Article 42: Certification

Article 42: certification requirement means GDPR encourages the use of approved data protection certification mechanisms, seals, and marks to demonstrate GDPR compliance for specific processing operations. To operationalize it, you must decide whether certification is in scope for your processing, select an appropriate scheme if available, and run a controlled program that produces auditable evidence of what is certified and what is not. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Key takeaways:

• Treat certification as a scoped assurance artifact for defined processing operations, not a blanket “GDPR certified” claim. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• Your first deliverable is a role-and-scope register tying controller/processor role, processing activities, systems, and data categories to any certification decision. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• If you pursue certification, run it like an audit program: defined criteria, named owners, change triggers, and recurring evidence packets. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Article 42 is easy to misunderstand because it reads like a “nice to have,” but it still creates operational expectations for serious teams: regulators want certification mechanisms to exist and be used to demonstrate compliance for processing operations by controllers and processors. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) That matters in practice because customers, procurement teams, and third-party risk assessors often ask for “proof of GDPR compliance,” and certification is one of the few structured ways to answer that question without turning every diligence request into a bespoke exercise.

Your job as a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead is to translate Article 42 into a defensible position:

1. whether certification is relevant for your risk profile and business model,
2. what exact processing operations would be covered (and excluded),
3. what you will say externally so you don’t imply more coverage than exists.

This page gives you requirement-level guidance you can execute quickly: decisions to make, owners to assign, artifacts to retain, and the audit questions you should expect. It also flags the most common mistake: treating certification as marketing collateral rather than a controlled, scoped compliance claim. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Regulatory text

GDPR Article 42(1) encourages the establishment of data protection certification mechanisms, seals, and marks to demonstrate compliance with GDPR for processing operations by controllers and processors, while considering the needs of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Operator translation (what you must do with this text):

• You are not ordered to obtain a certification by Article 42(1) alone, but you are expected to understand certification as an available compliance demonstration tool and manage any certification-related claims with precision. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• If you choose to pursue certification, scope it to specific processing operations and be able to show how the certification maps to what you do as a controller and/or processor. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• If you choose not to pursue certification, document the decision and keep an alternative “compliance demonstration package” ready for regulators and third parties. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Plain-English interpretation of the requirement

Article 42: certification requirement is about structured proof. Certification mechanisms, seals, and marks are meant to help controllers and processors demonstrate GDPR compliance for defined processing operations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) Practically, that means you should be able to answer three questions without scrambling:

1. Do we have a credible way to demonstrate GDPR compliance for our key processing operations?
2. If we claim certification, what exactly is certified (and what is out of scope)?
3. Can we sustain that claim through operational change (new systems, new subprocessors, new purposes)?

Certification is not a substitute for GDPR compliance work. Treat it as an assurance wrapper around controls you already operate.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Applies to:

• Controllers performing GDPR-regulated processing operations.
• Processors performing GDPR-regulated processing operations on behalf of controllers. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Operational contexts where Article 42 shows up in real life:

• Third-party risk management (TPRM) and procurement: enterprise customers ask for “GDPR certification” as part of onboarding.
• Sales security/compliance questionnaires: certification becomes a standardized evidence item.
• Product launches and major processing changes: certification scope can be invalidated by changes in systems, subprocessors, data categories, or purposes.

Note on SMEs: the text explicitly says certification mechanisms should take SME needs into account. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) Operationally, that supports a scaled approach: smaller teams can still be defensible if scope and evidence are tight.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Build a role-and-scope register (the anchor artifact)

Create a register that, for each relevant processing operation, records:

• Your role: controller, processor, or both (by activity).
• Data categories and high-level subject types.
• Systems and infrastructure in scope.
• Third parties/subprocessors materially involved.
• Current “compliance demonstration method”: certification (which scheme) or alternative evidence pack.
• Public claims permitted (exact approved language) and prohibited claims.

This register prevents the two biggest failures: role confusion and accidental over-claiming. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Step 2: Decide whether certification is a requirement for your business (not just a preference)

Run a simple decision memo for leadership approval:

• Drivers: customer requirements, competitive positioning, sector expectations, internal assurance needs.
• Constraints: scheme availability for your processing type, operational readiness, ability to maintain scope.
• Risk of not certifying: slower sales cycles, heavier diligence burden, inconsistent evidence responses.

Outcome must be one of:

• Proceed with certification exploration for specific processing operations; or
• Do not certify, but standardize an alternate evidence approach.

Retain the signed decision record. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Step 3: If certifying, define the certification boundary like an auditor would

Write a scoping statement that is unambiguous:

• What processing operations are covered.
• Which products/services are included.
• Which environments are included (production only vs also staging/support tools).
• Which regions and entities are included.
• Explicit exclusions.

Then align internal stakeholders (Security, Privacy, Engineering, Product, Legal, Sales) to the boundary so external responses stay consistent.

Step 4: Stand up a requirement-specific operating procedure

Your operating procedure should include:

• Named owner (accountable) and backups.
• Trigger events requiring scope review: new subprocessors, new data categories, new purposes, major architecture changes, M&A, or new regions.
• Approval workflow for (a) changes that affect certified scope and (b) external statements about certification.
• Recurring evidence cadence (choose a cadence you can sustain) and where evidence lives.

