Overdue Actions and Ineffective Management Review
At a plastics manufacturer, an internal audit six weeks before certification found four issues. The energy review was last updated in 2021, although a 2 MW steam boiler and a new extrusion line were installed in 2023. An action-plan item to fit variable-speed drives on two compressors is 14 months overdue, with no status note. The 2023 management review minutes contain only financial results and the statement that 'energy is an operational matter'. There is no evidence that the energy team can approve capital projects or that top management has assigned roles for energy performance. The energy manager argues that the boiler is covered by a maintenance contract and that operations tracks the VSD project informally. The audit team must decide how to report these findings, and top management wants to know what to fix before the certification audit. No external nonconformities have been raised yet.
1. Identify the main nonconformities or weaknesses in this situation and explain why each matters.
Read the worked answer
There are several: the energy review is out of date after significant changes (new boiler and extrusion line), so the baseline, SEUs and action plan may no longer reflect actual energy use. The overdue VSD action has no status, owner or revised date, which breaks the action-plan process and undermines improvement. Management review lacks energy performance inputs and outputs, so top management is not reviewing performance or resourcing actions. There is no evidence of leadership commitment or assigned authority for the energy team, which affects the ability to implement projects. The maintenance contract for the boiler is not a substitute for including it in the energy review. Together these indicate the EnMS is not being maintained, not just a single missed task. The audit should report the systemic issues, not only the individual findings.
2. Distinguish between correction and corrective action for the overdue VSD project.
Read the worked answer
Correction is the immediate fix: update the action plan, confirm whether the VSD project is still viable, set a new date if justified, and record the current status. Corrective action addresses the cause: why did the project stall? Possible causes include no assigned owner, no budget approval route, competing production priorities, or lack of management review follow-up. The organization should investigate, then change the process-for example, assign project owners, integrate energy actions into the capital planning cycle, and review status at management review. Simply closing the old action or backdating it is not corrective action. The effectiveness of the corrective action should be checked later, for example by confirming that all open energy actions have owners and current dates.
3. What should top management do before the certification audit?
Read the worked answer
Top management should treat this as a test of leadership, not delegate it entirely. It should ensure the energy review is updated to include the boiler and extrusion line, that significant energy uses and relevant variables are reassessed, and that the action plan is realistic and resourced. It should hold a management review with the required energy inputs-performance against objectives, audit results, nonconformities, resources, and opportunities-and record decisions. It should assign authority for energy projects and clarify how energy performance is considered in capital approvals. It should also set a plan to close or re-plan the VSD action and verify effectiveness. A last-minute paper exercise will be visible to auditors; the aim is to restore a functioning process, not to produce documents for the audit.