Came across this on the web today!

<Company name> is an internationally recognized <organization> holding accreditations from ISO 9001 and ISO 2000.(identities hidden to protect the perpetrator)

And what's worse it's been propagated to numerous distributors and resellers websites, verbatim :bonk:

Despite registrars reviewing the wording during audits wherever the company is using its ISO registration for marketing purposes, this type of misuse is too common, perhaps it should be reinforced in the standard itself.

Or...bring the whole marketing department in to that portion of the opening meeting... :bonk:

Came across this on the web today!

(identities hidden to protect the perpetrator)

And what's worse it's been propagated to numerous distributors and resellers websites, verbatim :bonk:

Despite registrars reviewing the wording during audits wherever the company is using its ISO registration for marketing purposes, this type of misuse is too common, perhaps it should be reinforced in the standard itself.

It sounds like a press release written by an ignorant PR person. There's a lot of that going around.

Another candidate for the "Major Award":mg: mentioned by Jim in the Press releases that makes you wonder (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=178833&highlight=press#post178833) thread.

Came across this on the web today!

(identities hidden to protect the perpetrator)

And what's worse it's been propagated to numerous distributors and resellers websites, verbatim :bonk:

Despite registrars reviewing the wording during audits wherever the company is using its ISO registration for marketing purposes, this type of misuse is too common, perhaps it should be reinforced in the standard itself.

3rd party auditors should be checking this from time to time.

3rd party auditors should be checking this from time to time.

I participated in a third party surveillance audit (assisting the auditee) just last week and the auditor did ask to look at all letterheads (soft copies included), name cards, other documents like PO, invoice etc and website to make sure that they are satisfied with the way the logo is being used.

What is wrong with the web posting?

Should it say...

<Company name> is an internationally recognized <organization> holding a registration for ISO 9001:2000.

I replaced accreditation with registration, replaced from with for, and changed the standard to say 9001:2000.

I frequently see references to ISO 9002. Last week I interviewed a test lab that stated on their website that they were accredited to ISO 17025. During the interview, I learned that this was a false statement. The person that I interviewed said he did not know that their website stated that and will change it.

Thank you,

Dirk

Came across this on the web today!

(identities hidden to protect the perpetrator)

And what's worse it's been propagated to numerous distributors and resellers websites, verbatim :bonk:

Despite registrars reviewing the wording during audits wherever the company is using its ISO registration for marketing purposes, this type of misuse is too common, perhaps it should be reinforced in the standard itself.
So? A person ignorant of the correct ISO protocols made up the web page. Look up who the company registrar is and send both registrar and company CEO an email or snail mail note, offering a "proper" phrasing.

I see a lot worse in poorly translated documents - I can only imagine the hilarity that reigns when English is translated into another language [look up the Chevy Nova flap when Nova is considered as a Spanish word.]

Our job as Quality professionals is to help folks see the value of doing things in a "quality way." It is NOT our job to humiliate or ridicule the ignorant.

Our job as Quality professionals is to help folks see the value of doing things in a "quality way." It is NOT our job to humiliate or ridicule the ignorant.

Agree with you very strongly on this one, Wes.

Meeting ignorance with humiliation or ridicule is small-minded as well as counter-productive. (Wilful ignorance is something else.) Not everyone understands the intricacies and what wording is OK vs. what's not OK.

I've seen a number of instances of incorrect claims or use of logos, etc. In every case, the organisation was glad to be put right, and happy to do so.
And yes, I've observed a number of external auditors checking the use of their company's logos also.

I prefer the "Don't curse the darkness. Light a candle." approach of the Chinese proverb. And not solely because it's more humane - but because it's also far more effective and efficient!

Our job as Quality professionals is to help folks see the value of doing things in a "quality way." It is NOT our job to humiliate or ridicule the ignorant.

There is nothing indicating the intent to humiliate or ridicule anyone here. Le Chiffre simply called something interesting to our attention. Like it or not, "our job as Quality professionals" often entails shedding light on others' errors. Furthermore, "our job as quality professionals" is generally a matter of agreement between us and the people who sign our paychecks, not some grand notion of what constitutes a perfect world.

Oh, the hypersensitivity of the era we live in. :rolleyes: For those old enough to remember Burns and Shriver: "Ya doesn't hafta call me ISO, you can call me ISER or you can call me ISA.....but ya doesn't have to call me ISO." :cool: There is nothing more evident of a majorly defective quality system than the misuse of a logo! :biglaugh:

Sheesh...I wish that was all I had to worry about. :rolleyes:

Oh, the hypersensitivity of the era we live in. :rolleyes: For those old enough to remember Burns and Shriver: "Ya doesn't hafta call me ISO, you can call me ISER or you can call me ISA.....but ya doesn't have to call me ISO." :cool: There is nothing more evident of a majorly defective quality system than the misuse of a logo! :biglaugh:

Sheesh...I wish that was all I had to worry about. :rolleyes:

That wasn't Burns and Schreiber, Bob. It was comedian Bill Saluga (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0759178/bio) and his character Raymond J. Johnson, Jr. "Ya doesn't has to call me Ray..."

