Closing a Major Before the Certificate Is Due
You are closing the stage 2 audit of a plastics manufacturer with two sites. At Site B you raised a major nonconformity: the internal audit programme had not covered Site B, and the most recent management review (14 months earlier) contained no decisions on energy objectives. You also raised two minor nonconformities: no energy baseline for an injection-moulding line commissioned eight months earlier (9% of site electricity), and procurement of two 400 kW chillers without considering energy performance. The organization submits, within the allowed 14 days, a correction (an internal audit of Site B performed two weeks after the audit and a management review held the following week) plus a corrective action plan citing 'resource constraints' as root cause, with dates over the next six months. The client asks you to close the major now and to downgrade the baseline finding because 'the line is new and everyone knows new lines take time'. Certification is due in three weeks.
1. Assess whether the major nonconformity can be closed on this evidence and what you need before recommending certification.
Read the worked answer
Separate correction from corrective action. The internal audit and management review are corrections: they address the visible symptom. They do not show why Site B was omitted for 18 months, why management review produced no energy decisions, or what will prevent recurrence.
Test the root cause. 'Resource constraints' is a description, not a cause. Ask why resources were not allocated: was there no risk-based audit schedule, no competent auditor, no programme owner, no reporting line to top management, no review of audit coverage? The corrective action must address the actual cause, for example a documented risk-based programme, auditor competence and independence, schedule monitoring, and management review inputs that require audit results and energy performance.
Evidence needed before closure: the revised audit programme and schedule; the Site B audit report with findings; evidence that the auditor was competent and impartial; management review minutes showing decisions, owners and dates on energy objectives; objective action plans; and evidence that the new arrangements are operating, not just approved. Six-month timelines are too long to verify effectiveness within three weeks.
Decision. The major remains open. You may accept the correction and the plan, but certification should not be recommended until implementation and effectiveness are verified. A follow-up verification, at least partly on site, is needed; if the certification body's rules require major closure within a defined period, state the deadline and the consequence if it is missed. The certification decision belongs to the certification body, not to you or the client.
2. How do you handle the request to downgrade the minor nonconformity, and what would correction and corrective action require?
Read the worked answer
Classification is not negotiable on convenience grounds. Minor versus major depends on whether the failure is isolated or systemic and whether it affects the EnMS's ability to achieve intended results. An eight-month-old line using 9% of site electricity with no baseline is a real gap against 6.5, and possibly 6.3 if the line was not added to the energy review. The fact that the line is new explains the timing; it does not remove the requirement.
Re-examine your own classification honestly. If the organization can show that a site-level baseline exists, that the line's energy is tracked separately, and that the omission is a single administrative gap with no effect on performance evaluation, a minor classification is defensible. If the line is an SEU and no baseline exists at any level, the gap may be more serious. State the reasoning in the report.
Correction and corrective action. Correction: establish the baseline for the line now, using the energy review data, and update the energy review. Corrective action: change the process so that new or modified SEUs trigger baseline establishment and energy review update, for example through 8.2 design and 6.3. Verify the new process on a subsequent sample, not just the existence of a procedure.
Respond to the client in writing: explain the classification criteria, note that a downgrade request can be handled through the certification body's appeal process, and record the request in the audit file. Do not trade the finding for a faster certificate.
3. Draft the audit conclusion and specify the follow-up.
Read the worked answer
Audit conclusion. The audit found that the EnMS is not yet fully effective at Site B: internal audit coverage and management review have not functioned as required, and energy planning for a new significant load was incomplete. The organization has taken correction action, but the major nonconformity remains open pending verification of corrective action and effectiveness. Therefore the recommendation is that certification is not granted at this stage.
Follow-up. Agree a verification date with the client, ideally within the period allowed by the certification body's rules, and define its scope: the major nonconformity, the two minors, and the related processes at Site B. Decide whether the verification can be partly remote (document review) and what must be seen on site (the line, its metering, the audit records, management review). Assign a competent auditor who was not involved in the original Site B audit where practicable.
Reporting and decision. Issue the stage 2 report with findings, evidence and the recommendation. The certification body reviews it and makes the certification decision; if the major is not closed in time, the options are a further full or partial audit, or refusal, depending on the body's procedures. On successful closure, define the certificate scope, the surveillance date and the next audit's focus, particularly the new baseline and the next management review cycle. Communicate the outcome to the client in writing and remind them of the appeal route.