In 2022, the Global CBPR Forum was founded by Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and the United States to support the free flow of data and effective data protection and privacy globally. Additional jurisdictions have joined since its founding such as the United Kingdom, Bermuda, Dubai Financial Center, Mauritius, and Nigeria, with more announcing intent to join every year.
To be full participating members of the CBPR System, jurisdictions must establish enforcement authorities for oversight and have at least one accountability agent, which could be a government organization formed or endorsed by the jurisdiction, or a private organization that has been approved by the Joint Oversight Panel. Accountability agents, like Schellman, are then responsible for certifying organizations that would like to participate in the CBPR System against the established minimum requirements for their respective role(s).
In 2022, the Global CBPR Forum was founded by Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and the United States to support the free flow of data and effective data protection and privacy globally. Additional jurisdictions have joined since its founding, such as the United Kingdom, Bermuda, Dubai Financial Center, and Mauritius, with more announcing intent to join every year.
The Global CBPR System was established in 2025, expanding the existing APEC CBPR System to jurisdictions outside of the APEC Member Economies. The Global CBPR System encourages the flow of personal data across borders internationally via its Cross Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) and Privacy Recognition for Processors (PRP) requirements and available certifications. The CBPR certification established for organizations in the controller role while the PRP certification being implemented for organizations in the processor role. Accountability agents, like Schellman, are available in a number of member jurisdictions to then certify organizations that would like to participate in the CBPR System against the established minimum requirements for their respective role(s).
Schellman’s Global CBPR Certification program evaluates a United States based organization that serves in the role of a controller and collects personal information that is transferred between participating economies.
The organization is assessed against the CBPR minimum certification requirements noted below.
The privacy notice or statement must provide clear and easily accessible statements about your practices and policies that govern personal information and must include the following:
* The following are situations in which the application at the time of collection of the APEC Notice Principle may not be necessary or practical. Justification for any of the following will be required.
Obviousness: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide notice of the collection, use or third-party sharing of personal information in those circumstances where consent by the individual can be inferred from the provision of the individual’s information (e.g. if an individual gives his or her business card to another individual in the context of a business relationship, the individual would not expect that notice would be provided regarding the collection and normal use of that information).
Collection of Publicly-Available Information: Personal information controllers do not need to provide notice regarding the collection and use of publicly available information.
Technological Impracticability: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide notice at or before the time of collection in those cases where electronic technology automatically collects information when a prospective customer initiates contact (e.g. through the use of cookies). However, the notice should be provided to the individuals as soon after as is practicable.
Disclosure to a government institution which has made a request for the information with lawful authority: Personal information controllers do not need to provide notice of disclosure to law enforcement agencies for investigation purposes where the provision of such notice to the individual will likely prejudice the investigation.
Disclosure to a third party pursuant to a lawful form of process: Personal information controllers do not need to provide notice of disclosure to a third party when such disclosure was requested pursuant to a lawful form of process such as a discovery request made in the course of civil litigation.
Third-Party Receipt: Where personal information is received from a third party, the recipient personal information controller does not need to provide notice to the individuals at or before the time of collection of the information.
For legitimate investigation purposes: When providing notice would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information and the collection, use and disclosure are reasonable for purposes relating to an internal or external investigation of a violation of a code of conduct, breach of contract or a contravention of domestic law.
Action in the event of an emergency: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide notice in emergency situations that threaten the life, health or security of an individual.
*The following are situations in which the application of the APEC Choice Principle may not be necessary or practical. Justification for any of the following will be required.
Obviousness: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in the collection, use or third-party sharing of personal information in those circumstances where consent by the individual can be inferred from the provision of the individual’s information.
Collection of Publicly-Available Information: Personal information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to the collection and use of publicly available information.
Technological Impracticability: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to those cases where electronic technology automatically collects information when a prospective customer initiates contact [e.g. use of cookies]. However, a mechanism to exercise choice as to use and disclosure should be provided after collection of the information.
Third-Party Receipt: Where personal information is received from a third party, the recipient personal information controller does not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to the collection of the information. However, if the personal information controller engages a third party to collect personal information on its behalf, the personal information controller should instruct the collector to provide such choice when collecting the personal information.
Disclosure to a government institution which has made a request for the information with lawful authority: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to disclosure to law enforcement agencies for investigation purposes where the provision of such mechanism to the individual will likely prejudice the investigation.
Disclosure to a third party pursuant to a lawful form of process: Personal information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to the disclosure to a third party when such disclosure was requested pursuant to a lawful form of process such as a discovery request made in the course of civil litigation.