That wasn't Burns and Schreiber, Bob. It was comedian Bill Saluga (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0759178/bio) and his character Raymond J. Johnson, Jr. "Ya doesn't has to call me Ray..."

Cool - you remember better than me! It was my best guess (both spelling and acts) - being as young as I was then... :cool: I figured (or hoped?) there were still some people around that might have remembered.

Cool - you remember better than me! It was my best guess (both spelling and acts) - being as young as I was then... :cool: I figured (or hoped?) there were still some people around that might have remembered.

I don't remember it--my mother told me about it. :biglaugh:

There is nothing indicating the intent to humiliate or ridicule anyone here. Le Chiffre simply called something interesting to our attention.

Yes, perhaps you're right - sorry Le Chiffre!

"our job as quality professionals" is generally a matter of agreement between us and the people who sign our paychecks, not some grand notion of what constitutes a perfect world.

The person who EFTs my employee pay (cheques are so last century :D) and the employee who receives it are the same, which makes for very short industrial relations meetings! But neither of us/both of us think that having principles and ideals and acting in accordance with them is a bad thing at all... in fact, quite the reverse.

And when I find something that's 'wrong' like this, I'll at least contact the company and ask 'em if they realise they're getting it wrong. They can ignore it, but at least I tried to do something about it. I wonder if that was done here?

The person who EFTs my employee pay (cheques are so last century :D)
Yes, it's funny how we cling to old paradigms. We still talk about dialing a telephone, for example. Even when we do receive an actual check, it's probably not going to be hand-signed, and probably not by the actual person we're referring to as having "signed" it.

But neither of us/both of us think that having principles and ideals and acting in accordance with them is a bad thing at all... in fact, quite the reverse.

I wasn't suggesting that having high ideals is a bad thing.:cool: I was just pointing out the fact that there will come a time for nearly all of us when our ideals and principles might be in conflict with those of higher powers, and while it's easy to preach, it's not so easy to cling to those ideals when the baby needs new shoes. We have to make difficult choices all the time, and "our job as quality professionals" is sometimes ambiguous and tests the limits of ethical behavior. People who have to make decisions in the best interests of their families, and who must at times approach that fine line, are almost always aware of the predicament, and Grand Pronouncements about high ideals aren't helpful.

And when I find something that's 'wrong' like this, I'll at least contact the company and ask 'em if they realise they're getting it wrong. They can ignore it, but at least I tried to do something about it. I wonder if that was done here?
That's commendable. I think that sometimes people talk about things that they know nothing about, but do so innocently, and there's nothing wrong with trying to steer them in the right direction. I've written here before about how I noticed a while back that the companies that sell non-oem ink jet cartridges have been touting the fact that the companies who manufacture the cartridges are ISO-registered, but hardly any of them (the sellers) have any idea what it means. You can see a prime example here (http://www.inkkit.com/). In their FAQ they say,

Our compatible ink jet printer cartridges are manufactured by a respected manufacturer with high quality standards (ISO 9001 certified) using all brand new parts. These ink cartridges are manufactured to meet or exceed the specifications and high-quality standards of the ISO 9001 requirements. Therefore, they should be as good as name brand.
I don't need to point out the problems with those claims, but there's a good chance that whomever wrote them thought he knew what he was talking about. Once, upon seeing one of those, I e-mailed the seller and asked what "ISO certified" means, and received an answer that clearly indicated either ignorance or prevarication on the part of the person who responded. I sent a polite message in return, explaining what ISO registration means, and how it doesn't necessarily equate with high-quality products. A few weeks later I queried them again, and got basically the same answer as the first time. The moral to the story, if there is one, is that you will find it awfully difficult to separate marketing people from demonstrably false but successful marketing claims unless they stand to lose something. We can appoint ourselves the Grand Protectors of Everything That is Right if we want to, but there will be little time left for doing "our job as Quality professionals" if we do.

