Written by Jason Westland · Edited by Johanna Barnett · Last updated 17 September 2026
ISO has now published ISO 9001:2026, the latest version of the quality management systems standard. This guide explains the changes from ISO 9001:2015, their practical implications, and how organizations should prepare for the transition.
The infographic gives you the quickest view of the main changes from 2015 to 2026. It highlights the seven areas most likely to need attention in an existing QMS.
Here is the detailed comparison behind the infographic, prepared from 8Dflow's review of the 2015 edition, the 2024 amendment, and the 2026 revision material. It shows what changed in each clause and what you should check in your QMS.
| Clause / topic | Change type | What changed | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 → 4.1Context | 2024 amendment incorporated | The climate-change wording introduced in the 2024 amendment is now part of the base edition, and the supporting notes are broader. | If you already dealt with the 2024 amendment, check that your assessment is still current. |
| 4.2 → 4.2Interested parties | Expanded | The new edition is clearer about deciding which relevant interested-party requirements the QMS will actually address. | Be able to explain which requirements matter to the QMS and what you do about them. |
| 4.3 → 4.3QMS scope | No material change | The intent of the scope requirement is substantially unchanged. | Keep the existing scope if it still describes the organization and its QMS accurately. |
| 4.4 → 4.4Quality management system | Retitled / editorial | The section is reorganized, but the underlying process-management expectations remain familiar. | Check old cross-references if your documents rely on the previous item lettering. |
| 5.1.1 → 5.1.1Leadership and commitment | New + restructured | Quality culture and ethical behavior are now explicit themes, alongside clearer emphasis on opportunities and continual improvement. | Look at what leaders actually say, decide, reinforce, and review. A new procedure is not the point. |
| 5.1.2 → 5.1.2Customer focus | No material change | No significant change in intent was identified. | No transition action is needed simply because the edition changed. |
| 5.2 → 5.2Quality policy | Retitled / reworded | The section is reorganized, but the basic purpose of the quality policy remains the same. | Do not rewrite a suitable policy unless the revision exposes a genuine gap. |
| 5.3 → 5.3Roles and authorities | Reworded / split | Some responsibilities are rearranged and the wording around QMS integrity and improvement is updated. | Make sure responsibilities are still clear, assigned, and understood. |
| 6.1.1 → 6.1.1Planning | Clarified | The planning logic is reordered and the link with continual improvement is clearer. | Keep your current approach if it works, but make sure it leads to useful decisions and follow-through. |
| 6.1.2 → 6.1.2Risks | Expanded | Risk analysis and evaluation are more explicit, and the response should remain proportionate to the QMS and its results. | Check that important risks are identified, evaluated, acted on, and reviewed. |
| 6.1.2 → 6.1.3Opportunities | New subclause | Opportunities are separated from risks instead of sitting inside the same planning thread. | Make worthwhile opportunities visible enough to follow from identification through action and review. |
| 6.2 → 6.2Quality objectives | Mostly editorial | The section is reordered and the wording around documented information is aligned with the rest of the standard. | Update internal references only where the new structure makes them stale. |
| 6.3 → 6.3Planning changes | Expanded | Communication, checking effectiveness, and reviewing the result are now clearer parts of change planning. | If these are missing from change control today, add them to the way changes are planned and closed out. |
| 7.1.1–7.1.4Resources and work environment | Mostly unchanged | The core requirements remain familiar, while the notes are modernized, including examples such as remote or hybrid work. | Do not create new controls just because an example in a note has changed. |
| 7.1.5 → 7.1.5Monitoring and measuring resources | Clarified / retitled | The wording on measurement traceability is clearer and the documented-information terminology is updated. | Check that calibration or verification status and safeguards are still clear in practice. |
| 7.1.6 → 7.1.6Organizational knowledge | Slightly expanded | The new wording puts more emphasis on retaining, using, and sharing the knowledge the QMS needs. | Make sure important knowledge is available and used, not simply stored somewhere. |
| 7.2 → 7.2Competence | No material change | The wording changes do not materially alter what an organization needs to demonstrate about competence. | Keep existing competence controls if they are working. |
| 7.3 → 7.3Awareness | New element | Awareness now includes quality culture and ethical behavior. | Check whether people understand what those expectations mean in their own work. |
| 7.4–7.5Communication and documented information | Mostly editorial | Communication is largely unchanged, while documented-information wording is made more consistent across the edition. | Avoid a mass rewrite unless old wording or references are genuinely confusing. |