For legitimate investigation purposes: When providing a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice would compromise the availability or accuracy of the personal information and its collection, use and disclosure are reasonable for purposes relating to an internal or external investigation of a violation of a code of conduct, breach of contract or a contravention of domestic law.
Action in the event of an emergency: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in emergency situations that threaten the life, health or security of an individual.
Provide individuals the ability to obtain confirmation of whether or not personal information is held about the requesting individual.
If requested, provide individuals access to their personal information. Prior to providing access, confirm the identity of the individual requesting access. Provide access within a reasonable time frame following the request and communicate the information in a reasonable manner that is generally understandable, in a legible format and compatible with the regular form of interaction with the individual.
If a fee is charged for providing access, the fees should not be excessive.
If the individual is denied access, an explanation must be provided as to why access was denied and provide the appropriate contact information for challenging the denial of access where appropriate.
*Although organizations should always make good faith efforts to provide access, there are some situations, described below, in which it may be necessary for organizations to deny access requests. Justification for any of the following will be required.
Disproportionate Burden: Personal information controllers do not need to provide access and correction where the burden or expense of doing so would be unreasonable or disproportionate to the risks to the individual's privacy in the case in question, as for example when claims for access are repetitious or vexatious by nature.
Protection of Confidential Information: Personal information controllers do not need to provide access and correction where the information cannot be disclosed due to legal or security reasons or to protect confidential commercial information (i.e. information that you have taken steps to protect from disclosure, where such disclosure would facilitate a competitor in the market to use or exploit the information against your business interest causing significant financial loss). Where confidential commercial information can be readily separated from other information subject to an access request, the personal information controller should redact the confidential commercial information and make available the non-confidential commercial information to the extent that such information constitutes personal information of the individual concerned. Other situations would include those where disclosure of information would benefit a competitor in the market place, such as a particular computer or modeling program. Furthermore, a denial of access may also be considered acceptable in situations where, for example providing the information would constitute a violation of laws or would compromise security.
Third Party Risk: Personal information controllers do not need to provide access and correction where the information privacy of persons other than the individual would be violated. In those instances where a third party’s personal information can be severed from the information requested for access or correction, the personal information controller must release the information after redaction of the third party’s personal information.
Implement mechanisms with processors, agents, contractors, or other service providers pertaining to personal information they process on your behalf, to ensure that obligations to the individual will be met. The mechanisms should require the following:
Schellman’s Global PRP Certification program evaluates a United States based organization that serves in the role of a processor, processes personal information on behalf of controllers, and assists the controller in complying with relevant privacy requirements. Processors completing this certification are more visible to controllers looking for a processor certified against the Global PRP.
The organization is assessed against the PRP minimum certification requirements noted below.
Schellman’s Global PRP Certification program evaluates a United States based organization that serves in the role of a processor, processes personal information on behalf of controllers, and assists the controller in complying with relevant privacy requirements. Processors completing this certification are more visible to controllers looking for a processor certified against the Global PRP.
The organization is assessed against the PRP minimum certification requirements noted below.
Schellman’s Global CBPR Certification program evaluates a United States based organization that serves in the role of a controller and collects personal information that is transferred between participating economies.
The organization is assessed against the CBPR minimum certification requirements noted below.
The privacy notice or statement must provide clear and easily accessible statements about your practices and policies that govern personal information and must include the following:
* The following are situations in which the application at the time of collection of the APEC Notice Principle may not be necessary or practical. Justification for any of the following will be required.
Obviousness: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide notice of the collection, use or third-party sharing of personal information in those circumstances where consent by the individual can be inferred from the provision of the individual’s information (e.g. if an individual gives his or her business card to another individual in the context of a business relationship, the individual would not expect that notice would be provided regarding the collection and normal use of that information).
Collection of Publicly-Available Information: Personal information controllers do not need to provide notice regarding the collection and use of publicly available information.
Technological Impracticability: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide notice at or before the time of collection in those cases where electronic technology automatically collects information when a prospective customer initiates contact (e.g. through the use of cookies). However, the notice should be provided to the individuals as soon after as is practicable.
Disclosure to a government institution which has made a request for the information with lawful authority: Personal information controllers do not need to provide notice of disclosure to law enforcement agencies for investigation purposes where the provision of such notice to the individual will likely prejudice the investigation.
Disclosure to a third party pursuant to a lawful form of process: Personal information controllers do not need to provide notice of disclosure to a third party when such disclosure was requested pursuant to a lawful form of process such as a discovery request made in the course of civil litigation.
