What this is
What is a concession request?
What is a concession request?
A concession request asks for authority to use or ship product that does not fully meet specification, rather than reject, rework or scrap it. It records the deviation, its extent, who has authorised it, and whether the customer was told and agreed.
How is a concession different from scrap or rework?
Scrap and rework both accept that the product cannot be used as it is; concession is the opposite path, an exception permitting the product to move despite the deviation. It exists because not every deviation is worth the cost of scrapping or reworking the batch.
Can a food safety issue be conceded?
No. A concession is a business decision about an acceptable quality deviation, not a mechanism for accepting a food safety or legal risk. Where a deviation affects food safety or legality, the answer is rejection, not a documented exception.
Scope
When is a concession request required?
Concession is the exception path for a nonconforming output, sitting alongside scrap and rework as an outcome, not the place the underlying nonconformance is investigated.
Use this template when
- Product does not fully meet specification and a decision is needed on whether it can still be used or shipped
- A hold has concluded that the deviation may be acceptable, and formal authority to release is now required
- The deviation affects only a quality attribute, not food safety or legality
- A customer's agreement is needed before nonconforming product can be shipped to them
- A new record is needed; each one gets its own ID in the form CONC-2026-000
Do not use it for
- Product Nonconformance Report, where the underlying deviation from specification is first identified and described.
- Hold and Release Record, which places the product on hold and records the choice between release, rework and scrap that a concession sits inside.
- Rework Authorization, the route for product that can be brought back to specification instead of shipped as is.
- Root Cause Analysis, where a repeat concession's actual cause should be investigated rather than re-argued on each new request.
- Any deviation affecting food safety or legality, which must be rejected rather than conceded regardless of quantity or customer pressure.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 9001 cl.8.7 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 9001 permits concession as a lawful disposition, provided the decision and its authority are documented. It draws no line for food safety, which is why that line has to be built into the form itself.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 9001 cl.8.7.1 | Nonconforming output may be released, continued or accepted under concession by a relevant authority and, where applicable, the customer | Approval |
| ISO 9001 cl.8.7.2 | Documented information retained: the nonconformity, action taken, concessions obtained, and the authority deciding the action | Decision |
| ISO 9001 cl.7.5.3 | Documented information identifiable and traceable, linking the record to the batch, hold and site it concerns | Header |
| ISO 9001 cl.9.1.3 | Nonconformity data, including repeated concessions, analysed to evaluate quality management system performance | Repeat check |
| ISO 9001 cl.10.2 | Nonconformity evaluated for whether corrective action is needed, particularly where it recurs | Repeat check |
| ISO 9001 cl.8.2.1 | Customer communication covers information relating to products and services, including agreed deviations | Approval |
| 21 CFR 117.150 (FSMA Preventive Controls) | Corrective action requires evaluating whether affected product can be safely distributed before any release decision | What is being conceded |
What it does not cover
- Product Nonconformance Report, which records the deviation itself rather than the decision to permit its use.
- Hold and Release Record, which holds the product and decides between release, rework and scrap, a decision the concession sits inside.
- Rework Authorization, the route for product that can be brought back to specification instead of shipped as is.
- Root Cause Analysis, where a repeat concession's actual cause belongs, rather than being re-argued on every new request.
- Corrective and Preventive Action, which owns the action raised once repeat concessions trigger a specification review.
Global
Concession Request requirements by country
Concession as a quality disposition has near-universal reach. What differs is how firmly local food safety and consumer protection law forecloses using it where safety or legality is in question.
FDA and USDA food safety regulations; FSMA preventive controls
No general concession standard, but a deviation affecting an identified food safety hazard must go through the preventive controls corrective action pathway, not a quality concession.
Using a concession to move product past a food safety question rather than a quality one is treated as a corrective-action failure, not a paperwork gap.
Food Safety Act 1990; General Food Law Regulation (EC) 178/2002 as retained
Placing unsafe food on the market is a strict offence; a documented internal concession does not provide a defence where the deviation was safety-related.
Food Safety Affected on the form is not a formality; a Yes answer that is approved anyway removes any defence the record might otherwise offer.
