What this is
What does 'integration' mean in this review, specifically?
What does 'integration' mean in this review, specifically?
It means a single policy framework, risk process, action and CAPA system, document control system, audit programme and management review covering safety, quality, environmental and energy management together, rather than four parallel sets of each. The review scores integration at the level of shared architecture and day-to-day practice, not just a statement of intent.
Why does the template score people impact separately from structural integration?
Two organisations can both claim a single audit programme, but one still leaves managers facing four different templates depending on which system is active that week. The Effect on people section checks whether structural integration has actually reduced the burden on the people running it.
Is this the same review as a management review record?
No. The Management Review Record (CMP-014) is the periodic top-management review required by each standard. This review is a standing check on whether those separate reviews, audit programmes and registers have been merged into one system, and typically reports as an input to the next management review, not a substitute for it.
Scope
When is a management system integration review required?
This review is one step in a larger governance programme. Using it to score a single standard's compliance, rather than the overlap between standards, produces a record nobody can act on.
Use this template when
- The biennial integration review is due, or a trigger event — a new standard adopted, a merger, a failed audit — has brought it forward
- The workspace is being set up and the register needs an entry added to track integration status over time
- You are running the Management System Governance programme and this review is one of its scheduled steps
- A linked record needs this one to exist, such as an internal audit finding duplicated evidence requests across systems
- The compliance lead needs a defensible answer to whether integration is improving, static or worsening ahead of the next management review
Do not use it for
- Management Review Record, which records the periodic top-management review of a single system's performance against its own objectives.
- Improvement Suggestion Record, which captures an improvement idea from anybody, with what it would change and who could own it.
- Continual Improvement Project Record, which records a structured improvement project, from problem statement through measurement to sustained result.
- Benchmarking Record, which records a comparison of performance or practice against another site, a peer or an industry figure.
- Anything outside KnowComply, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.4.4 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 clause 4.4 requires establishing, implementing and maintaining the OH&S management system including its interaction with other processes, which is the basis for reviewing integration across standards rather than auditing each in isolation.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| 4.4 | Determine how the OH&S management system's processes interact with the organisation's other management processes | Header |
| 4.4 | Maintain consistent policy, risk and document control processes across integrated management systems | Shared architecture |
| 4.4 | Apply consistent competency, incident reporting and objective-setting practice across the integrated scope | Shared practice |
| 7.2 | Ensure competence requirements do not fragment across parallel systems for the same workforce | Shared practice |
| 9.3 | Feed integration status into management review as an input on system effectiveness | Outcome |
| 10.3 | Identify opportunities for continual improvement, including reducing duplicated effort across systems | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Integration Level marked Fully integrated while two or more Shared architecture fields are answered Partly or No, which overstates a position the review's own detail contradicts.
- Duplication Reduced marked Yes with Duplications Identified recording a non-zero count and no explanation, which reports progress and an unresolved count in the same review.
- Single Audit Programme answered Yes while Audit Burden Reasonable is No, which suggests the programme was merged on paper without reducing the actual load on the sites being audited.
- Integration Plan Created left as No against an Integration Level of Partly integrated, which leaves a known gap with no route to close it before the next review.
- Main Opportunity left blank on a Static or Worsening Integration Improving result, which closes the review without naming the one thing most likely to move the position next time.
Global
Management System Integration Review requirements by country
Integration reviews sit above any single jurisdiction, but the standards being integrated carry different certification weight depending on where the organisation operates.
ISO Annex SL (High Level Structure)
Requires ISO management system standards — including 45001, 9001 and 14001 — to share a common clause structure and core requirements.
Annex SL makes genuine integration possible; a review finding incompatible structures despite shared Annex SL clauses usually points to systems certified separately and never actually merged.
UKAS multi-site and integrated certification schemes
Allows one certification body audit to cover multiple standards where the organisation demonstrates a genuinely integrated system, reducing audit days.
A UK-certified organisation with weak integration loses the audit-day reduction these schemes offer, so a poor score carries a direct certification cost, not just an operational one.
ISO 50001 (Energy management) alongside 45001/9001/14001
EU energy efficiency obligations increasingly reference ISO 50001, which this review's scope explicitly includes alongside safety, quality and environmental systems.
