Article 47: Binding corporate rules

To meet the article 47: binding corporate rules requirement, you must adopt Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) for intra-group international personal data transfers and obtain approval from your competent supervisory authority through the GDPR consistency mechanism. Operationally, this means scoping covered transfers, drafting enforceable internal rules, proving governance and auditability, and maintaining evidence that BCRs are followed in practice. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

Key takeaways:

• BCRs are an approved transfer mechanism for transfers within a corporate group; they require supervisory authority approval. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)
• Treat BCRs as an operating system: governance, training, complaint handling, audits, and enforcement inside the group must be real and evidenced.
• Your fastest path is a scoped program: map intra-group transfers, decide controller/processor BCR type, draft the BCR package, then run an evidence-backed implementation rollout.

Binding Corporate Rules are one of the few GDPR transfer tools designed specifically for multinational groups that move personal data across borders within the same corporate family. For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, Article 47 is not a generic “have a policy” requirement. It is an approval-gated mechanism: you do the work up front, you submit a BCR package, and you operate it like a control framework after approval.

The practical challenge is sequencing. Teams often draft BCR text before they know what transfers and entities are in scope, or they underestimate the operational proof supervisors and enterprise customers expect (training completion, audit cycles, complaint intake, disciplinary consequences, and a clear rule-to-process mapping). Article 47’s trigger is simple: if you want to rely on BCRs for intra-group transfers, your competent supervisory authority must approve them through the consistency mechanism. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance so you can stand up a defensible BCR program quickly: who owns what, what artifacts you need, what auditors ask for, and how to avoid common dead ends. It prioritizes execution over theory and keeps the focus on evidence.

Regulatory text

GDPR Article 47 excerpt: “The competent supervisory authority shall approve binding corporate rules in accordance with the consistency mechanism set out in Article 63, provided that they: …” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

Operator meaning: If your organization wants to use BCRs to legitimize international personal data transfers within your group, you cannot self-declare compliance. You must (1) prepare BCRs that meet GDPR expectations, (2) submit them to the competent supervisory authority, and (3) obtain approval via the GDPR consistency mechanism referenced in Article 63. Your operational obligation is twofold: get approved, then run the approved rules as an enforceable, auditable program across group entities. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

Plain-English interpretation (what the requirement is asking for)

Article 47 is a “permissioned transfer mechanism.” You are asking a supervisory authority to approve a binding, group-wide set of privacy rules that:

• apply to all in-scope group entities and employees,
• govern covered intra-group transfers (including cross-border),
• are enforceable internally (discipline, contracts, policies) and externally (data subject rights and complaint paths), and
• are supported by governance, training, and audit.

In practice, BCRs function like an internal privacy code of conduct with regulator oversight. If you cannot prove real adoption across the group, BCRs become paper.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

This requirement applies when:

• Entity scope: You are part of a corporate group (parent/subsidiaries/affiliates under common control) and you act as a controller and/or processor for personal data. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)
• Operational context: You transfer personal data within the group across borders and want to rely on BCRs as the legal mechanism for those transfers. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

Typical triggering scenarios:

• Shared services (HR, finance, IT support) where EU personal data is accessed outside the EU by group personnel.
• Centralized analytics, security operations, or customer support run by a non-EU affiliate for EU business units.
• Intra-group hosting or platform teams that administer systems containing EU personal data from multiple jurisdictions.

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

Use this as an operator runbook for the article 47: binding corporate rules requirement.

1) Decide whether BCRs are the right transfer path

BCRs make sense when you have repeatable, high-volume intra-group transfers and enough maturity to run a standing governance program. If your transfers are limited or primarily with third parties, another mechanism may be more practical, but Article 47 governs only the BCR route. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

Decision output (artifact): “Transfer mechanism decision record” stating why BCRs are selected, in-scope regions, and the controller/processor posture.

2) Establish role-and-scope for BCR coverage (do this before drafting)

Create a register that answers:

• Which group entities will be bound?
• Are you pursuing controller BCRs, processor BCRs, or both?
• Which data categories and processing activities are covered?
• Which systems and shared services enable the transfers?
• Which countries and locations are involved?

This is the fastest way to prevent scope drift and rework.

Control alignment: Maintain a GDPR role-and-scope register tied to this requirement (recommended control from your fact pack).

3) Define governance and accountability

Assign named owners and decision rights:

• Executive sponsor (risk acceptance and funding decisions).
• Privacy lead/DPO office (policy ownership, regulatory interface).
• Legal (binding effect instruments, entity onboarding).
• Security (technical controls supporting commitments).
• Internal audit or compliance testing (assurance plan).
• HR (training and disciplinary enforcement mechanics).

Artifact: RACI + a “BCR operating procedure” that lists trigger events (new entity onboarding, new processing activity, major system change) and required approvals (recommended control from your fact pack).

4) Draft the BCR package and map it to operations

Drafting is necessary but not sufficient. For each BCR commitment, document:

• the process it maps to (e.g., access management, incident response, data subject request handling),
• the system(s) where evidence is produced, and
• the control owner.

A simple “BCR obligation-to-control matrix” reduces exam pain.

5) Build implementation mechanics across the group

You need adoption tooling:

• Entity onboarding checklist (sign-on, local contact, training assignment).
• Standard contractual/internal binding instruments (so the rules are truly binding within the group).
• Training curriculum and completion tracking for staff in scope.
• Complaint intake and escalation workflow that can handle cross-entity issues.
• Audit/testing plan with findings workflow and remediation tracking.