| 8.1 → 8.1Operational planning and control | Restructured | The section is reorganized, including clearer alignment with the controls for externally provided processes in Clause 8.4. | Check internal references and make sure relevant external processes are not falling through gaps. |
| 8.2.1 → 8.2.1Customer communication | Clarified / broadened | Communication about contingency action is clearer when disruption affects the provision of products or services. | Check that customers receive the information they need when disruption affects delivery or service. |
| 8.2.2–8.2.4Requirements for products and services | Mostly clarified | The wording is modernized, including clearer communication when relevant requirements change. | Make sure changes reach the people or external parties who actually need to know. |
| 8.3 → 8.3Design and development | Clarified / minor extensions | The guidance better reflects iterative design and clarifies some information needed for intended use. | Check that your design controls work for the way design is actually carried out in your organization. |
| 8.4 → 8.4Externally provided processes, products, and services | Slightly broadened | The wording is broader and more consistent about externally provided processes and provider interactions. | Check that all relevant external processes are controlled, not only work formally called outsourced. |
| 8.5 → 8.5Production and service provision | Mostly editorial | The core requirements are carried forward with some reorganization of evidence and traceability wording. | A wholesale process rewrite should not be needed. |
| 8.6 → 8.6Release | No material change | The wording around release evidence is updated without adding a significant new control. | Keep existing release records if they already show conformity and authorization clearly. |
| 8.7 → 8.7Control of nonconforming outputs | Reworded, same intent | The practical intent remains broadly the same, with additional explanation appearing in the supporting guidance. | Existing NCR controls should remain suitable if they already control disposition, correction, and verification. |
| 9.1 → 9.1Monitoring, measurement, analysis, and evaluation | Clarified / aligned | Evaluation of risks and opportunities is separated to match Clause 6, and the customer-satisfaction wording is simplified. | Make sure performance review follows both risks and opportunities where they matter. |
| 9.2 → 9.2Internal audit | Minor addition | Each audit is expected to have a clear objective, while the overall audit-program approach remains familiar. | If your audit plans show only scope and criteria, add the purpose of the audit as well. |
| 9.3 → 9.3Management review | Expanded / reordered | Changes in interested-party needs and action on opportunities are more visible in management-review inputs. | Check that management review covers these topics when they are relevant to the QMS. |
| 10.3 → 10.1Continual improvement | Restructured | Continual improvement moves to Clause 10.1 and absorbs some of the previous general-improvement content. | Update old clause references, but leave effective improvement processes alone. |
| 10.2 → 10.2Nonconformity and corrective action | Reworded, same intent | The core corrective-action logic remains materially stable despite wording changes. | Do not invent extra fields just because the edition changed. Check that the process still deals with recurrence and effectiveness. |
What changed: The climate-change wording introduced in the 2024 amendment is now part of the base edition, and the supporting notes are broader.
What to check: If you already dealt with the 2024 amendment, check that your assessment is still current.
What changed: The new edition is clearer about deciding which relevant interested-party requirements the QMS will actually address.
What to check: Be able to explain which requirements matter to the QMS and what you do about them.
What changed: The intent of the scope requirement is substantially unchanged.
What to check: Keep the existing scope if it still describes the organization and its QMS accurately.
What changed: The section is reorganized, but the underlying process-management expectations remain familiar.
What to check: Check old cross-references if your documents rely on the previous item lettering.
What changed: Quality culture and ethical behavior are now explicit themes, alongside clearer emphasis on opportunities and continual improvement.
What to check: Look at what leaders actually say, decide, reinforce, and review. A new procedure is not the point.
What changed: No significant change in intent was identified.
What to check: No transition action is needed simply because the edition changed.
What changed: The section is reorganized, but the basic purpose of the quality policy remains the same.
What to check: Do not rewrite a suitable policy unless the revision exposes a genuine gap.
What changed: Some responsibilities are rearranged and the wording around QMS integrity and improvement is updated.
What to check: Make sure responsibilities are still clear, assigned, and understood.
What changed: The planning logic is reordered and the link with continual improvement is clearer.
What to check: Keep your current approach if it works, but make sure it leads to useful decisions and follow-through.
