Corrective Action Request (CAR)

This topic is part of the SG Systems Global nonconformance, CAPA, supplier quality & risk management glossary for regulated manufacturing.

Updated December 2025 • Nonconformance, Nonconformance Report (NCR), NCMR, CAPA, SCAR, Root Cause Analysis (RCA), Quality Risk Management (QRM), Supplier Quality Management (SQM), Vendor Qualification, QMS

Corrective Action Request (CAR) is the formal way of saying “this is not good enough – investigate it properly and fix it at the root.” It is a structured request, usually issued by quality or a customer, that demands more than a quick patch: it asks the recipient to analyse a nonconformance, find the real causes and implement corrective actions that stop it happening again. Internally, CARs tie nonconformances to deeper problem-solving. Externally (for suppliers and contract manufacturers), they are the main lever you have to turn recurring pain into actual change instead of endless apologies. Done well, CARs are focused, data-driven and followed through. Done badly, they become a ritual: lots of forms, “retrained operator” stamped on everything, and the same issues quietly reappearing every quarter.

“If every Corrective Action Request ends with ‘we reminded people to be more careful’, you don’t have a CAR process – you have a suggestion box with extra paperwork.”

1) What Is a Corrective Action Request (CAR)?

A Corrective Action Request is a structured way to say: “This nonconformance or pattern of nonconformances is serious enough that we require a formal investigation and documented corrective actions.” It usually:

• references one or more nonconformances, NCRs, NCMRs or complaints
• describes the issue and its impact in factual, objective terms
• asks the responsible function or organisation to perform root cause analysis
• requires a defined set of corrective actions with owners and due dates
• expects evidence and verification that the actions were implemented and effective

CARs operate at two levels:

• Internal CARs: raised within a company, for example quality asking manufacturing, engineering, planning or design to address recurring internal issues.
• External CARs: sent to suppliers, contract manufacturers, labs or logistics providers as part of supplier quality management when their performance creates risk or cost.

In both cases, a CAR is a formal escalation from “fix this batch” to “fix the system that produced this problem”.

2) CAR vs CAPA, NCR, NCMR, SCAR and 8D

CAR sits in the middle of a cluster of related acronyms. Untangling them avoids confusion and double work.

• NCR / NCMR: A Nonconformance Report (NCR) or NCMR documents that something did not meet requirements – it is the “what happened” and “what we did with the affected product” record.
• CAR: The request to go deeper on one or more NCRs/NCMRs – to investigate causes and define corrective actions that prevent recurrence.
• CAPA: CAPA is the framework and record for corrective and preventive actions themselves. A CAR often leads to a CAPA, but the CAR is the trigger and scope setter, not the whole CAPA file.
• SCAR: A Supplier Corrective Action Request is a CAR specifically aimed at a supplier or external partner. Internally you might open a CAR; externally you issue a SCAR.
• 8D reports: Many automotive and industrial companies respond to CARs using an 8D format – 8 disciplines: define the problem, containment, root cause, corrective actions, etc. The 8D report is often the answer to the CAR.

One simple mental model: NCR/NCMR says “we had a problem”; CAR says “we need you to really fix this”; CAPA is the structured engine that does the fixing; SCAR is the same mechanism pointed at suppliers.

3) When Do You Issue a CAR?

You do not need a CAR for every nonconformance. Overusing them dilutes their impact and clogs the system; underusing them leaves systemic issues to fester. Typical triggers for issuing a CAR include:

• Repeat events: Similar NCRs or complaints recurring in the same process, product, line or supplier.
• High risk: Single nonconformances with significant safety, regulatory or business risk – even if they are “first time”.
• Major customer impact: Issues that cause line stoppages, returns, recalls, field failures or formal customer complaints.
• Audit findings: Significant internal or external audit observations that expose systemic weaknesses.
• Supplier performance: Persistent supplier defects, documentation issues, late deliveries or spec failures.
• Data integrity & compliance: Deviations that hint at falsification, backdating, incomplete records or uncontrolled process changes.

Good practice is to define risk-based thresholds: for example, “three similar NCRs in six months”, “any critical deviation”, “any customer complaint above severity X”, “any supplier incident above Y” should trigger a CAR. That takes the debate out of the room and stops people playing “let’s hope it doesn’t happen again” when the data already says it will.