This turns Article 42 from a concept into day-to-day execution. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Step 5: Build an “evidence packet” that survives external scrutiny

Even if you do not certify, you need an organized proof set. Your evidence packet should include:

• Role-and-scope register extract for the processing operation.
• Current data flow summary (inputs, outputs, transfers, third parties).
• Control outputs relevant to the certified scope (or alternative assurance).
• Exceptions and remediation log for scope-relevant gaps.
• Management sign-off that the packet is current.

Tools like Daydream can help by turning your register, procedures, and recurring evidence into a consistent package you can reuse across customer diligence instead of rebuilding it each time.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep these artifacts in a controlled repository with versioning and access controls:

1. Role-and-scope register (controller/processor role, systems, data categories, third parties).
2. Certification decision memo (certify vs not, rationale, approver).
3. Certification scope statement (what’s in/out, products, entities, environments).
4. Operating procedure (owners, triggers, approvals, cadence).
5. Approved external language (Sales enablement snippet + prohibited claims list).
6. Evidence packets (control outputs, exceptions, remediation, sign-offs).
7. Change log mapping trigger events to scope review outcomes.

If an auditor asks “show me what you did,” these artifacts are the shortest path to a clean walkthrough. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect questions like:

• “Are you a controller or processor for this processing operation? Show your analysis.”
• “What processing operations are covered by your certification claim?” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• “Where do you prohibit staff from saying ‘GDPR certified’ generically?”
• “What events trigger a re-scope or recertification assessment?”
• “Show evidence you operate the controls that the certification is meant to demonstrate.”

Hangup: teams often cannot reconcile what Sales says with what the scope statement allows. Fix it by making approved language a controlled artifact with Legal/Privacy approval.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails	How to avoid it
Claiming or implying blanket “GDPR certification”	Article 42 ties certification to demonstrating compliance for processing operations; over-claims create legal and reputational exposure. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)	Only make scoped claims that match your scope statement and evidence packet.
No role clarity (controller vs processor)	Obligations and evidence differ by role; auditors test role reasoning.	Maintain the role-and-scope register and require updates on product changes.
Certification as a one-time project	Processing changes break scope; evidence drifts.	Put trigger events and cadence into the operating procedure.
Evidence scattered across tools	You cannot respond quickly or consistently.	Centralize evidence packets; use a single index and naming standard.
Ignoring third parties/subprocessors	Processing operations usually involve third parties; gaps show up in diligence.	Track third parties in-scope and align contract/security reviews to the certification boundary.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No specific public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for Article 42. The practical risk is still clear: if you claim certification (or let others claim it on your behalf) without tight scope and evidence, you invite regulator questions and customer allegations of misrepresentation. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) Treat certification statements as regulated communications: approved language, version control, and a revocation/escalation path if scope changes.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Immediate (stabilize and prevent bad claims)

• Assign an owner for Article 42: certification requirement and name backups. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• Inventory any current public statements and questionnaire answers about “GDPR certified” or “certification.”
• Publish an interim rule: no certification claims without Privacy/Legal approval and a scoped statement.

Near-term (build the machine)

• Create the role-and-scope register covering your key products and processing operations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)
• Draft the certification decision memo: certify vs not, and for which processing operations.
• Write the operating procedure with trigger events and an evidence packet template.
• Build your first evidence packet for the highest-risk or highest-revenue processing operation.

Ongoing (operate and prove)

• Run recurring reviews against trigger events and update scope statements and evidence packets.
• Train Sales, Procurement, and Customer Success on approved language and what it means.
• Use Daydream (or your GRC system) to keep the register, decisions, and evidence packets connected so diligence responses stay consistent over time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we have to obtain a GDPR certification to comply with Article 42?

Article 42(1) encourages the establishment and use of certification mechanisms to demonstrate compliance; it does not state that every controller or processor must be certified. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) What you do need is a controlled position and evidence for how you demonstrate compliance for key processing operations.

Can we say “GDPR certified” on our website?

Avoid blanket statements. Article 42 frames certification as demonstrating compliance for specific processing operations by controllers and processors. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) If you make any certification claim, tie it to a precise scope statement and approved wording.

What’s the minimum set of artifacts an auditor will expect for Article 42?

Keep a role-and-scope register, a decision memo on whether certification is pursued, a scope statement for any certification claim, an operating procedure, and recurring evidence packets with exceptions/remediation. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

We’re both a controller and a processor. How do we handle certification scope?

Split scope by processing operation and record the role per operation in your role-and-scope register. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) Your certification decision and external claims should follow that same per-operation logic.

What should trigger a re-review of our certification position?

Treat changes to systems, data categories, purposes, regions, and third parties/subprocessors as trigger events because they can alter the “processing operations” you are claiming to cover. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42)

How does this help with third-party risk management and customer diligence?

Article 42 positions certification and seals/marks as a standardized way to demonstrate GDPR compliance for processing operations. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 42) Even without certification, the same scoping and evidence packet discipline reduces time lost to repetitive questionnaires.