What changed: Risk analysis and evaluation are more explicit, and the response should remain proportionate to the QMS and its results.
What to check: Check that important risks are identified, evaluated, acted on, and reviewed.
What changed: Opportunities are separated from risks instead of sitting inside the same planning thread.
What to check: Make worthwhile opportunities visible enough to follow from identification through action and review.
What changed: The section is reordered and the wording around documented information is aligned with the rest of the standard.
What to check: Update internal references only where the new structure makes them stale.
What changed: Communication, checking effectiveness, and reviewing the result are now clearer parts of change planning.
What to check: If these are missing from change control today, add them to the way changes are planned and closed out.
What changed: The core requirements remain familiar, while the notes are modernized, including examples such as remote or hybrid work.
What to check: Do not create new controls just because an example in a note has changed.
What changed: The wording on measurement traceability is clearer and the documented-information terminology is updated.
What to check: Check that calibration or verification status and safeguards are still clear in practice.
What changed: The new wording puts more emphasis on retaining, using, and sharing the knowledge the QMS needs.
What to check: Make sure important knowledge is available and used, not simply stored somewhere.
What changed: The wording changes do not materially alter what an organization needs to demonstrate about competence.
What to check: Keep existing competence controls if they are working.
What changed: Awareness now includes quality culture and ethical behavior.
What to check: Check whether people understand what those expectations mean in their own work.
What changed: Communication is largely unchanged, while documented-information wording is made more consistent across the edition.
What to check: Avoid a mass rewrite unless old wording or references are genuinely confusing.
What changed: The section is reorganized, including clearer alignment with the controls for externally provided processes in Clause 8.4.
What to check: Check internal references and make sure relevant external processes are not falling through gaps.
What changed: Communication about contingency action is clearer when disruption affects the provision of products or services.
What to check: Check that customers receive the information they need when disruption affects delivery or service.
What changed: The wording is modernized, including clearer communication when relevant requirements change.
What to check: Make sure changes reach the people or external parties who actually need to know.
What changed: The guidance better reflects iterative design and clarifies some information needed for intended use.
What to check: Check that your design controls work for the way design is actually carried out in your organization.
What changed: The wording is broader and more consistent about externally provided processes and provider interactions.
What to check: Check that all relevant external processes are controlled, not only work formally called outsourced.
What changed: The core requirements are carried forward with some reorganization of evidence and traceability wording.
What to check: A wholesale process rewrite should not be needed.
What changed: The wording around release evidence is updated without adding a significant new control.
What to check: Keep existing release records if they already show conformity and authorization clearly.
What changed: The practical intent remains broadly the same, with additional explanation appearing in the supporting guidance.
What to check: Existing NCR controls should remain suitable if they already control disposition, correction, and verification.
What changed: Evaluation of risks and opportunities is separated to match Clause 6, and the customer-satisfaction wording is simplified.
What to check: Make sure performance review follows both risks and opportunities where they matter.
What changed: Each audit is expected to have a clear objective, while the overall audit-program approach remains familiar.
What to check: If your audit plans show only scope and criteria, add the purpose of the audit as well.
What changed: Changes in interested-party needs and action on opportunities are more visible in management-review inputs.
What to check: Check that management review covers these topics when they are relevant to the QMS.
What changed: Continual improvement moves to Clause 10.1 and absorbs some of the previous general-improvement content.
What to check: Update old clause references, but leave effective improvement processes alone.
What changed: The core corrective-action logic remains materially stable despite wording changes.
What to check: Do not invent extra fields just because the edition changed. Check that the process still deals with recurrence and effectiveness.
These are the areas where I would expect a quality manager to spend time. If your current system already handles one well, the change may need little more than confirmation and a small update.
Do not start by writing a new 'quality culture procedure'. Start with leadership behavior, decisions, communication, and what people actually see reinforced in day-to-day work.
If opportunities exist only as a token column in a risk register, this is the area to tighten. Important opportunities should be visible, acted on, and reviewed rather than simply recorded.
Most organizations can strengthen the change process they already have. The main question is whether communication, effectiveness checking, and review of the result are built into the change rather than added afterwards.
A stakeholder list on its own is not very useful. Be clear about which external or internal requirements matter to the QMS and how you notice when those requirements change.
If you implemented the 2024 amendment properly, do not repeat the exercise for appearance's sake. Check that the assessment is still current and move on.
