In recent audits across Europe, certification bodies have noted a trend that’s too common to ignore: the same non-conformities reappearing year after year, even when they’re marked as “closed.”
What’s causing these findings to persist? In many cases, it’s not poor documentation it’s weak implementation. Follow-through breaks down after the audit ends, and the cycle continues.
What the Data Shows
— Cosmetic CAPs
Corrective action plans are written to satisfy auditors but rarely implemented beyond QA teams.
— Missing Ownership
Responsibility for closing findings isn’t clearly defined or distributed across departments.
— No Long-Term Tracking
Many companies don’t revisit past audit findings unless a re-audit is approaching.
How Audits Reflect Organisational Maturity
✅ Performance Review Inclusion – Whether audit outcomes are discussed at senior leadership meetings.
✅ Evidence of Change – Looking for training updates, revisions of FSMS procedures, and measurable results linked to CAs.
✅ Trend Analysis – Verifying if internal audits are tracking recurring themes over time.
✅ Cross-Department Accountability – Understanding how audit findings are escalated beyond the quality and food safety function.
Certima’s Mission
As an impartial certification body, Certima assesses compliance with international food safety measures. While Certima does not provide operational guidance, audits serve as a valuable tool for businesses looking to evaluate their fraud prevention strategies and supply chain integrity.
Are your corrective actions leading to meaningful change? Share how your organisation ensures long-term closure of findings.