ISO 9001:2026 vs 2015: Clause-by-Clause Comparison

ISO/TC 176/SC 2 announced on 10 September 2025 that the ISO 9001:2026 Draft International Standard (DIS) had been "released for ballot" (ballot closed 19 November 2025), the FDIS was approved in August 2026, and the sixth edition published on 16 September 2026 — UKAS confirms that "ISO 9001:2026 was published on 16 September 2026 and replaces ISO 9001:2015 + Amendment 1:2024 over a defined transition period."

The transition deadline is 30 September 2029, and it is now a published requirement. Transition periods were set by the International Accreditation Forum until it ceased operations on 1 January 2026; Global Accreditation Cooperation Incorporated (Global ACI) has assumed that role, and on 16 September 2026 it published Global ACI-TECH-3-TR 2029-09-30 (M), stating that "Organisations already certified to ISO 9001:2015 will have until 30 September 2029 to complete their transition." Every organisation certified to ISO 9001:2015 will need to transition by that date or lose certification. The full UK timeline is in our pillar guide.

This ISO 9001:2026 vs 2015 comparison covers the changes clause by clause. For the interactive version, use the clause comparison tool. For broader strategic context, read our pillar guide on the ISO 9001:2026 revision.

Five overarching changes

Where the change descriptions on this page come from. ISO 9001:2026 published on 16 September 2026, but its text is paywalled and we have not seen it. Except where a specific source is cited and quoted, everything below describing what the 2026 edition changes is drawn from publicly available commentary written before publication, not from ISO's own wording, and is not a citable statement of the standard's requirements.

⚠️ The clause numbers on this page are unverified against the published text. UKAS's technical bulletin states that the majority of changes relate to "clarification of existing requirements, restructuring of clauses, harmonisation with Annex SL and current ISO drafting conventions". Because the clauses have been restructured, we cannot confirm that any requirement below still sits at the number shown. UKAS separately identifies where the substance moved: "The most significant changes relate to interested parties, quality culture and ethical behaviour, risks and opportunities, planning of changes and management review."

Use this page to plan and to ask questions — not as the basis for rewriting your QMS, and not as a source to quote to an auditor. Buy the published standard from BSI and verify the numbering before you act on it.

1. Expanded Annex A. ISO 9001:2015 already carries an informative Annex A ("Clarification of new structure, terminology and concepts", A.1 to A.8), so an explanatory annex is not new. Commentary on the revision describes it as substantially expanded, covering risk-based thinking, documented information, externally provided processes and organisational knowledge. Its length and contents have not been verified against the published text.

2. Climate change in Clause 4.1. In support of the ISO London Declaration on Climate Change, ISO added two climate statements to its management system standards, incorporated into the Harmonized Structure (Appendix 2 of Annex SL) and published as amendments to each standard. The IAF/ISO joint communiqué of 22 February 2024 reproduces the Clause 4.1 addition in full — "Added: The organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue." — and states that "The amendments to the standards will be published on February 23rd 2024." The obligation is to determine; concluding that climate change is not a relevant issue is a legitimate outcome. Our guide to Clause 4.1 and climate change works through how to document that determination. What you need is to be able to demonstrate the determination to an auditor: UKAS's technical bulletin says that where a certified organisation cannot demonstrate that all external and internal issues, "including climate change, have been determined as relevant or not, a suitable finding should be raised."

3. Organisational knowledge (7.1.6) — reported as expanded. Commentary consistently points to this as the most enhanced area: how you identify, capture, share and protect the knowledge your processes need. If accurate, it speaks directly to key-person risk — but the scope of any change has not been verified against the published text.

4. Digitalisation — reported as explicitly acknowledged. Commentary describes the standard as remaining technology-neutral while recognising digital tools, data-driven decisions and cloud-based workflows. Unverified against the published text.

5. Updated Annex SL alignment. The Harmonized Structure shared by all ISO management system standards was amended in February 2024, when the two climate statements above were incorporated into it (per the same IAF/ISO communiqué). ISO 9001, 14001, 45001 and 27001 are built on that shared structure, which is what makes an integrated management system practical.

Clause-by-clause comparison

Reminder — none of the per-clause rows below is a citable statement of what ISO 9001:2026 requires. They report publicly available commentary on the revision. Re-check anything you plan to act on against the published standard.

Clause 4 — Context of the organisation

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
4.1	Determine external/internal issues	Climate change must be considered — this one is already in force via the February 2024 amendment, not new to the 2026 edition
4.2	Determine interested parties	Commentary reports a firmer emphasis on monitoring for changes in requirements rather than treating it as a one-off exercise
4.3	Define QMS scope	Commentary reports minor clarifications only
4.4	QMS processes	Commentary reports stronger emphasis on process interactions, per-process risks, and knowledge requirements

Transition effort: Low to moderate. Add climate change consideration; review process interaction documentation.

