Why Corrective Actions Matter in ISO/IEC 17021-1 Accreditation
Here’s what I’ve noticed working with certification bodies: most teams are quick to fix audit findings but slow to understand them. They patch the problem, send proof to the assessor, and move on. Then, during the next surveillance audit, the same issue comes back — just with a new label.
That’s not bad luck. That’s weak corrective action.
Under ISO/IEC 17021-1, corrective actions aren’t about paperwork — they’re about preventing recurrence. When done right, they help certification bodies strengthen their systems, show continual improvement, and gain assessor trust.
In this guide, I’ll walk you through how to handle findings step by step, write stronger root-cause analyses, and verify that your fixes actually work.
Before we talk about actions, let’s clarify the types of findings you’ll face:
Major non-conformities: Serious system gaps that cast doubt on impartiality, competence, or certification decisions.
Minor non-conformities: Isolated lapses that don’t threaten the system’s integrity.
Opportunities for improvement (OFIs): Suggestions that could make your system stronger, but not required for compliance.
Accreditation bodies don’t just check if you responded to a finding — they check if your actions were effective.
Pro Tip: Treat every finding, even an OFI, as a learning moment. It’s free feedback that can help you avoid bigger problems later.
Common Mistake: Arguing with assessors over whether something counts as a non-conformity. Focus instead on fixing it — you’ll save time and credibility.
Step-by-Step Guide to Managing Corrective Actions
Here’s a process that actually works in practice:
Log the finding. Include the clause, description, and reference from the assessor’s report.
Analyze the root cause. Ask “Why?” at least five times to get beyond surface issues.
Define the correction. Fix what’s broken right now (containment).
Define the corrective action. Identify the long-term fix to stop it from happening again.
Assign ownership and deadlines. Accountability is what drives closure.
Implement and verify effectiveness. Check if the action truly worked.
Record and close. Keep clear evidence in your CAPA tracker.
Pro Tip: Maintain a single CAPA log linked to clause numbers, responsible persons, and deadlines. It’s your best friend during follow-up audits.
Common Pitfall: Writing actions that describe the problem instead of solving it. “Reminded staff” or “retrained auditors” isn’t enough. Assessors want to see system change.
Writing Effective Root-Cause Analysis and Corrective-Action Statements
Writing a solid corrective-action report isn’t about fancy language — it’s about clarity. Here’s a structure that works every time:
Problem: What exactly happened?
Root Cause: Why did it happen?
Correction: What was done immediately?
Corrective Action: What prevents it next time?
Verification: How do you know it worked?
Pro Tip: Always link your root cause to a process weakness, not a person. Blame doesn’t fix systems.
Common Mistake: Mixing up correction and corrective action. Correction is the quick fix; corrective action is the preventive fix.
Example:
Finding: Missing competence evidence for one auditor.
Correction: Added documentation to the file.
Corrective Action: Updated the approval checklist to include a mandatory document check before assigning audits.
Verification: Reviewed three subsequent auditor files — all complete.
Simple, traceable, and assessor-ready.
Clause 10 Requirements – Internal Audits, CAPA, and Management Review
Clause 10 of ISO/IEC 17021-1 connects everything: internal audits, corrective actions, and management reviews.
Assessors expect to see a clear chain from non-conformity → corrective action → management review discussion.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Internal audits identify findings.
CAPA records show how they were corrected.
Management reviews analyze trends, results, and risks.
Pro Tip: Add a “Corrective-Action Summary” to your management-review agenda. It shows leadership engagement and system follow-through.
Common Pitfall: Closing corrective actions too quickly without verifying they worked. Always re-audit the area or review updated records.
Example: One CB I worked with reduced overdue CAPAs by 40% just by assigning one staff member to check progress weekly before management review meetings.
How Accreditation Bodies Evaluate Corrective Actions
During follow-up, assessors want to see three things:
Clear root-cause analysis — not generic answers.
Evidence of implementation — documents, forms, or revised procedures.
Proof of effectiveness — no repeat findings in that area.
Pro Tip: Before submitting closure evidence, make sure each action links directly to the clause cited in the finding. Assessors often reject CAPA reports that “sound right” but don’t connect to the requirement.
Common Mistake: Sending screenshots as proof with no explanation of what changed. Always explain how the action prevents recurrence.
Example: A certification body once resubmitted its closure because the assessor couldn’t see how the new audit-planning form solved the issue. Once they added a short note explaining the new control, it was accepted immediately.
Preventing Repeat Non-Conformities
The best way to manage findings? Stop them from repeating.
Here’s how successful CBs do it:
Track all findings by clause to identify trends.
Conduct focused internal audits on high-risk areas.
Re-train auditors and decision-makers where patterns appear.
Review CAPA performance in every management review.
Pro Tip: Turn audit findings into short “lessons learned” sessions for your team. It reinforces awareness and prevents the same mistakes.
Common Pitfall: Treating CAPA like admin work — it’s not a form, it’s a feedback engine.
Example: One CB I coached started discussing a “CAPA of the Month” in staff meetings. Within six months, repeat findings dropped by more than half.
FAQs – ISO/IEC 17021-1 Corrective Actions
Q1. How long do we have to close corrective actions? Most accreditation bodies allow 30–60 days, but the key is showing progress and root-cause understanding within that window.
Q2. What kind of evidence should we submit? Updated procedures, completed forms, or records showing implementation — plus verification that the issue hasn’t recurred.
Q3. Can minor findings escalate to major ones? Yes. If the same minor issue appears again, it signals a systemic failure and can become a major non-conformity.
Turn Audit Findings into Continuous Improvement
Corrective actions aren’t about pleasing assessors — they’re about building resilience in your system. When you handle findings with real root-cause analysis and verified follow-through, your certification body becomes stronger and more credible.
In my experience, the CBs that treat every audit finding as a learning opportunity rarely face repeat issues. They use CAPA not as compliance, but as culture.
So, before your next audit, review your findings, refresh your CAPA tracker, and make sure every correction tells a story of improvement — not reaction.
Download the ISO/IEC 17021-1 Corrective-Action Template to document, track, and verify your audit findings with clarity and confidence.
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.