ISO 9001
Certification auditors expect concession data to be analysed for trend under clause 9.1.3, not treated as a series of independent decisions.
An auditor finding repeat concessions with no specification review will treat it as a systemic nonconformance, not several minor ones.
How to complete it
How to complete a concession request, step by step
The template captures a decision. Whether it was sound depends on judgement the fields alone cannot enforce.
A Yes to either should make the rest of the approval sequence moot: the outcome is rejection, not a lower-level concession. Treating these fields as one more tick box rather than a hard stop is the single most consequential misuse of this template.
Approval Level Required should reflect how serious the extent of deviation actually is. A concession routed to a quality supervisor because a director is unavailable and the truck is waiting has not been through the judgement the level was designed to apply.
Customer Response records what the customer said, but Written Approval Attached is what makes the record defensible. A concession shipped on the strength of a phone call, with nothing attached, leaves the supplier exposed if the customer's account of that call later differs.
Similar Concession In Last 12 Months answered Once or more is the point where the record should stop being about this batch and start being about the specification. Specification Review Triggered exists so that question gets asked instead of quietly absorbed into another approval.
What auditors find
Most common concession request findings
Concession records rarely go missing. The findings concern whether the gating logic was respected or overridden under pressure.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Food Safety Affected or Legality Affected answered Yes, but the concession was approved rather than the product rejected. | 21 CFR 117.150 | Hard-stop the decision at Declined wherever either field is Yes, with no approval path available. |
| Customer approval required but no written evidence attached, only a verbal account. | ISO 9001 cl.8.2.1 | Require Written Approval Attached before the concession can be marked Approved. |
| Approval Level Required routed lower than the extent of deviation warrants. | ISO 9001 cl.8.7.1 | Define approval level by deviation severity in advance, not by who is available to sign. |
| Repeat concessions on the same specification with Specification Review Triggered left as Not needed. | ISO 9001 cl.10.2 | Treat two or more repeats in twelve months as an automatic trigger, not a discretionary one. |
| Concession request raised after the product had already shipped. | ISO 9001 cl.8.7.2 | Require the concession to be approved before Decision authorises movement, not logged retrospectively. |
| Concession not linked to the Hold ID of the nonconformance it releases. | ISO 9001 cl.7.5.3 | Make Hold ID mandatory so the concession is traceable to the deviation it authorises. |
Case in point
Case in point: the concession that was correct nine times and wrong the tenth
A contract packer supplied smoked turkey slightly under the customer's fill weight tolerance on nine occasions over eight months. Each time, quality raised a concession, the shortfall was within what the customer's own goods-in inspection had historically waved through, and a supervisor approved it without contacting the customer, because Customer Approval Required had been set to No when the account was set up.
On the tenth occasion the customer's own audit reviewed twelve months of goods-in data and found the pattern: the same underweight deviation, conceded internally every time, never disclosed. The customer treated it as a repeated, undisclosed breach rather than nine reasonable decisions, and suspended the account pending review. No single concession had been wrong; the absent repeat check and customer conversation across all nine turned routine into concealment.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- QUA-006
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- CONC-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 9001 cl.8.7
- Links
- Links Case, Customer
- Tags
- Quality, Control
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 42
- Follow up fields
- 9
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
15 fieldsConcession ID*
Auto sequence. Format CONC-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Line*
Shift*
Line Lead
Batch Number*
Numeric key joining to your ERP batch record.
Links to External system reference
Product*
Production Date*
Hold ID*
Links to QUA-003 Hold ID
Case ID
Thread key
Concessions Are A Warning Sign
One concession is a business decision. Three on the same issue means the specification is wrong or the process cannot hold it. Track the repeat count.
What is being conceded
7 fieldsSpecification Not Met*
Extent Of Deviation*
Quantity*
Value
Food Safety Affected*
A food safety deviation cannot be conceded. It must be rejected.
