ISO/UNDP 53001 clause 5: what the auditor checks
ISO 53001 clause 5 deals with leadership. The auditor checks that top management itself drives the SDG management system, that a suitable policy is established and communicated, and that roles and responsibilities have been assigned. Most of the evidence comes from interviews with top management and from the decisions it has actually taken.
Updated: · edition covered: ISO/UNDP 53001:2026
ISO 53001 clause 5: top management as the first witness
For ISO 53001, clause 5 and top management are almost the same subject. The harmonized structure expects the people at the head of the organisation to take accountability for the effectiveness of the system, to build its requirements into business processes instead of handing them to an isolated department, to provide the means it needs and to explain why it matters. They set a policy, and they make sure everyone knows who decides what.
What the SDGs add to the common logic
Applied to the Sustainable Development Goals, this logic carries particular weight: trade-offs between profitability, social effects and environmental effects naturally rise to board level. Public information on the standard indicates that it expects governance decisions to take the SDGs into account. The policy required under 5.2 frames those trade-offs and the objectives that follow. As in any standard built on the harmonized structure, it is expected to suit the purpose of the organisation, to provide a framework for setting objectives, to commit to meeting applicable requirements and to continual improvement, and to be communicated and available as documented information.
The link with SDG 16 and its aim of effective, accountable institutions shows up here indirectly: governance that answers for its choices. The policy rests on the analysis carried out under clause 4 on context and is turned into objectives under clause 6 on planning. Where the organisation counts decent working conditions among its priorities, SDG 8 is often where the auditor first sees whether board decisions and stated commitments line up.
What the auditor establishes for each subclause
| Subclause | The auditor's question | Main method |
|---|---|---|
| 5.1 Leadership and commitment | Does top management know the selected SDGs, the results achieved and the shortfalls? Do its decisions on budget, investment and priorities reflect them? | Interview with the chief executive or the governing body; review of a sample of decisions and board or committee minutes |
| 5.2 Policy (SDG policy) | Is the policy documented, appropriate to the organisation, consistent with its context, communicated internally and available to the relevant interested parties? | Document review of the policy and its approval date; questions to staff to see whether they know it |
| 5.3 Organizational roles, responsibilities and authorities | Are responsibilities for the system assigned, communicated and understood? Does someone report on performance to top management? | Reading of job descriptions or delegations; cross-interviews with the people appointed and their line managers |
From a favourable finding to a major nonconformity
- Conforming: the chief executive discusses SDG priorities and results without notes; the policy is dated, approved and consistent with the objectives; the people appointed know their role.
- Minor: an isolated shortfall, such as a policy not made available to a relevant interested party, or a role assigned without the person being told in writing, with no demonstrated effect on how the system runs.
- Major: top management is not involved (no decision relates to the system, no resources are allocated), the policy is missing or contradicted by governance choices, or nobody holds the authority to make the system work.
- The tipping point: the auditor asks whether the weakness deprives the system of its ability to achieve its results. An imperfect policy stays minor; a policy never reflected in decisions becomes major.
Typical gaps under leadership
With no track record yet for a standard published in 2026, these are the gaps that management system auditors commonly meet on this clause.
- Commitment delegated entirely to a CSR officer, leaving top management unable to talk about results.
- A generic policy that could belong to any organisation, with no link to the SDGs selected.
- A policy approved but never circulated beyond the executive committee.
- An organisation chart for the system that no longer matches the people in post.
- No record of any top management decision based on the system's results.
Handling and clearing leadership nonconformities
A major nonconformity on this clause blocks the certification decision until the certification body has verified the correction and the effectiveness of the corrective action, as ISO/IEC 17021-1 requires. Because commitment is shown through actions, that verification often involves a fresh interview and a look at decisions taken after the audit, rather than simply reading a revised document.
A minor nonconformity leads to a corrective action plan that the certification body accepts; the auditor checks that it has been carried out at the following audit. The decision lies with people who did not audit the organisation. The arrangements are described in the certification process.
Frequently asked questions
Whom does the auditor interview about leadership?
The person or body that runs the organisation at the highest level, not only the manager responsible for the system. The auditor wants to confirm that top management knows the selected SDGs, the objectives and the results, and makes decisions accordingly. Interviews with managers and staff then show whether top management's messages have actually reached them.
Can the SDG policy be part of an existing CSR policy?
The harmonized structure generally allows several policies to be combined in one document, as is often done for quality and environment. The auditor then checks that the elements relating to the SDGs can be identified within it, and that the combined document still covers what any harmonized-structure policy contains: fitness for purpose, a framework for objectives, and commitments to meet requirements and to improve.
Is it a problem if the chief executive is absent on the audit day?
The meeting with top management is part of the audit plan. If the chief executive is unavailable, the auditor cannot establish top management's commitment from documents alone. The certification body then looks for another slot; failing that, clause 5 remains insufficiently assessed, and no conclusion on conformity can be reached.
Can an organisation without a formal organisation chart conform to 5.3?
Yes. The requirement concerns how responsibilities are assigned and communicated, not the format. In a small organisation, written delegations or a clear description of roles are enough if the people concerned know what falls to them. The auditor checks this in interviews: a documented role that its holder is unaware of does not meet the requirement.