Top management must review the system at planned intervals, cover the required inputs and record decisions and actions on improvement and resources.
What applies today
Top management must have procedures to review the management system at planned intervals so that its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness can be ensured, including the policies and objectives related to the standard. Reviews must take place at least once a year, or a complete review broken into segments must be finished within twelve months, and records must be kept. The inputs must include the results of internal and external audits; feedback from clients and interested parties about fulfilment of the standard; feedback from the impartiality mechanism; where preventive and corrective actions stand; follow-up from previous reviews; the fulfilment of objectives; changes that could affect the system; and appeals and complaints. The outputs must include decisions and actions on improving the effectiveness of the system and its processes, improving the body's fulfilment of the standard, and resource needs.
Why it matters
Management review is the place where the transition should be decided, resourced and checked. A review that only looks at finance and client satisfaction is not the review the clause requires. The impartiality feedback and the complaints input make the review a governance event, not a departmental meeting. The twelve-month rule allows a segmented approach but not an indefinitely rolling one.
The public FDIS contents lists clause 8.5 as Management review (Option A). This site uses the shorter label Management review for the page. The FDIS requirement wording is not held, so the requirement above is the 2012 text that applies until publication.
Where this clause lands in the revision
Clause 8 is where the 8.8 replacement meets management review, internal audit and corrective action. The public record confirms the titles; the requirement wording is not held. A first artefact an assessor commonly asks for here is management review procedure with frequency and inputs. The party this touches first is Top management, which must review the system at least once a year, and the system owner.
What the assessor asks for
| Category | Artefact to have ready |
|---|---|
| Procedure | Management review procedure with frequency and inputs |
| Agenda and papers | Review pack covering all eight input areas |
| Minutes | Decisions and actions with owners and dates |
| Follow-up | Status of previous actions at the next review |
| Transition item | Review decision on the new edition, resources and dates |
One common question. read the last review and ask what changed as a result. Minutes that record discussion but no decisions or resources are a common finding.
Common failures
- The review is an annual slide deck with no impartiality input
- Actions are recorded but never followed up
- The new edition is not on the agenda
Prepare before publication
Put the transition on the next review agenda with a cost, an owner and a date. Keep the decision in the minutes.
Dates that matter
The public record gives stage 50.20 on 4 August 2026 and voting to 27 October 2026. The planning date, 15 February 2027, is an estimate from that stage and not an ISO date, and clause 8.5 has no separate date.
Cross-references
5.2 Mechanism for safeguarding impartiality · 7.13 Complaints and appeals · 8.6 Internal audits · 8.7 Corrective actions · 8.8 Actions to address risks and opportunities (FDIS change)
Source
Source for 8.5: ISO/IEC 17065:2012, Clause 8.5, with the ISO/IEC FDIS 17065 public record. Our statement, not the instrument verbatim; the FDIS wording is not held.
Not legal advice; does not certify. A reading of the requirement and the evidence an assessor commonly samples, not a substitute for the standard or your accreditation body's rules.