Skip to content
compliancebase
SOC 2CC1 — Management Establishes Structures, Reporting Lines, and Authorities

CC1.3

Management Establishes Structures, Reporting Lines, and Authorities

SOC 2 · 2017 TSC (2022 Revised Points of Focus) · Last verified August 2026

Objective

Design organizational structures, reporting lines, and delegated authorities that support objectives and effective internal control.

Points of focus

  • Define ownership across legal entities, teams, and outsourced functions
  • Assign authority and limits for decisions affecting the system
  • Maintain reporting lines that support escalation and accountability

Implementation notes

Maintain a RACI for incident command, production changes, customer commitments, privacy decisions, and vendor acceptance; encode approval limits in ticketing and cloud workflows where possible. Operationalize define ownership across legal entities, teams, and outsourced functions in ticketing, IdP, or GRC workflows with named owners — not only in a static policy PDF. Retain current organization chart and responsibility matrix with reviewer identity, population scope, dates, and remediation outcomes auditors can sample. A recurring failure mode is that security ownership is split between engineering and it with no final decision maker Revisit after material architecture, vendor, data-flow, or leadership changes and document the decision.

Audit tip: Sample current organization chart and responsibility matrix with dates and named reviewers. Be ready to walk through how you detect and correct: security ownership is split between engineering and it with no final decision maker

Evidence auditors typically request:

  • Current organization chart and responsibility matrix
  • Delegation-of-authority or approval-limit schedule
  • Role descriptions for security, engineering, privacy, and operations leaders

Common gaps

  • Security ownership is split between engineering and IT with no final decision maker
  • Approval limits exist in finance but not for production access or risky releases

Cross-Framework Mapping

FrameworkRequirementImplementation note
SOC 2CC1.3This control
ISO 27001A.5.1, A.5.2Organizational controls provide related governance evidence but are not equivalent criteria.
HIPAA164.308(a)(1)HIPAA administrative safeguards overlap where ePHI systems are in scope.
GDPRArticle 32GDPR accountability and security duties can reuse evidence when personal data is in scope.

Primary sources

Frequently Asked Questions

Management Establishes Structures, Reporting Lines, and Authorities applies to the systems and commitments in your Trust Services Criteria scope. Translate the requirement into concrete operating workflows — define ownership across legal entities, teams, and outsourced functions — with evidence stored where auditors and customers can sample it.

Lead with current organization chart and responsibility matrix and pair it with delegation-of-authority or approval-limit schedule. Samples should show who performed the control, when, against which population, and what changed as a result.

Teams often fail because security ownership is split between engineering and it with no final decision maker Close the loop with dated operating records and test the control on a realistic production path.

Control operation can often be shared across SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and HIPAA — but each framework uses different vocabulary and accountability. Maintain an explicit crosswalk rather than assuming equivalence.

Review at least annually and after material product, vendor, or data-flow changes. High-risk or privileged paths may need quarterly sampling even when the criterion does not prescribe a cadence.

Framework versions referenced in this page:

  • SOC 2 — 2017 TSC (2022 Revised Points of Focus)

Last verified: August 2026 · Primary sources linked above