Information security governance

The information security governance requirement in TISAX expects you to define, document, and operate clear ownership, decision rights, and a policy framework for automotive information security across your organization and relevant third parties. To operationalize it quickly, assign accountable roles, establish an approved policy hierarchy, stand up a recurring governance cadence, and retain evidence that governance decisions drive risk treatment and control implementation ¹.

Key takeaways:

• You need named accountability (who decides, who executes, who assures) and documented governance artifacts that auditors can trace ¹.
• Governance must translate into operating routines: risk decisions, exceptions, approvals, and oversight of third parties handling automotive information ¹.
• Evidence matters as much as intent; retain meeting minutes, approvals, ownership maps, and policy lifecycle records ¹.

“Information security governance” sounds abstract until you face a TISAX assessment and realize the assessor is asking a simple question: “Show me who owns information security, how decisions get made, and how you prove it works.” Under TISAX, governance is the management system wrapper around your technical and procedural controls for protecting automotive information and systems. It is how you set expectations internally, enforce them operationally, and manage exceptions without losing control.

This page focuses on the requirement-level implementation of the information security governance requirement for automotive suppliers and service providers pursuing or maintaining TISAX assessment results ¹. You will not find copied standard text here; the underlying standard is proprietary. Instead, you get practical steps, templates you can assemble quickly, and the evidence set auditors typically expect for governance: ownership, policy framework, recurring oversight, and traceability from decisions to action ¹.

If you already have an ISO 27001-style ISMS, treat this requirement as “prove your ISMS governance is explicit, current, and actually used for automotive scope,” including third parties.

Regulatory text

Provided excerpt (framework overview summary): “Baseline implementation-intent summary derived from publicly available framework overviews; licensed standard text is not reproduced in this record.” The summarized intent for this requirement is: “Define governance for automotive information security expectations.” ¹

What the operator must do:
You must define and document a governance model that sets automotive information security expectations, assigns ownership, and provides a policy framework and oversight rhythm that drives consistent execution ¹. In practice, assessors look for: (1) clear accountability, (2) policies/standards that translate expectations into rules, (3) management review and risk oversight, and (4) evidence that governance is active, not shelfware.

Plain-English interpretation (what this requirement is really testing)

This is the “who is in charge and how do you prove it” control. TISAX wants confidence that security outcomes do not depend on heroic individuals. Your governance should show:

• Authority: security decisions have an accountable owner with defined decision rights.
• Consistency: policies and standards define what “secure” means for automotive scope.
• Oversight: leadership reviews risk, exceptions, and performance on a recurring cadence.
• Traceability: governance outputs (approvals, risk acceptances, exceptions) tie to implemented controls, tickets, and remediation plans.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

This requirement generally applies to:

• Automotive suppliers handling OEM data, engineering data, prototypes, production systems, or connected vehicle components ¹.
• Automotive service providers providing IT, cloud, development, testing, logistics, BPO, or managed services where they store, process, transmit, or can access automotive information ¹.

Operationally, governance must cover:

• In-scope business units and locations participating in the assessed scope.
• Information types and systems used to handle automotive information.
• Third parties that touch the same information or systems (subprocessors, IT providers, test labs, contractors), because weak oversight of third parties often defeats internal controls.

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

Step 1: Define the governance model (one page, explicit)

Create an “Information Security Governance Charter” that answers:

• Accountable executive: who is ultimately accountable (often CIO/CTO/CISO or equivalent).
• Security function mandate: responsibilities of InfoSec (policy, risk management, assurance).
• Decision rights: who can approve risk acceptance, exceptions, and major control changes.
• RACI map: business, IT, security, legal, HR, procurement, and engineering roles.
• Scope statement: what the governance covers (automotive information and systems in scope).

Practical tip: Put names and roles, not only titles. Auditors test continuity and authority by checking whether the named role can actually enforce decisions.

Step 2: Establish the policy framework (hierarchy + lifecycle)

Document a policy hierarchy and lifecycle that is easy to audit:

• Level 1: Information Security Policy (management intent, mandatory).
• Level 2: Standards (minimum requirements; e.g., access control, cryptography, logging).
• Level 3: Procedures/runbooks (how-to steps for operations teams).
• Level 4: Records (evidence the above happened).

Operationalize lifecycle:

• Owner per document, approval authority, review triggers (change in scope, incidents, audit findings), version control, and exception handling.

Minimum governance artifact: a policy register that lists each document, owner, last approval date, and where the controlled copy lives.

Step 3: Create a standing governance cadence (meetings that produce decisions)

Stand up two recurring forums and make them “evidence-producing”:

1. Information Security Steering Committee (cross-functional): reviews risk posture, key exceptions, major initiatives, and audit status.
2. Risk/Exception Review (smaller, faster): approves risk acceptances, compensating controls, and time-bound exceptions.

For each forum, define:

• Charter, membership, quorum, agenda template, and decision log.
• Inputs: risk register, open audit findings, third-party risk issues, incident metrics, major changes.
• Outputs: decisions with owners and due dates.

Audit reality: Meeting minutes without decisions rarely satisfy governance. Your minutes should show approvals, escalations, and assignments.

Step 4: Connect governance to risk management and exceptions

Governance must control “deviations from standard.” Implement:

• Risk register ownership and a workflow for creating, reviewing, and closing risks.
• Risk acceptance process with defined approvers and required documentation.
• Policy exception process that forces: justification, compensating controls, expiration date, and re-approval rules.

Common assessor test: pick one exception and trace it to approval, compensating controls, and eventual closure or renewal.

Step 5: Extend governance to third parties in scope

For third parties that access automotive information or systems:

• Assign internal ownership (a business owner and a security/procurement owner).
• Require security expectations in contracts (policy alignment, incident notification, access rules).
• Define oversight: onboarding checks, periodic review, offboarding.