Third-Party Receipt: Where personal information is received from a third party, the recipient personal information controller does not need to provide notice to the individuals at or before the time of collection of the information.
For legitimate investigation purposes: When providing notice would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information and the collection, use and disclosure are reasonable for purposes relating to an internal or external investigation of a violation of a code of conduct, breach of contract or a contravention of domestic law.
Action in the event of an emergency: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide notice in emergency situations that threaten the life, health or security of an individual.
*The following are situations in which the application of the APEC Choice Principle may not be necessary or practical. Justification for any of the following will be required.
Obviousness: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in the collection, use or third-party sharing of personal information in those circumstances where consent by the individual can be inferred from the provision of the individual’s information.
Collection of Publicly-Available Information: Personal information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to the collection and use of publicly available information.
Technological Impracticability: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to those cases where electronic technology automatically collects information when a prospective customer initiates contact [e.g. use of cookies]. However, a mechanism to exercise choice as to use and disclosure should be provided after collection of the information.
Third-Party Receipt: Where personal information is received from a third party, the recipient personal information controller does not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to the collection of the information. However, if the personal information controller engages a third party to collect personal information on its behalf, the personal information controller should instruct the collector to provide such choice when collecting the personal information.
Disclosure to a government institution which has made a request for the information with lawful authority: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to disclosure to law enforcement agencies for investigation purposes where the provision of such mechanism to the individual will likely prejudice the investigation.
Disclosure to a third party pursuant to a lawful form of process: Personal information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in relation to the disclosure to a third party when such disclosure was requested pursuant to a lawful form of process such as a discovery request made in the course of civil litigation.
For legitimate investigation purposes: When providing a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice would compromise the availability or accuracy of the personal information and its collection, use and disclosure are reasonable for purposes relating to an internal or external investigation of a violation of a code of conduct, breach of contract or a contravention of domestic law.
Action in the event of an emergency: Personal Information controllers do not need to provide a mechanism for individuals to exercise choice in emergency situations that threaten the life, health or security of an individual.
Provide individuals the ability to obtain confirmation of whether or not personal information is held about the requesting individual.
If requested, provide individuals access to their personal information. Prior to providing access, confirm the identity of the individual requesting access. Provide access within a reasonable time frame following the request and communicate the information in a reasonable manner that is generally understandable, in a legible format and compatible with the regular form of interaction with the individual.
If a fee is charged for providing access, the fees should not be excessive.
If the individual is denied access, an explanation must be provided as to why access was denied and provide the appropriate contact information for challenging the denial of access where appropriate.
*Although organizations should always make good faith efforts to provide access, there are some situations, described below, in which it may be necessary for organizations to deny access requests. Justification for any of the following will be required.
Disproportionate Burden: Personal information controllers do not need to provide access and correction where the burden or expense of doing so would be unreasonable or disproportionate to the risks to the individual's privacy in the case in question, as for example when claims for access are repetitious or vexatious by nature.
Protection of Confidential Information: Personal information controllers do not need to provide access and correction where the information cannot be disclosed due to legal or security reasons or to protect confidential commercial information (i.e. information that you have taken steps to protect from disclosure, where such disclosure would facilitate a competitor in the market to use or exploit the information against your business interest causing significant financial loss). Where confidential commercial information can be readily separated from other information subject to an access request, the personal information controller should redact the confidential commercial information and make available the non-confidential commercial information to the extent that such information constitutes personal information of the individual concerned. Other situations would include those where disclosure of information would benefit a competitor in the market place, such as a particular computer or modeling program. Furthermore, a denial of access may also be considered acceptable in situations where, for example providing the information would constitute a violation of laws or would compromise security.
Third Party Risk: Personal information controllers do not need to provide access and correction where the information privacy of persons other than the individual would be violated. In those instances where a third party’s personal information can be severed from the information requested for access or correction, the personal information controller must release the information after redaction of the third party’s personal information.
Implement mechanisms with processors, agents, contractors, or other service providers pertaining to personal information they process on your behalf, to ensure that obligations to the individual will be met. The mechanisms should require the following:
Schellman’s Global PRP Certification program evaluates a United States based organization that serves in the role of a processor, processes personal information on behalf of controllers, and assists the controller in complying with relevant privacy requirements. Processors completing this certification are more visible to controllers looking for a processor certified against the Global PRP.
The organization is assessed against the PRP minimum certification requirements noted below.
Schellman performs each assessment with your end goals and preparation for future key compliance initiatives in mind. Effective communication and timely coordination of project activities are central to our methodology.