Sites with energy-intensive operations should treat Standards In Scope as more than administrative — an energy system left out is a real compliance exposure.
How to complete it
How to complete a management system integration review, step by step
The scored fields describe the state of integration; these are the calls that decide whether the score reflects reality on site.
Single Document Control System and Single Audit Programme can be answered Yes because one register or schedule technically exists, even if site staff still follow four separate procedures. The reviewer decides whether 'single' means the artefact or the lived process, and holds that standard consistently.
A Partly answer on Single Risk Process might mean 90% integrated with one outstanding standard, or 30% integrated with three. The Integration Level rollup treats these the same unless Main Opportunity distinguishes them.
Duplication Reduced and Workers See One Way Of Working can diverge: management-level processes merge faster than shop-floor experience changes. This template privileges the worker-facing answer when the two disagree.
Not every Partly integrated result needs a formal plan — some gaps close naturally at the next document review. The call is whether the specific gap found is big enough to warrant a standalone plan versus routine improvement.
What auditors find
Most common management system integration review findings
The same integration gaps recur across reviews regardless of which standards are in scope.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Single Audit Programme marked Yes but separate schedules still exist for safety and environmental compliance | 4.4 | Confirm the programme covers scheduling, scope and evidence collection for all in-scope standards before marking it merged. |
| Common Legal Register marked Partly with no note on which standard's obligations sit outside it | 4.4 | Name the excluded obligations explicitly so the gap is trackable rather than absorbed into a vague Partly answer. |
| Terminology Consistent marked No with no linked action | 4.4 | Raise a CAPA or improvement record for terminology alignment; a low-cost fix that is otherwise perpetually deferred. |
| Resource Requirement Sustainable marked No while Integration Level is Fully integrated | 9.3 | Treat an unsustainable resource requirement as evidence integration is not complete, and downgrade the level. |
| Duplications Identified left at a placeholder value with no supporting detail | 10.3 | Require at least one named example of a duplicated process behind any non-zero count. |
| Next Review Due set beyond the two-year interval with no trigger-event justification | 4.4 | Cap the interval at two years unless a documented reason extends it, recorded in Main Opportunity. |
Case in point
Case in point: four audit programmes, one exhausted compliance team
A multi-site manufacturer had certified ISO 45001, 9001, 14001 and 50001 separately over several years, each brought in by a different manager. The first integration review marked Single Policy Framework and Single Risk Process as Yes because a combined manual existed, and recorded Integration Level as Fully integrated on that basis.
The Effect on people section told a different story: Audit Burden Reasonable and Managers Face One System Not Four were both marked No, and site managers reported four separate internal audit visits within the same quarter pulling the same maintenance records. The review's structure forced the outcome down to Partly integrated once the people-facing fields were weighed against the paper-facing ones, and the resulting Integration Plan merged the four audit schedules into one.
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.
6 sections
- Reference
- CMP-054
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- MSI-2026-000
- Scoring
- Integration level
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.4.4
- Links
- Links Internal audits, Management review
- Tags
- Improvement, Integration
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
10 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format MSI-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*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Period Reviewed*
Reviewed By*
Standards In Scope*
Four Systems Exhaust The People Running Them
Separate audit programmes, action logs and management reviews for safety, quality, environment and energy triple the effort and halve the attention each one gets.
Shared architecture
6 fieldsSingle Policy Framework Or Aligned Policies*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Single Risk Process*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Single Action And CAPA System*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Single Document Control System*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Single Audit Programme*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Single Management Review*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Shared practice
6 fieldsCommon Competency Framework*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Common Incident Reporting Route*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Common Contractor Management*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Common Objectives Process*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Common Legal Register*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Common Records Retention*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Effect on people
6 fieldsDuplication Reduced*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Managers Face One System Not Four*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Workers See One Way Of Working*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Audit Burden Reasonable*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Terminology Consistent*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Resource Requirement Sustainable*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Related records
1 fieldManagement Review ID
The review this integration position was reported to.