4) What a Good CAR Record Contains

A CAR should make it impossible to pretend you have fixed something when you have only treated symptoms. At minimum, a solid CAR record includes:

• Identification: CAR number, date opened, requester, owner, supplier (if external), related products, batches and sites.
• Problem statement: Clear, fact-based description of the issue – what happened, where, when, how often and what the observable impact was. No root cause guesses in this section.
• References: Linked NCRs/NCMRs, complaints, audit findings, OOS results, SCAR numbers or customer tickets.
• Requirements breached: Specs, SOPs, standards, contracts and regulatory clauses not met.
• Risk assessment: Severity, occurrence, detectability; potential impact on safety, compliance, supply and reputation.
• Containment actions: Immediate steps taken to protect customers and product while investigation is ongoing.
• Root cause analysis summary: Short description of the actual root cause(s) identified, with reference to detailed RCA (5-Why, fishbone, FMEA, etc.).
• Corrective actions: Specific, measurable actions aimed at eliminating the root cause(s), each with an owner and target date.
• Verification / validation plan: How you will check that the corrective actions are implemented and effective (for example, audits, trend reviews, sample inspections).
• Status & approvals: Running status, partial completions, QA and management approvals and final closure sign-offs.

Internally, this can all live in your QMS. For supplier CARs or SCARs, you will often see a structured form or portal capturing the same elements from the supplier’s side, often in 8D format.

5) Internal vs Supplier CARs

The core logic is the same, but the dynamics are different when the CAR crosses company boundaries.

• Internal CARs:
  • Used to drive cross-functional fixes – between production, engineering, planning, maintenance, IT, design, etc.
  • Require management support to prevent “local optimisation” and blame games.
  • Should feed directly into CAPA, change control and process improvement initiatives.
• Supplier CARs / SCARs:
  • Issued to suppliers, CMOs, labs, logistics providers when their performance causes nonconformances, delays or risk.
  • Usually include expectations for response times, investigation quality and corrective action verification.
  • Often tied to vendor qualification, SQM scorecards and business reviews.
  • May be referenced in quality agreements, making response and closure legally binding deliverables.

Suppliers who treat SCARs as annoying forms rather than business-critical feedback tend to disappear from approved supplier lists over time. Customers who spray CARs at suppliers for every tiny issue eventually get ignored. The balance matters.

6) Common Failure Modes & Red Flags with CARs

On paper, CAR systems always look robust. In reality, they can be quietly broken. Red flags include:

• “Root cause” is always human error. If every CAR ends with “operator didn’t follow procedure” and “retrained operator”, you have not done RCA – you have just blamed the last person in the chain.
• Generic corrective actions. Actions like “update SOP”, “retrain staff”, “remind supplier of expectations” appear repeatedly with no supporting evidence or follow-up.
• Long open CAR backlog. Dozens or hundreds of open CARs beyond their due dates, often with no recent updates – a sure sign that the system is overloaded or not taken seriously.
• No effectiveness checks. CARs are “closed” as soon as actions are marked done, with no later review of whether the issue actually stopped recurring.
• Copy-paste supplier responses. SCAR replies that look identical across different issues, with no data, photos or process changes to back them up.
• CARs without data. Problem statements contain opinions, adjectives and speculation but no concrete dates, counts, defect rates or references.
• No link to risk or business impact. CARs are treated as ritual quality paperwork, not prioritised based on risk, cost or customer impact.

In short: if CARs exist mainly to satisfy auditors and they do not visibly change process behaviour, you are burning time without reducing risk.

7) What CAR Management Means for V5

Within the V5 environment, Corrective Action Requests are not isolated Word forms and email threads; they are linked, traceable objects tied into execution, quality and supplier management.

• V5 Solution Overview – treats CARs, NCRs, CAPAs, SCARs, batches, suppliers and equipment as related entities, which means you can see the full chain from a defect on the shop floor to a supplier’s 8D response and back.
• V5 MES – Manufacturing Execution System:
  • Feeds CARs with real context from the line – nonconformances raised from digital work instructions, process alarms, SPC trends, in-process checks and eBMR/eDHR reviews.
  • Allows users to initiate a CAR directly from the batch, job or nonconformance view, pulling in product, lot, line, equipment and user details automatically.
  • Provides execution data (times, parameters, scans, operator actions) to support root cause analysis without trawling through paper or multiple systems.
• V5 WMS – Warehouse Management System:
  • Links CARs to inventory holds and dispositions when nonconforming or suspect material is involved.
  • Uses genealogy and location data to identify which lots, pallets or serialised units fall under a CAR’s scope and to ensure dispositions are actually executed in the system.
• V5 QMS – Quality Management System:
  • Hosts CAR workflows – initiation, risk assessment, RCA, action planning, approvals, implementation and effectiveness checks.
  • Supports both internal CARs and supplier-facing SCARs, with configurable forms (including 8D templates) and roles.
  • Integrates CARs with CAPA, change control, training, risk registers and audit management so fixes are embedded in the system, not just in a PDF.
• V5 Connect API:
  • Allows customers, suppliers, PLM, ERP, CRM or LIMS systems to exchange CAR/SCAR and CAPA data with V5 – for example, synchronising supplier responses, attaching lab data or feeding customer complaints that trigger CARs.
  • Supports secure supplier portals and integrations where external partners can respond to SCARs, upload 8Ds and evidence, and receive status updates without email chaos.
• Analytics across the V5 stack:
  • Aggregates CAR data by product, site, supplier, process, root cause and risk to highlight where most corrective action effort is going – and whether it is paying off.
  • Links CARs to defect rates, scrap, downtime and complaints so management can see real cost of poor quality and prioritise improvements.

