As an end user of certification, I think accredited certification is wholly under-utilized by industry. Consider this; two of the largest multilateral recognition agreements in the world reside with the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and also the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Their perspective is that credible certification provides confidence that leads to mutual recognition. In effect, we get one certification that is accepted everywhere. I have seen too many fake certificates and too little done about them over the years. I have seen phony certification bodies that sell paper certs for cold cash. I have observed enough disparities in the competence of QMS auditors and testing personnel to appreciate why a third party should be monitoring these activities on behalf of those who depend on credible certification activities. The Accreditation Bodies cooperating at IAF and ILAC work full time to shore up deficiencies in the certification business - worldwide. Many accreditation bodies operate from the level of government technical experts in the field of accreditation, giving their determinations of credibility no higher level of authority, but even they must agree to be assessed against the accreditation body standard ISO 17011, if they are to be accepted under the IAF, and ILAC MLAs. I think it is fair to say that any process involving humans can be found faults and disparities in competence and quality. As you point out, perfection is something that we strive for, but our human nature makes impossible to achieve. It is important to take into account the benefits of trying. There are 190+ countries, many of which are rapidly modernizing their systems for managing quality and regulatory compliance. The IAF and ILAC work constantly to maintain a high bar in credible certification which is increasingly essential to world trade. We need our certifications accepted everywhere. This cannot be achieved without the added credibility of accredited certifications. This is not something we can trust the certification bodies to do in the absence of oversight from the accreditation bodies. I would encourage readers to look at the free publications they can read on why accreditation is important to world trade and how they reduce cost of business at www.iaf.nu.

I would like to thank Umberto Tunesi for his article in Quality Digest, Is Accredited Certification Really ‘Value Adding?’, because it provides an opportunity for dialogue.  Not all readers will understand that there is a global conformity assessment infrastructure that has evolved since ISO 9001 was first published in 1987.  Many are familiar with a company implementing ISO 9001 and then being audited and certified by a third party certification body (CB).  A CB can in turn be assessed and accredited by a third party accreditation body (AB).  And if the AB is a member of the International Accreditation Forum, the AB may be peer evaluated, which means the AB is evaluated by competent individuals that work for other IAF member ABs.  IAF member ABs that demonstrate conformance are allowed to sign the IAF Multilateral Mutual Recognition Arrangement (IAF MLA).

So what is the value?  The greatest value to all stakeholders is at the certification level, if the CB is impartial and competent.  This is big if.  The AB adds value by assessing a CB to confirm it conforms to ISO/IEC 17021 and is impartial and competent.  The IAF peer evaluation process adds value by evaluating an AB to confirm that the AB itself conforms to ISO/IEC 17011 and is also impartial and competent.  The IAF MLA, which requires that any IAF MLA signatory recognize that any other accredited certificate by any other IAF MLA signatory is equally reliable or equivalent, adds value by eliminating the need for any redundant certification.

The value provided by the global conformity assessment infrastructure is that a certification accredited by any IAF MLA signatory can be accepted anywhere else in the world.  This concept is captured by IAF’s slogan which is “Certified once-accepted everywhere”.  The value is providing a purchaser or user confidence in the accredited conformity assessment results.

The value of accreditation is recognized by many industry groups, such as the aerospace, automotive and telecommunications industry, that do not accept any non-accredited CBs.  Many purchasers will not accept an unaccredited certification.  So an organization takes a risk using a non-accredited CB. 

While the global system can provide increased confidence in accredited conformity assessment results, it cannot provide a guaranty.  This is because the third party accreditation and certification system relies upon each party in the chain to be sincerely striving to conform.  A CB audits its client only once or twice a year and relies upon its client to stay in conformance for all of the other days of the year.  The same applies for accreditation.  It is true that most ABs assess a CB only a few times a year.  Again, an AB relies upon the CB to conform all of the other days of the year.  The entire system is based on the concept of “trust but verify”. 

I have to declare my biases.  I work for ANAB, the IAF MLA signatory AB in the US.  In addition I am also the elected Chair and President of IAF.  And prior to working for an AB I was president of a management systems CB.  I, and many others like me, are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the current standards and conformity assessment infrastructure, but we apply PDCA and are seeking to continually improve it.  Having declared my biases, I can personally attest that some CBs are not accredited because they do not conform to international standards and are not impartial or competent.  A review of the websites of some of these CBs will quickly reveal that they cannot become accredited because they do not conform to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17021, such as the clear separation between consulting and certification activities.  There are also some CBs that are accredited by non-IAF member ABs, but at least in some instances we find that these accreditations are not valid.  Therefore, I urge organizations to work only with CBs that are accredited by IAF MLA signatory ABs.

Mr. Tunesi commented on Accredia, which is the IAF MLA signatory and national accreditation body in Italy, therefor I am confident stating that Accredia conforms with ISO/IEC 17011 and is impartial and competent.  But all ABs do not operate identically, so I cannot comment further about Accredia.  I can state the following about ANAB:  1.  We also do not allow our accreditation assessors to audit for CBs.  We consider that a conflict of interest.  I note, however, that ISO/IEC 17011 is not specific about this point.  2.  ANAB does not allow the CB to select the organization to be witnessed.  Our assessors or staff make this decision.