Keep it simple: start with a third-party register for in-scope providers, mapped to the data/systems they touch and the control expectations you impose.

Step 6: Build “traceability” (governance → work)

Create a lightweight mapping from governance decisions to execution:

• Steering committee decision log item → Jira/ServiceNow ticket(s) → implementation evidence.
• Policy requirement → control owner → operating evidence.

This is where tools like Daydream fit naturally: teams use it to track governance-owned requirements, assign control owners, collect artifacts, and show auditors a single trace from requirement to evidence without scrambling across shared drives.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain (audit-ready set)

Use this as your retention checklist:

Artifact	What it proves	Owner
Information Security Governance Charter	Ownership, decision rights, scope	CISO/CCO/GRC lead
RACI / org responsibilities matrix	Who does what	GRC
Policy hierarchy + policy register	Governance framework exists and is maintained	InfoSec/GRC
Approved Information Security Policy (controlled copy)	Management approval and expectations	InfoSec
Steering committee charter + member list	Oversight structure	GRC
Meeting minutes + decision log	Governance is operating	Committee chair
Risk register + risk treatment decisions	Risk oversight	Risk owner/GRC
Exception/risk acceptance forms	Controlled deviations	InfoSec/GRC
Third-party register (in-scope) + reviews	Oversight beyond your perimeter	Procurement/GRC
Audit/internal review reports + remediation tracking	Governance drives remediation	GRC

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these questions in a TISAX assessment context ¹:

1. “Who is accountable for information security for the assessed scope?”
   Hangup: you name a function, not a person/role with authority.

2. “Show your security policy framework and approvals.”
   Hangup: policies exist but are outdated, inconsistent, or missing approvals.

3. “How do you manage risk acceptances and exceptions?”
   Hangup: exceptions live in emails; no expirations or compensating controls.

4. “How does leadership know security is working?”
   Hangup: no metrics, no recurring review, or minutes without decisions.

5. “How do you govern third parties that handle the data?”
   Hangup: procurement owns contracts, but security requirements and oversight are informal.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

• Mistake: Governance exists only on paper.
  Fix: require every meeting to produce a decision log with owners and due dates.

• Mistake: Policy sprawl with no hierarchy.
  Fix: publish a single policy map (policy → standards → procedures) and retire duplicates.

• Mistake: “Shared accountability” means no accountability.
  Fix: name one accountable role for each domain (access, logging, vulnerability, third-party risk).

• Mistake: Exceptions never expire.
  Fix: enforce time-bound exceptions and track renewals like high-risk events.

• Mistake: Third-party governance stops at onboarding.
  Fix: implement periodic reviews for in-scope third parties and require offboarding evidence (access removal, data return/destruction where applicable).

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases are provided in the supplied source catalog for this requirement, so this page does not list enforcement actions. Practically, weak governance increases the likelihood that security controls drift, exceptions accumulate, and third-party risk goes unmanaged. In a TISAX assessment, that typically shows up as “insufficient implementation evidence” or inconsistent operation across sites and teams ¹.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Days 1–30: Establish ownership and minimum governance artifacts

• Appoint accountable executive and governance owner for the assessed scope.
• Draft and approve the governance charter and RACI.
• Build the policy register and identify missing or duplicate documents.
• Stand up the steering committee with a fixed agenda template and decision log.
• Start an in-scope third-party register (names, services, data/system touchpoints).

Days 31–60: Make governance operational (decisions that drive work)

• Run at least one steering committee meeting and record decisions.
• Implement risk acceptance and exception workflows (forms + approval routing).
• Tie top risks to remediation plans with owners and tracked tasks.
• Update contracts/templates for in-scope third parties with baseline security expectations.
• Pilot evidence collection in a single repository (GRC tool or controlled share).

Days 61–90: Prove operating effectiveness and prepare assessor-ready traceability

• Demonstrate traceability: governance decisions → tickets → implemented controls → evidence.
• Complete a targeted internal review of governance artifacts and meeting records.
• Run a tabletop review for one exception and one third-party issue end-to-end.
• Normalize document control: versioning, approvals, and review triggers.
• If using Daydream, configure the requirement-to-evidence workflow so owners can upload approvals, minutes, and exception records in one place.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the fastest way to satisfy the information security governance requirement without rewriting our entire ISMS?

Start with a governance charter, a RACI, a policy register, and a decision-producing committee cadence. Auditors want clarity, current approvals, and evidence that decisions drive actions ¹.

Do we need a CISO to meet this requirement?

You need an accountable role with authority, not a specific job title. Many organizations assign accountability to a CIO/CTO with a security manager or GRC lead running the program day to day.

How do we show governance works if we don’t have security KPIs yet?

Use what you already have: risk register movement, exception counts and closures, audit finding remediation status, and major incident postmortems. Pair metrics with meeting minutes that show decisions and follow-through.

What evidence is most commonly missing during assessments?

Decision logs, documented exception approvals, and proof that policy documents are approved and controlled. Teams often have informal governance but cannot produce records quickly.

How far does governance extend to third parties?

Cover any third party that can access or handle in-scope automotive information or systems. Your evidence should show ownership, contractual expectations, and ongoing oversight, not only initial onboarding.

Can Daydream replace our existing GRC tool for governance evidence?

Daydream can act as the operating layer that assigns owners, tracks requirements, and collects artifacts for audit traceability. If you already have a GRC system, Daydream typically complements it by making evidence collection and requirement tracking easier for control owners.

Related compliance topics

• 2025 SEC Marketing Rule Examination Focus Areas
• Access and identity controls
• Access Control (AC)
• Access control and identity discipline
• Access control management

Footnotes

1. ENX TISAX overview