Links to CMP-014 Review ID
Outcome
19 fieldsIntegration Level*
- Fully integrated4 pts
- Partly integrated2 pts
- Separate systems0 pts
Duplications Identified*
Integration Improving*
- Yes3 pts
- Static1 pt
- Worsening0 pts
Main Opportunity
Integration Plan Created*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Next Review Due*
Items Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
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
Compliance Lead*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
CMP-054 · record IDs look like MSI-2026-000 · Links Internal audits, Management review
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
Merging four manuals into one document is easy; keeping site teams from reverting to four separate ways of working is the work that actually slips.
Holds the integration register against the standards and clause register, and keeps the audit programme, CAPA system and document control linkage visible across every certified standard.
Supplies the safety-side audit schedule, incident reporting route and competency data this review checks for genuine overlap with quality and environmental equivalents.
Feeds environmental and energy audit activity into the same shared architecture check, so a merged audit programme actually covers ISO 14001 and 50001 evidence, not just 45001.
Flags where Shared architecture and Effect on people answers contradict each other before the review closes, and holds every write for your approval.
This template lives in KnowComply — audit and governance. Audit programmes, legal register, management review, risk and certification.
Meet KnowComply→Glossary
Management System Integration Review definitions and key terms
- Integrated management system
- A single set of policies, processes and documentation covering more than one management system standard, rather than parallel systems sharing only a compliance lead.
- Annex SL
- The ISO high-level structure giving management system standards a common clause numbering and core text, intended to make integration achievable.
- Shared architecture
- The structural elements of an integrated system — policy, risk process, CAPA, document control, audit programme and management review — that either exist once or are duplicated per standard.
- Trigger event
- An event outside the normal review interval, such as adopting a new standard or a merger, that brings forward a review ahead of schedule.
- Audit burden
- The cumulative demand that separate or overlapping audit and evidence-gathering activity places on the people and sites being audited.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about management system integration review
What is the management system integration review template based on?+
It is built against ISO 45001 clause 4.4, which requires the organisation to establish and maintain its management system including how it interacts with other processes, extended here to cover quality, environmental and energy systems as well.
What sections does the management system integration review contain?+
There are six sections: Header, Shared architecture, Shared practice, Effect on people, Related records, Outcome. Together they hold 48 fields, 42 of which are required.
How often should this review run?+
Every two years as a baseline, with an additional review triggered by any significant event such as adopting a new standard, a merger or acquisition, or a failed integrated audit.
How many of these records should we have?+
This is a singleton. One record per workspace, set up once and maintained across review cycles, rather than a fresh template per event.
Can integration be scored highly if the paperwork is merged but the workforce still experiences four systems?+
No, not defensibly. The Effect on people fields are designed to pull the Integration Level down when Duplication Reduced, Managers Face One System Not Four or Audit Burden Reasonable score poorly, even if the Shared architecture fields all score well.
Can the template be changed?+
Yes. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it. Most organisations add or remove standards from Standards In Scope as their certification portfolio changes.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Management System Governance
Legal and Other Requirements Register
Lists every law, regulation, permit and commitment that applies to your operation
Compliance Obligation Assessment
Assesses how each legal requirement applies to you and what you do to meet it
Compliance Evaluation Record
Records the periodic evaluation of whether you actually comply with each obligation
Regulatory Change Record
Records a change in law or regulation and what it means for you
Regulatory Inspection Record
Records a visit by a regulator, including what was inspected, what was said and any orders issued
Management Review Record
Records the periodic review of the management system by senior leadership, covering performance, risks, resources and improvement
More in Improvement
Improvement Suggestion Record
Captures an improvement idea from anybody, with what it would change and who could own it
Continual Improvement Project Record
Records a structured improvement project, from problem statement through measurement to sustained result
Benchmarking Record
Records a comparison of performance or practice against another site, a peer or an industry figure
Corrective Action Effectiveness Trend
Reviews whether corrective actions across the site actually prevent recurrence, by tracking repeat events
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 45001:2018 — Clause 4.4, Occupational health and safety management system
- ISO 45001:2018 — Clause 7.2, Competence
- ISO 45001:2018 — Clause 9.3, Management review
- ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Annex SL — High level structure for management system standards
- ISO 50001:2018 — Energy management systems
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.