When an audit wraps up, most teams feel relief followed by the question, “Now what?” Over the years supporting facilities across bakery, beverage, ready-to-eat, frozen, and high-care environments, I’ve seen that success after an audit isn’t about the number of findings. It’s about how effectively and confidently the site responds.
Corrective actions are not just administrative tasks. They are your opportunity to strengthen the system, prevent recurrence, and demonstrate control to certification bodies and customers. By understanding how to approach corrective actions with structure and clarity, you reduce stress, prevent repeat findings, and protect certification status.
By the end of this article, you’ll know how to respond to Minor, Major, and Critical findings in a way that aligns with BRC V9 expectations.
Understanding Audit Findings Severity Levels
Before writing any corrective action response, it’s important to understand what the finding represents.
Minor A small gap with no direct food safety or legal risk. Example: A missing signature or out-of-date document.
Major A systemic failure or a situation that may lead to food safety or legal risk. Example: Gaps in allergen changeover verification.
Critical An immediate and serious food safety or legal issue. Example: Undeclared allergens, foreign bodies, or evidence of product fraud.
A key point to remember: severity is based on risk, recurrence, and system weakness, not just the individual mistake.
One site received a Major because multiple Minor allergen findings repeated across audits. The message from the auditor was clear: this was no longer an isolated issue.
The Corrective Action Process Step-by-Step
A strong response follows a clear process. The order matters.
Review and fully understand the finding.
Apply containment if product, equipment, or environment may be affected.
Investigate the root cause using a structured method.
Develop corrective and preventive actions.
Submit evidence to the certification body for closure.
A common problem is writing responses defensively or emotionally. Corrective actions should be factual, evidence-based, and focused on prevention.
Root-Cause Analysis That Meets BRC Expectations
Root cause is not just identifying what happened. It explains why it happened.
Helpful techniques include:
Five Whys
Fishbone diagram
Barrier or failure analysis
Human factors review
Weak root cause example: “Operator error.”
Strong root cause example: “Procedure layout unclear, training did not include competency evaluation, and no verification step existed to confirm records were completed.”
The second approach shows system thinking, not blame.
Writing a Strong Corrective Action Response
A strong corrective action response should clearly communicate four components:
What was found
Why it happened
What has been done immediately
What will prevent recurrence
Weak example: “We reminded operators to follow the process.”
Improved example: “Procedure updated, staff trained using new format, competency recorded, and verification added to the start-of-shift checks.”
The difference is clarity and prevention.
Evidence Requirements and Documentation Expectations
Corrective actions require proof of change, not just statements.
Acceptable evidence includes:
Updated procedures and forms
Photos of updated controls or labeling
Revised training records
Verification or calibration records
Updated supplier, maintenance, or hygiene documentation
A good practice is to maintain a corrective action evidence folder so documents are never scattered or lost.
Preventing Repeat Non-Conformities
Repeat findings signal one issue: the system was not strengthened.
Prevent recurrence through:
Assigned ownership
Verification of effectiveness
Routine follow-up audits
Competency-based training rather than awareness slides
One site eliminated recurring allergen findings by implementing short weekly checks rather than relying on annual reassessments.
Corrective Action Timeframes and Submission Rules
Timing matters. Certification bodies expect responses within specific windows depending on severity.
General expectations:
Minor: evidence submitted within the designated closure period
Major: shortened submission timeframe and formal root-cause validation
Critical: immediate action required and certificate placed at risk until resolved
Delays or incomplete responses can affect the site grade and trigger follow-up audits.
FAQs – Corrective Actions in BRC V9
How fast do corrective actions need to be submitted? Within the timeline assigned by the certification body. Do not wait until the final day.
Can we fix the issue after submission? No. Corrective actions must be implemented before submitting evidence.
Can we involve external experts? Yes. Competence is expected. Outsourced support is acceptable when managed properly.
Conclusion – Turning Findings Into Continuous Improvement
Corrective actions are not just about closing an audit report. They help strengthen systems, reinforce culture, and build confidence for future audits. With a structured approach, evidence-based responses, and preventive thinking, corrective actions become manageable and meaningful.
If you’re ready for the next step, you can:
Download a corrective action template
Request help reviewing responses
Train your team in effective root cause and corrective action techniques
When corrective actions are done well, audit findings become opportunities, not setbacks.
Melissa Lavaro is a seasoned ISO consultant and an enthusiastic advocate for quality management standards. With a rich experience in conducting audits and providing consultancy services, Melissa specializes in helping organizations implement and adapt to ISO standards. Her passion for quality management is evident in her hands-on approach and deep understanding of the regulatory frameworks. Melissa’s expertise and energetic commitment make her a sought-after consultant, dedicated to elevating organizational compliance and performance through practical, insightful guidance.