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Legality Affected*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Only Quality Attributes Affected*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Approval
6 fieldsCustomer Approval Required*
Customer Contacted
Customer Response
Written Approval Attached
Internal Approver*
Approval Level Required*
- Quality supervisor3 pts
- Quality manager2 pts
- Site manager1 pt
- Group technical0 pts
Repeat check
4 fieldsSimilar Concession In Last 12 Months*
- No3 pts
- Once1 pt
- Twice or more0 pts
Number Of Repeats
Specification Review Triggered
- Not needed3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Change Request ID
Links to QUA-069 Request ID
Decision
10 fieldsDecision*
Conditions
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Quality Manager*
Signature*
Customer Contact*
Second Signature*
QUA-006 · record IDs look like CONC-2026-000 · Links Case, Customer
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The approval is a moment. What fails is the memory around it: the ninth concession nobody compared to the first, the verbal approval nobody wrote down, the review nobody triggered.
Holds the concession against the hold it releases, checks the food safety and legality gates before any approval is recorded, and flags a repeat count crossing the review threshold.
Compares a new concession request against the last twelve months on the same specification and raises the specification review before it is quietly approved again.
Keeps the written customer approval attached to the record it belongs to, so a disclosure question is answerable from the file rather than from memory.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
Concession Request definitions and key terms
- Concession
- Authorisation to use or ship product that does not fully meet specification, granted as a business decision about an acceptable quality deviation.
- Specification
- The defined requirement a product must meet; a concession is an exception to it, not a change to it.
- Extent of deviation
- How far the product falls short of specification, which should determine the approval level and whether concession is appropriate at all.
- Approval authority
- The role or level required to authorise a given concession, scaled to the severity of the deviation rather than to convenience.
- Repeat concession
- A concession raised against a specification already conceded within a defined period, the signal that the specification or process, not the batch, needs review.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about concession request
Can a food safety deviation be conceded?+
No. A concession is a mechanism for an acceptable quality deviation. Where food safety or legality is affected, the product should be rejected, and no approval level makes a concession appropriate.
Does the customer always need to approve a concession?+
Only where the deviation affects a customer requirement or the contract requires notification. Where Customer Approval Required is No, that answer should reflect the contract, not convenience, since it is what removes the obligation to disclose.
Why does the repeat check matter more than any single approval?+
Because one concession is a judgement call and a pattern is a systemic issue. A specification the process cannot reliably hold does not become acceptable by being conceded repeatedly; it becomes a candidate for either a process fix or a specification change.
What counts as written approval from a customer?+
An email, letter or signed form from the customer's authorised contact, attached to the record. A verbal agreement or an absence of objection is not written approval and should not be recorded as such.
Should the approval level ever be lowered to meet a shipping deadline?+
No. The approval level exists to match authority to risk. Lowering it under time pressure removes the judgement the level was designed to apply, and is exactly the pattern an investigation looks for after a customer complaint.
What should happen when Specification Review Triggered is Yes?+
The concession record should link to a Change Request rather than close on its own. The concession authorised this batch; the change request is where the specification or process actually gets fixed.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Nonconformance and Complaints
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Corrective and Preventive Action
The single action record used everywhere
Product Nonconformance Report
Records product that does not meet specification
Process Deviation Report
Records a process that ran outside its set limits, even where the product still passed
Hold and Release Record
Places suspect product on hold and records the decision to release, rework or scrap it
Rework Authorization
Authorises rework on nonconforming product and sets out exactly what will be done
More in Nonconformance
Product Nonconformance Report
Records product that does not meet specification
Process Deviation Report
Records a process that ran outside its set limits, even where the product still passed
Hold and Release Record
Places suspect product on hold and records the decision to release, rework or scrap it
Rework Authorization
Authorises rework on nonconforming product and sets out exactly what will be done
Scrap Record
Records product written off, with quantity, reason and cost
Material Rejection Report
Rejects incoming material that fails inspection
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 9001:2015 clauses 7.5.3, 8.2.1, 8.7.1, 8.7.2, 9.1.3 and 10.2
- 21 CFR 117.150, FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food (US)
- Food Safety Act 1990 (UK)
- General Food Law Regulation (EC) 178/2002, as retained in UK law
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.