Clause 5 — Leadership

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
5.1	Leadership and commitment	Commentary reports clearer wording that top management cannot fully delegate QMS accountability
5.2	Quality policy	Commentary reports minor wording updates for sustainability alignment
5.3	Roles and authorities	Commentary reports an explicit assignment of responsibility for organisational knowledge (7.1.6)

Transition effort: Low. If your MD is already engaged, minimal work needed.

Clause 6 — Planning

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
6.1	Risks and opportunities	Commentary reports more explicit methodology expectations; whether informal approaches remain acceptable is unverified against the published text
6.2	Quality objectives	Commentary reports clearer measurability expectations, including defined measurement frequencies
6.3	Planning of changes	Commentary reports explicit coverage of technology-driven changes (ERP migration, cloud adoption)

Transition effort: Moderate. Risk methodology documentation is the biggest item. Our gap analysis checklist covers what Clause 6.1 evidence auditors expect.

Clause 7 — Support

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
7.1.6	Organisational knowledge	Commentary consistently reports this as the most enhanced area — identifying, capturing, sharing and protecting process knowledge
7.2	Competence	Commentary reports an update for digital competencies (data analysis, software proficiency)
7.5	Documented information	Commentary reports explicit acknowledgement of cloud systems and digital workflows

Transition effort: Moderate to high. If you rely on experienced staff teaching newcomers verbally, you will need to formalise knowledge capture. Document critical processes. Create handover procedures. Identify single points of failure.

Clause 8 — Operation

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
8.1	Operational planning	Commentary reports closer integration with Clause 6 risk-based thinking
8.4	External providers	Commentary reports enhanced oversight of externally provided processes, not just products — outsourced design, testing or logistics attracting more scrutiny
8.5	Production/service provision	Commentary reports minor clarifications on post-delivery activities

Transition effort: Low to moderate. If your supplier management already includes ongoing monitoring, you are close.

Clause 9 — Performance evaluation

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
9.1	Monitoring and analysis	Commentary reports greater emphasis on using data to drive decisions, not just collecting it
9.2	Internal audit	Commentary reports clearer expectations for audit frequency, methods and auditor competence. Re-check your internal audit checklist once the standard publishes.
9.3	Management review	Commentary reports climate/sustainability joining the inputs list and more emphasis on performance trends rather than current-period data alone

Transition effort: Low for most well-run systems.

Clause 10 — Improvement

Sub-clause	2015	Reported change (commentary — unverified)
10.2	Corrective action	Commentary reports a stronger link to organisational learning — applying lessons across related processes, not just the one that failed
10.3	Continual improvement	Commentary reports innovation being acknowledged alongside traditional improvement

Transition effort: Low.

What to do now

Already certified to 2015:

1. Run a gap analysis using the clause comparison tool and our gap analysis checklist
2. Prioritise the areas commentary flags most consistently: knowledge management (7.1.6), climate consideration (4.1 — already required now), risk methodology (6.1)
3. Book your transition audit early — during the ISO 27001:2022 transition, UKAS-accredited body slots filled 6-12 months ahead
4. Update your quality manual against the published text — the standard is out, so this no longer has to wait
5. Work to the confirmed deadline: 30 September 2029 is the date by which all certificates must reference the 2026 edition
6. If you want the sequence rather than the comparison, the ISO 9001:2026 transition plan sets out the first 90 days

Pursuing first-time certification:

The 2026 edition is published, so certifying directly to it avoids a transition later — check first that your chosen certification body has been granted UKAS transition, because UKAS transition decisions only commence on 1 January 2027. If you need a certificate sooner than that, certify to 2015 — UK certification bodies accept new applications against the 2015 edition until 16 March 2028, so get the application in before then. Use the cost estimator to model either scenario. If also considering ISO 27001, the controls checklist helps you assess the information security side in parallel.

Practical takeaway checklist

1. UKAS describes the revision as introducing "targeted updates rather than fundamental change" — on that basis most of your existing QMS should carry over, though we cannot quantify the proportion from outside the paywalled text
2. UKAS names where the substance moved: "interested parties, quality culture and ethical behaviour, risks and opportunities, planning of changes and management review" — and confirms the clauses have been restructured, so verify numbering against the published standard rather than this page
3. Annex A is reported to be expanded; annexes shape auditor interpretation, so read it in your copy of the published standard
4. Plan your transition audit for 2027–2028 to avoid the rush before the 30 September 2029 deadline
5. Budget for the standard (from BSI), transition training, and documentation restructuring
6. Start your gap analysis now using the clause comparison tool

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. ISO certification requirements vary by scope, sector, and certification body. Always verify requirements with your UKAS-accredited certification body or a qualified consultant before making compliance decisions.