6) Prepare and run the supervisory approval workstream

Article 47 requires supervisory authority approval via the consistency mechanism. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47) Operationally:

• Identify the competent supervisory authority and set an internal “single threaded” owner for regulator interaction.
• Package materials in a structured submission set (index, versioning, entity list, mappings, governance, evidence plan).
• Build a Q&A log so responses are consistent and traceable.

7) Operate BCRs as a living program (post-approval)

Treat BCRs like a control framework:

• Run periodic internal testing against the obligation-to-control matrix.
• Track exceptions (temporary nonconformities) with documented remediation and approvals.
• Reassess scope when M&A happens or when services relocate.

Evidence discipline: Retain auditable evidence packets on a recurring cadence (recommended control from your fact pack).

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep an “Article 47 evidence pack” that a regulator or customer can review without scavenger hunts:

Governance

• BCR ownership/RACI and escalation paths
• Meeting minutes or decision records for material BCR decisions
• Entity roster showing which entities are bound and when they joined

Scope & mapping

• GDPR role-and-scope register (controller/processor role, categories, systems)
• Intra-group transfer map (systems, access paths, locations)
• BCR obligation-to-control matrix

Operational proof

• Training assignments and completion records for in-scope roles
• Audit/testing reports, findings, and remediation tickets
• Complaint/DSR logs showing intake, triage, outcomes (redacted where necessary)
• Exception register with approvals and closure evidence

Regulatory

• Submission package versions
• Correspondence log and responses
• Approval documentation and any conditions attached

If you run Daydream for GRC workflow, set up a dedicated requirement workspace that links each BCR obligation to its control owner, evidence source, and exception workflow so evidence collection does not depend on individual inboxes.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these lines of questioning:

• Scope clarity: “Which entities and systems are covered by BCRs, and how do you prevent unbound entities from receiving EU personal data?”
• Proof of binding effect: “Show the mechanism that makes the rules binding on each entity and employee.”
• Operationalization: “Where is the procedure that tells teams what to do when onboarding a new affiliate or launching a new shared service?”
• Testing: “How do you test adherence, and what happens when a control fails?”
• Traceability: “Pick one transfer path and walk us from data source to destination, including evidence of training, access controls, and complaint handling.”

Hangup pattern: auditors reject “policy-only” answers. They want system outputs, ticket trails, and governance records.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Draft-first, scope-later

• Fix: Lock the role-and-scope register and transfer map before final drafting.

2. No obligation-to-control mapping

• Fix: Create a matrix that points each commitment to a process, owner, and evidence source.

3. Entity onboarding is informal

• Fix: Require a documented onboarding checklist and a named local privacy contact per entity.

4. Evidence is scattered

• Fix: Run an evidence packet cadence; centralize artifacts in a controlled repository with versioning.

5. BCRs treated as “legal’s project”

• Fix: Put Security, HR, and Internal Audit on the RACI from day one; BCRs depend on their operational systems.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this page, so this guidance stays anchored to the regulatory requirement text and operational expectations implied by an approval-based mechanism. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

From a risk standpoint, the main exposure is relying on intra-group transfers without an approved mechanism when BCRs are your claimed basis. The second exposure is representational risk: customers and regulators treat BCRs as a maturity signal, so inability to produce evidence quickly can escalate audits and procurement friction.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

You asked for speed. Use phased execution without promising calendar outcomes.

First phase (Immediate): Scope + ownership + plan

• Stand up the Article 47 owner and cross-functional RACI.
• Build the role-and-scope register and initial intra-group transfer map.
• Publish a one-page BCR program charter: objectives, in-scope entities, submission approach, evidence approach.
• Create the evidence repository structure and naming/versioning rules.

Second phase (Near-term): Draft + operational mapping

• Draft the BCRs and supporting procedures.
• Produce the obligation-to-control matrix with named control owners.
• Build onboarding mechanics: entity checklist, training assignment workflow, exception workflow.
• Run a tabletop test: pick one transfer and execute the evidence walk end-to-end.

Third phase (Next): Submission readiness + operating cadence

• Finalize the submission package for the competent supervisory authority approval path described in Article 47. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)
• Start a recurring internal testing cadence and findings remediation workflow.
• Train in-scope teams and collect completion evidence.
• Operationalize M&A and new-service triggers in the BCR operating procedure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we need BCRs if we already have standard data protection agreements within the group?

Article 47 applies only if you want to rely on BCRs as the transfer mechanism and obtain supervisory approval for them. If you are not pursuing BCR approval, Article 47’s approval requirement is not the path you are taking. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

Are BCRs only for controllers, or can processors use them too?

BCRs can be designed for controller or processor contexts; your first step is to document your role decisions per processing activity in a role-and-scope register. Your BCR package and operating procedures should match that role posture. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 47)

What evidence do auditors actually expect beyond the BCR document?

Expect requests for scope registers, transfer maps, training completion records, audit/testing results, exception tracking, and complaint/DSR workflows that work across group entities. Build an evidence pack that can answer “show me” questions fast.

We have frequent acquisitions. How do we keep BCR scope current?

Add an M&A trigger to your BCR operating procedure: no newly acquired entity receives in-scope personal data until onboarding steps are complete and binding mechanisms are in place. Track onboarding status in your entity roster.

Can one central privacy team run this without local contacts in each entity?

Central ownership helps, but you still need accountable points of contact in each bound entity to execute training, implement procedures, and respond to issues. Auditors typically test whether responsibilities are workable in practice.

How does Daydream fit without turning this into a tool project?

Use Daydream narrowly for execution control: maintain the role-and-scope register, track obligation-to-control mappings, collect recurring evidence packets, and manage exceptions and remediation with clear ownership. Keep drafting and approval content controlled, but run operations through workflows.