “source of truth”: the control library should be the source of truth; mapping should reference it.
- Ignoring ownership: controls without owners decay quickly.
- Evidence without cadence: evidence is only credible when it’s consistently refreshed.
Why one library helps both GDPR and ISO
GDPR is outcome-focused (protect personal data, manage risk, respond to incidents). ISO 27001 is system-focused (operate an ISMS with defined responsibilities, reviews, and continual improvement). A single control library lets you run one operating system that satisfies both: consistent ownership, repeatable reviews, and proof that matches your real processes.
If you prefer another platform
Remote Fort has its own robust platform. If you prefer another tool, our cybersecurity team can also help you set up platforms like Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, Sprinto, Scrut Automation, or Thoropass. Getting these systems configured can be a hassle—we can step in as consultants and get you to a working setup faster.