This does not automatically mean you need a large business-continuity program. Check that relevant risks, contingency actions, and customer communication fit together when provision is disrupted.
This is mostly a housekeeping issue for a mature QMS. Update stale clause references where they could confuse people, but keep improvement and corrective-action processes that already work.
Much of the 2015 system carries forward. That matters because good processes can stay in place instead of being rebuilt just to look different.
Your next step depends on how you use ISO 9001 today. Start with the option that matches your organization.
Global ACI has set a three-year transition period for accredited certification covered by its Multilateral Recognition Arrangement. These are the dates that matter most to certified organizations.
16 Sep 2026
ISO published Edition 6 and withdrew ISO 9001:2015 and its 2024 amendment from the current-edition position.
31 Mar 2028
From this date, new and initial accredited certifications covered by the Global ACI MRA transition requirements may only be issued to ISO 9001:2026.
During the transition
The transition may be completed during a scheduled surveillance audit, a recertification audit, or a separate transition audit.
30 Sep 2029
Organizations with accredited ISO 9001:2015 certification under the applicable Global ACI MRA arrangements must complete the transition by this date.
Source: Global ACI transition requirements for ISO 9001:2026.
A sensible transition is a small change project: understand the revision, find the gaps, fix what matters, then prove the changes are working.
Use the published ISO 9001:2026 edition and current transition guidance as the basis for the work.
Work through the changes and mark the ones that actually affect your processes, responsibilities, records, or management practices.
Separate genuine gaps from wording changes that do not alter what your organization needs to do.
Assign owners and dates, then update the affected controls, documents, communication, or training.
Verify that the changes are in use and that they have achieved the intended result before closing the action.
Plan the transition audit with your certification body so it fits your certification cycle and is completed before 30 September 2029.
Free PDF
Use the checklist to keep the transition organized without turning it into a paperwork exercise. You can work from the page below or download the printable PDF.
ISO 9001 has changed several times since 1987, but each edition has built on what came before. The timeline puts the 2026 revision in that context.
For a mature QMS, the transition should be manageable. The workload rises when the revision exposes weaknesses that were already there.
Your 2015 QMS is already effective, the 2024 climate amendment is in place, risks and opportunities are handled properly, and change control is sound.
What that usually means: You are likely looking at a focused gap review, a small number of updates, some awareness work, clause-reference cleanup, and internal verification.
Opportunities are weakly handled, change control is light, awareness needs work, or different sites and functions use different practices.
What that usually means: Expect more coordinated actions, communication, internal-audit attention, and management-review follow-through before the transition is complete.
The current QMS already has unresolved weaknesses, relies heavily on old clause wording, or has fragmented controls across sites or functions.
What that usually means: Use the revision as a controlled improvement project, but keep existing QMS weaknesses separate from changes caused by the new edition.
Six tips for avoiding the most common ISO 9001:2026 transition mistakes.
Better approach: Compare the editions first. Keep processes that still work and change only what genuinely needs attention.
Better approach: Separate real changes in intent from editorial wording, moved content, notes, and terminology changes.
Better approach: Use the published standard and authoritative sources for transition arrangements.
Better approach: Remember that the climate wording already arrived through the 2024 amendment.
Better approach: Look first at what leaders do, what they communicate, and what behavior people see reinforced.
Better approach: Check that the changed controls are actually being used and understood before you close the transition action.
These questions cover practical situations that are not answered elsewhere on the page.
Keep the booking, but speak to your certification body before changing the audit plan. Ask which edition the audit will use, whether the timing creates duplicate work, and what evidence it expects during the transition.
No. Match the communication or training to the change. Many people may only need a short awareness update, while people whose process or responsibility changes may need something more specific.
Yes, if they are not causing confusion. Update references where content has moved or where old numbering could mislead users, auditors, or cross-references. There is no value in rewriting sound documents just to make them look new.
For accredited certification covered by the Global ACI MRA transition requirements, the transition period ends on 30 September 2029. Confirm the timing of your own transition audit with your certification body because it still needs to fit your certification cycle.
Use the official standard for the requirements and authoritative sources for certification timing. Avoid unofficial copies and old transition summaries.
This is an independent 8Dflow guide. It explains the revision in practical language; the official ISO standard remains the source for the requirements.
