Addressing Non-Conformities and Corrective Actions in ISO 17020 Accreditation

In short: An ISO 17020 inspection body handles a non-conformity by first containing it (correction), then finding the root cause, taking corrective action to stop it recurring, and verifying that the action worked. Keeping clear records of each step, and clearing findings from accreditation assessments within the agreed timeframe, is what keeps accreditation in place.

In the realm of conformity assessment, ISO/IEC 17020 plays a vital role in ensuring the competence and impartiality of inspection bodies. Achieving accreditation under ISO 17020 is a significant milestone for inspection agencies, but it also comes with the responsibility of maintaining high standards and addressing non-conformities effectively. This article explores the importance of addressing non-conformities, the process of corrective actions, and how inspection bodies can maintain their ISO 17020 accreditation.

Understanding ISO 17020 Accreditation

What is ISO 17020?

ISO 17020 is an internationally recognised standard that specifies the requirements for bodies performing inspection. These bodies play a crucial role in verifying the conformity of products, processes, or services with specified requirements. The current edition is ISO/IEC 17020:2026, published in March 2026 to replace the 2012 edition, and it places more emphasis on identifying and managing risks, including risks to impartiality and confidentiality.

Importance of ISO 17020 Accreditation

ISO 17020 accreditation instils confidence in the competence and credibility of inspection bodies. It assures customers that the inspection results are reliable, impartial, and conform to the required standards. In South Africa, inspection bodies are accredited by SANAS.

Identifying and Recognising Non-Conformities

During the inspection process, it is essential for inspection bodies to identify any non-conformities. Non-conformities are deviations from specified requirements that can impact the accuracy and validity of inspection results.

Non-conformities can come from several sources:

• Internal audits and management reviews carried out by the inspection body itself.
• Accreditation assessments, where the accreditation body’s assessors raise findings against the standard or its own requirements.
• Complaints and appeals from clients or other stakeholders.
• Day-to-day work, such as an inspection carried out with uncalibrated equipment, a report issued with errors, or a threat to impartiality that was not dealt with.

Root Cause Analysis

Performing a thorough root cause analysis is crucial in understanding why non-conformities occurred. This analysis helps in addressing the underlying issues rather than just the symptoms, reducing the likelihood of recurrence. Simple tools such as the 5 Whys or a fishbone diagram work well; our guide to methods and tools for root cause analysis explains them, and human factors in root cause analysis covers why “human error” is rarely the real root cause.

Corrective Actions in ISO 17020

Correction First

Before the longer-term fix, deal with the immediate problem. This is the correction: for example, recalling or reissuing an incorrect inspection report, or taking faulty equipment out of service. Also consider whether earlier inspection results may have been affected.

Implementing Corrective Actions

Once non-conformities are identified and their root causes determined, inspection bodies must take prompt corrective actions. Corrective actions aim to rectify the issues and prevent their recurrence. Each action should have a clear owner and a due date.

Monitoring and Verification

Implementing corrective actions is not enough; inspection bodies must monitor their effectiveness. Verification of corrective actions ensures that the identified problems are adequately addressed.

Keeping Records

Record each non-conformity, its root cause, the correction and corrective action taken, and the result of the effectiveness check. For findings raised during an accreditation assessment, the accreditation body will expect this evidence within the timeframe it sets.

Maintaining ISO 17020 Accreditation

Continuous Improvement

To maintain ISO 17020 accreditation, inspection bodies must focus on continuous improvement. This includes regular audits, reviews, and updates to ensure compliance with evolving industry standards, including the transition to the 2026 edition of the standard.

Training and Competence

Investing in the training and competence of personnel is essential for maintaining high-quality inspections. Well-trained staff can better identify potential non-conformities and apply appropriate corrective actions.

ISO 17020 accreditation is a testament to an inspection body’s competence and impartiality. However, it comes with the responsibility of addressing non-conformities and implementing effective corrective actions. By prioritising continuous improvement, root cause analysis, and staff training, inspection bodies can uphold their ISO 17020 accreditation and provide reliable services to their clients. For the wider picture, see our essential guide to implementing ISO 17020.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a correction and a corrective action?

A correction fixes the immediate problem, such as reissuing a wrong report. A corrective action removes the root cause so the same problem does not happen again.

How long do we have to close findings from a SANAS assessment?

The accreditation body sets the timeframe for each assessment and states it with the findings. Plan the root cause analysis and actions early so the evidence is ready well before the deadline.

Can unresolved non-conformities lead to loss of accreditation?

Yes. If findings are not cleared, or the same problems keep recurring, the accreditation body can suspend or withdraw accreditation for some or all of the inspection scope.

Does every non-conformity need a full root cause analysis?

The effort should match the risk. A minor, isolated slip may need only a short analysis, while a finding that affects the validity of inspection results or impartiality deserves a thorough investigation.