Definition · Plain-language
Management review
Management review is the periodic review by top management of a management system’s performance, suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
A top-management responsibility
Management review is deliberately placed at the top of the organisation. ISO management-system standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 require top management — not just a quality or compliance team — to review the management system at planned intervals. The point is to ensure leadership stays genuinely engaged with how the system is performing and remains accountable for it. By making senior leaders examine the system regularly, the standards guard against the management system becoming a paperwork exercise disconnected from the people who direct the organisation.
Inputs and outputs
The standards specify what a management review must consider, the inputs, and what it must produce, the outputs. Typical inputs include the status of actions from previous reviews, changes affecting the system, audit results, performance against objectives and indicators, nonconformities and corrective actions, customer or interested-party feedback, and opportunities for improvement. The outputs are decisions and actions relating to improvement of the system, any changes needed, and resource requirements. Capturing these as documented information provides evidence that the review took place and led to concrete decisions.
Why it matters
Management review closes the loop in the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. Internal audits and monitoring generate information about how the system is performing; management review is where leadership weighs that information and decides what to change, resource or improve. Without it, data about problems and opportunities might never translate into management decisions. Because it demonstrates leadership engagement and drives improvement, it is a core clause that certification and surveillance audits routinely examine, treating its absence or its reduction to a token meeting as a significant weakness.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: top management’s periodic review of the management system
- Required by: ISO management-system standards (e.g. clause 9.3)
- Performed by: top management, at planned intervals
- Inputs: audit results, performance data, nonconformities, feedback and more
- Outputs: decisions on improvement, changes and resources
- Role: closes the Plan-Do-Check-Act loop with leadership decisions
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: Management review can be delegated entirely to the quality or compliance team.
Actually: Management review is a top-management responsibility. While others prepare information, the standards require senior leadership to carry out the review, ensuring leadership stays engaged and accountable for the system.
Often heard: Management review is just an informal meeting with no defined content.
Actually: The standards specify required inputs — such as audit results, performance data and nonconformities — and required outputs, namely decisions on improvement, change and resources. It is a structured review with defined content, not an informal chat.
Often heard: A management review is optional once a system is well established.
Actually: Management review is a mandatory clause in ISO management-system standards and must occur at planned intervals. Auditors routinely check it, and its absence is treated as a significant nonconformity.
Going deeper