The planning phase occurs at least two months in advance of fieldwork in accordance with the timing outlined in the job arrangement letter (JAL) executed with the client. Planning includes the completion of an intake questionnaire, confirming timing of interviews with key points of contact, and deployment of and evidence gathering for the information request list provided via AuditSource 2.0. Schellman will be available to the client to answer any questions associated with the assessment to ensure both parties are aligned on scope and expectations.
Schellman will hold a kickoff meeting to start fieldwork. Fieldwork consists of various testing procedures to evidence the certification minimum requirements are met. The testing procedures may include one or more of the following:
Schellman has a no surprises policy and regular contact with the client during fieldwork, allowing clients to be apprised at all times of conformance status. Non-compliant areas must be remediated within the timeframe provided by Schellman in order to obtain certification.
Schellman's assessment is focused on creating a deliverable that is clear, concise, and accurate. The draft report and draft certificate are provided within 2-3 weeks of the last day of fieldwork. The final deliverables, including the applicable certification seal, are available within 5 business days of the client approving the draft versions. Schellman will submit the client's registration to the CBPR System directory for official participation in the framework.
Schellman’s testing methodology ends with reporting, but the entire assessment is focused on creating a deliverable that is clear, concise, and accurate.
Schellman’s report takes into account the entire process and customizes a report for each Client. The draft report will be provided within 2 weeks of the last day of testing and gathering phase, and a final report will be provided within 30 days. This timing is unsurpassed by the industry.
Annual recertifications must take place in order for participants to maintain their certification. The recertification process includes:
Certification shall be suspended in cases when, for example:
Schellman will communicate with the client the suspension status along with the remediation requirements. Schellman is required to make publicly accessible the suspended status of certifications
Schellman performs each assessment with your end goals and preparation for future key compliance initiatives in mind. Effective communication and timely coordination of project activities are central to our methodology.
The planning phase typically occurs at least two months in advance of fieldwork in accordance with the timing outlined in the job arrangement letter (JAL) or statement of work (SOW) executed with the client. Planning includes the completion of an intake questionnaire, confirming timing of interviews with key points of contact, and deployment of and evidence gathering for the information request list provided via AuditSource 2.0. Schellman will be available to the client to answer any questions associated with the assessment to ensure both parties are aligned on scope and expectations.
Schellman will hold a kickoff meeting to start fieldwork. Fieldwork consists of various testing procedures to evidence the certification minimum requirements are met. The testing procedures may include one or more of the following:
Schellman has a no surprises policy and regular contact with the client during fieldwork, allowing clients to be apprised at all times of conformance status. Non-compliant areas must be remediated within the timeframe provided by Schellman in order to obtain certification.
Schellman's assessment is focused on creating a deliverable that is clear, concise, and accurate. The draft report and draft certificate are typically provided within 2-3 weeks of the last day of fieldwork. The final deliverables, including the applicable certification seal, are available within 5 business days of the client approving the draft versions. Schellman will submit the client's registration to the CBPR System directory for official participation in the framework.
Participants in the framework are monitored throughout the certification period to confirm compliance with the program. The monitoring activities may include, but are not limited to, periodic reviews of the participant's privacy notice for updates or investigations into any disputes received by Schellman. Documentation or onsite visits may be requested of the participant by Schellman to validate compliance. Schellman will notify the participant in advance to allow for documentation collection and scheduling of the onsite visit.
Annual recertifications must take place in order for participants to maintain their certification. The recertification process includes:
Certification shall be suspended in cases when, for example:
Schellman will communicate with the client the suspension status along with the remediation requirements. Schellman is required to make publicly accessible the suspended status of certifications.
Chris is a Director and Privacy Technical Lead at Schellman based out of Atlanta, GA. With more than five years of experience in information assurance, Chris has a concentration in privacy-related engagements.
Whether it is an ISO 27001 certification, SOC 2 examination or a FedRAMP assessment, companies are often challenged by the need to address customer requirements while ensuring a return on compliance investment.
The most important factor in scoping a potential assessment is understanding what deliverable the recipient (i.e. your customer or partner) is expecting.
Once we have scoped your environment and needs, there are several factors that contribute to Schellman’s pricing:
Schellman includes statistics on the types of complaints received and the outcomes of such complaints publicly accessible on this website. You can learn more on our Statistics and Case Notes page.
Check the certification status of our APEC clients by using our Certificate Directory.
Schellman takes complaints against itself or its clients seriously. Complaints about Schellman should be submitted using this form.