In practice, this means CARs in a V5-enabled business stop being isolated forms and become living records in the same data model as batches, suppliers, materials and equipment. That makes it much easier to prove that corrective actions are more than words on a page.

8) Implementation Roadmap & Practice Tips

If your current CAR process is mostly email attachments and good intentions, you can still turn it into a useful tool without paralysing the organisation. A pragmatic approach:

• 1. Define when a CAR is required. Write down clear triggers and examples (repeat NCs, specific severities, key customers, audit findings, supplier performance thresholds). Remove the “maybe” from the decision.
• 2. Standardise the CAR template. Build a simple, mandatory structure: problem, data, references, root cause, actions, owners, due dates, verification. Strip out fields that nobody uses.
• 3. Separate CAR from CAPA in people’s minds. Make it clear that a CAR is the request and umbrella; CAPA is the engine for the actions. This helps avoid CAPA fatigue and lets you track requests and actions separately.
• 4. Train on writing decent problem statements. Facts, not opinions; measurable impact where possible; concrete examples. Bad problem statements lead to bad root causes and bad actions.
• 5. Use structured RCA, at least for bigger CARs. Require 5-Why, fishbone or similar for medium/high-risk CARs. Challenge “operator error” and “supplier error” when they show up as the first – and only – cause.
• 6. Be selective but serious with supplier CARs. Don’t send a SCAR for every scratch or late pallet – you’ll be ignored. When you do send one, expect a proper investigation and evidence, and be prepared to escalate when you don’t get it.
• 7. Build CARs into regular reviews. Make open CAR status, closure rates and recurrence trends standing items in quality reviews, supplier reviews and management meetings.
• 8. Integrate CARs with digital systems. Use V5 QMS and V5 Connect to link CARs to NCRs, batches, suppliers and CAPAs. Stop tolerating “shadow CARs” in personal trackers.
• 9. Measure effectiveness, not just closure. For high-impact CARs, define what success looks like (for example, defect rate cut in half, no recurrences in X months) and actually check. If reality doesn’t move, reopen the work instead of pretending it did.

The point of CARs is not to increase the number of forms you can wave at auditors. It is to reduce the number of times you have to explain the same problem to the same angry customer, regulator or internal stakeholder.

FAQ

Q1. Is a Corrective Action Request the same as a CAPA?
No. A Corrective Action Request (CAR) is the formal request or trigger to investigate and correct a problem. CAPA is the structured process and record that documents the investigation, root causes, corrective and preventive actions, and effectiveness checks. A CAR usually points to one or more CAPAs; they are related but not identical.

Q2. When should I issue a CAR instead of just closing an NCR?
Use a CAR when the nonconformance is high risk, affects key customers or regulators, indicates a systemic weakness, or recurs despite previous corrections. Single, low-risk events with clear causes and simple fixes may not justify a full CAR, but repeated or serious issues generally do. Risk-based criteria and thresholds help make this consistent.

Q3. Do supplier SCARs need a different process than internal CARs?
The underlying logic is similar, but SCARs usually carry contractual weight and may follow customer-specific formats (for example, 8D). You will often set explicit expectations for response time, RCA quality and evidence. Internally, you may be more flexible on templates and timelines, but the bar for root cause and action quality should not be lower just because the problem is “in-house”.

Q4. How many CARs is “too many”?
Volume without context doesn’t mean much. A stream of CARs for trivial issues probably indicates poor triage and overuse. Very few CARs in a complex operation may indicate underuse or avoidance. More useful is to look at the mix (how many are high-risk vs low-risk), closure times, recurrence rates and whether the portfolio of CARs aligns with your known pain points and risk profile.

Q5. What does a good CAR response from a supplier look like?
A good supplier response clearly restates the problem, shows that they looked at real data, identifies root causes beyond “operator error”, defines specific corrective actions with owners and dates, and explains how they will confirm effectiveness. It often includes photos, records, process changes or control plan updates as evidence. Anything that reads like generic boilerplate (“We have reminded our staff to be careful”) is a warning sign.

Related Reading
• Events & Records: Nonconformance | NCR – Nonconformance Report | NCMR – Nonconforming Material Report | Out of Specification (OOS)
• Actions & Root Cause: CAPA – Corrective & Preventive Action | SCAR – Supplier Corrective Action Request | Root Cause Analysis (RCA) | Quality Risk Management (QRM)
• Systems & V5 Platform: Supplier Quality Management (SQM) | Quality Management System (QMS) | V5 Solution Overview | V5 MES – Manufacturing Execution System | V5 QMS – Quality Management System | V5 WMS – Warehouse Management System | V5 Connect API