I wasn't suggesting that having high ideals is a bad thing.:cool: I was just pointing out the fact that there will come a time for nearly all of us when our ideals and principles might be in conflict with those of higher powers, and while it's easy to preach, it's not so easy to cling to those ideals when the baby needs new shoes. We have to make difficult choices all the time, and "our job as quality professionals" is sometimes ambiguous and tests the limits of ethical behavior. People who have to make decisions in the best interests of their families, and who must at times approach that fine line, are almost always aware of the predicament, and Grand Pronouncements about high ideals aren't helpful.
The mark of true character is making the right choice, even when it is tough to make. Ignorance is probably a bigger, more frequent cause of unethical behavior than venal motives. Most of our Cove readers can probably recall meeting a vocal bigot who will say with all earnestness, "I'm not a bigot. Some of my best friends are . . ." never realizing how he presents himself as clueless.

In the case of the original post, Le Chiffre seems to be taking the tack the company is DELIBERATELY misusing the ISO logo, etc. to state such registration [misstated as "accreditation] confers special "recognition" of the worth and value of the organization. My clues in Le Chiffre's post to Le Chiffre's anger and desire to punish such apparent chicanery was the phrase this type of misuse is too common, perhaps it should be reinforced in the standard itself.

My interpretation of humiliation and/or ridicule was engendered by Le Chiffre's use of the "didn't think" smiley:bonk: And what's worse it's been propagated to numerous distributors and resellers websites, verbatim :bonk:
which I interpret as holding a person up to ridicule for "not thinking."


I haven't found any reason to describe my job or that of any other person in "quality" as "ambiguous." There is a time for negotiating the points some consider as ambiguous (usually this just means the requirements are poorly defined) often called Contract Review. Contract Review includes making sure you understand your boss's instructions and that both customer and boss are satisfied the entities slated to perform tasks understand the requirements and are capable of meeting them. There doesn't seem to be much value in undertaking a task if you don't have a clear, UNAMBIGUOUS understanding of the requirements for successful completion.

But neither of us/both of us think that having principles and ideals and acting in accordance with them is a bad thing at all... in fact, quite the reverse.

And when I find something that's 'wrong' like this, I'll at least contact the company and ask 'em if they realise they're getting it wrong. They can ignore it, but at least I tried to do something about it. I wonder if that was done here?Good job! Victor Hugo would be proud to call you hero!
"Man's greatest actions are performed in minor struggles. Life, misfortune, isolation, abandonment and poverty are battlefields which have their heroes - obscure heroes who are at times greater than illustrious heroes."
- Victor Hugo

Not to stretch this thread out any thinner, but Vilfredo Pareto might have suggested working on the bigger problems first. :cool: As far as anyone correcting their mistakes after one brings it to their attention - that goes back to the old leading a horse to water, I think. :) Finally, a common refrain in the quality end of the business: pick your battles. :D That should cover it. :2cents:

Yes, it's funny how we cling to old paradigms.
We do, don't we?

Look, I agree with some of what you say, but I do disagree strongly with your position, which appears to be that principles and ideals are all very well - except when they're going to cost.

I happen to think the world would be a better place if we paid more attention to principles and ideals. You, on the other hand, have used quite emotive and denigrating terms, such as:

... some grand notion of what constitutes a perfect world.

... We have to make difficult choices all the time, and "our job as quality professionals" is sometimes ambiguous and tests the limits of ethical behavior. People who have to make decisions in the best interests of their families, and who must at times approach that fine line, are almost always aware of the predicament, and Grand Pronouncements about high ideals aren't helpful.

OH, OK. So if you have a family, that exempts you from having and abiding by principles? I disagree. (But do agree it's a fine line and sometimes ambiguous.) Why does mentioning principles or ideals have to be capitalised by you as a 'Grand Pronouncement'? It isn't and wasn't.

... I was just pointing out the fact that there will come a time for nearly all of us when our ideals and principles might be in conflict with those of higher powers, and while it's easy to preach, it's not so easy to cling to those ideals when the baby needs new shoes.

Indeed. And very true. And those times have come for me too, and may do again. And precisely what makes them hard is that there's a conflict between principle and self-interest/self-gain.

One of the tests of character, I believe, is whether people hold on to - live by - their principles precisely when it's difficult. Easy to have ideals & principles if they don't cost - the real test is what happens when the chips are down, or the 'baby needs new shoes', or whatever.

... I think that sometimes people talk about things that they know nothing about, but do so innocently, and there's nothing wrong with trying to steer them in the right direction.

Nothing 'wrong' with it? No, I certainly don't think so. At all! But yes, I take your point and agree with you that they can & may well totally ignore the effort.

You say you 'once' responded to one of these. And relate the story of non-action. I emphathise. I've had the same (non) response too. But if they do, I don't use that as a reason not to try the next time, too. Because that way lies cynicism and eventually the more deadly apathy.
And I've had wins too, helping people - yes, even marketers! - to understand what they can say, and what they shouldn't.

