§11 · Lane 4 — ISO/IEC AI Management System Family

ISO/IEC 42005:2025 (AI System Impact Assessment)

ISO/IEC (2025) · ISO/IEC 42005

Standard Tier 1 Lane 4 Stable URL
Read on publisher · Stable URL

Bibliographic data

Title
ISO/IEC 42005:2025 — AI system impact assessment
Authors / Issuing body
ISO/IEC
Venue / Publisher
ISO/IEC
Year
2025
Designation
Standard
Licence
Stable URL — refer to publisher for full licence terms.

How to cite

ISO/IEC (2025). ISO/IEC 42005:2025 — AI system impact assessment. ISO/IEC. https://www.iso.org/standard/44545.html.

The operational guidance for AI system impact assessment — the practical implementation of ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1.4 and Annex A.5. Five informative annexes; Annex A Table A.1 provides the clause-level mapping back to 42001.

Why it matters for NETEVO

ISO/IEC 42005:2025 is the operational companion to ISO/IEC 42001 — the standard that specifies how an AI system impact assessment is actually developed, documented, and maintained. It turns ISO/IEC 42001 Clause 6.1.4 and Annex A.5 from a conformity obligation into a runnable process.

A single template, multiple regulatory hooks. The five-hook claim that underwrites NETEVO's multi-regulatory framing — one AI impact assessment satisfying ISO/IEC 42001 conformity, EU AI Act Article 27 fundamental rights impact assessment, AU Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) privacy impact assessment expectations, OAIC AI guidance, and the NSW AI Assessment Framework simultaneously — becomes implementable against the 42005 process. NETEVO treats 42005 as the operational artefact through which a single engineered assessment carries weight across the AU regulatory surface.

Modality preservation matters. The standard is should-heavy, with shall used sparingly. The substantive normative force sits in the should obligations rather than the headline mandatory clauses, which means drafters and auditors who preserve modal verbs in paraphrase carry the compliance weight correctly. This discipline shapes how NETEVO encodes 42005 obligations into executable controls under the Law-to-Code Methodology.

A board-readable harms-and-benefits taxonomy. Annex C supplies seven objective categories for classifying AI harms and benefits, which map cleanly to the disclosure shape AU listed and pre-listing leaders already use in board papers. This makes 42005 a natural anchor for the forthcoming AI-Washing Audit whitepaper, which argues that engineered evidence — assessments produced by a documented, repeatable process — is what distinguishes defensible AI claims from marketing posture.

Where NETEVO applies this

Related audiences