... We can appoint ourselves the Grand Protectors of Everything That is Right if we want to, but there will be little time left for doing "our job as Quality professionals" if we do.

Again, very emotive language, extrapolating to a Very Large and Capitalized Pronouncement. You appear to indicate this is something you've Seen In This Thread (see, I can do upper case too ). I haven't, so we'll have to agree to differ on this one. :nope:

Because yes, I also agree that it's worth choosing the battleground.

Look, I agree with some of what you say, but I do disagree strongly with your position, which appears to be that principles and ideals are all very well - except when they're going to cost.

I don't see much point in belaboring this, but I will point out that when we face an ethical crossroads, sometimes the choice to be made involves sacrifice of our own ideals in recognition of personal responsibility (that being responsibility to something or someone other than ourselves) and perhaps a greater good.

And what's worse it's been propagated to numerous distributors and resellers websites, verbatim :bonk:
<Company name> is an internationally recognized <organization> holding accreditations from ISO 9001 and ISO 2000.
Despite registrars reviewing the wording during audits wherever the company is using its ISO registration for marketing purposes, this type of misuse is too common, perhaps it should be reinforced in the standard itself.

What is wrong with the web posting?

Should it say...

<Company name> is an internationally recognized <organization> holding a registration for ISO 9001:2000.

I replaced accreditation with registration, replaced from with for, and changed the standard to say 9001:2000....

Did this thread start with a question about the misuse of the ISO name?

Why did it develop into a philosophical sparring match?

Am I missing something?

Yeah. Took a few turns, didn't it. :argue:

Bottom line is, as Dirk pointed out, verbiage. Should read something like: <Company name> is an internationally recognized <organization> holding accreditations registered from to ISO 9001 and ISO 2000.

If anything, I wonder why Le Chiffre left out the company and organization names. If it's on the internet, I can't see why posting the company and organization here is problematic. I probably would have posted a link... :notme:

Bottom line is sometimes discussion threads here takes unexpected twists and turns. That's part of what makes up a discussion forum. As long as everyone keeps responses civil, we can live with it.

Wow, that was quite the storm!

I feel some clarity is required...
In the case of the original post, Le Chiffre seems to be taking the tack the company is DELIBERATELY misusing the ISO logo, etc. to state such registration [misstated as "accreditation] confers special "recognition" of the worth and value of the organization. My clues in Le Chiffre's post to Le Chiffre's anger and desire to punish such apparent chicanery was the phrase

My interpretation of humiliation and/or ridicule was engendered by Le Chiffre's use of the "didn't think" smiley:bonk: which I interpret as holding a person up to ridicule for "not thinking."
Wes, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I raised this as a typical example of ignorance with regards to ISO - not deliberate. And the use of the hammer to the head was to emphasize "banging one's own head" - my head, as we as quality professionals have failed to educate the industry (perhaps this one would have been better :frust: ). That's why I suggested that guidelines for usage of the ISO name should be included in the standard.

I certainly wasn't out to ridicule or punish, that's why I didn't add a link or identify the company. It was to highlight a systemic problem that we "as quality professionals" aren't doing enough to correct. Notifying each organization of their mistake is not addressing the root cause. I'm frustrated with the common belief that anything "ISO related" relates only to final product quality, when we all know it's so much more. How can we do a better job of promoting the real definition?

I see a lot worse in poorly translated documents - I can only imagine the hilarity that reigns when English is translated into another language [look up the Chevy Nova flap when Nova is considered as a Spanish word.]

Sorry, Wes, Nova (meaning doesn't go) is not considered as "a" Spanish word. No va (doesn't go) is two words and what you have quoted is a false urban legend. :topic:
Sorry, I don't usually do the urban legend thing, but beings as how this was a serious subject and quoted as a truth within the business community and not just a joke...

That's why I suggested that guidelines for usage of the ISO name should be included in the standard.Publicizing certification to ISO 9001 should never be a part of the standard because it would mislead people to believe that you should be certified, once you decide to use ISO 9001.
ISO has websites and publications (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/certification/publicizing/index.html) that helps organizations in publicizing their "certification". Any CB worth their salt would assist an organization in making sure that their press releases are correct.

I believe that, while some press releases are poorly worded due to ignorance, most are "deliberately ignorant" and want just to inflate the "accomplishments". For many marketing folks, accuracy and truth is not that important. Promoting the brand, at any cost, is.

It's funny but disappointing.

I agree that
Publicizing certification to ISO 9001 should never be a part of the standard

although I have somewhat different reasons. I think it's a quite futile and pointless exercise to attempt to use a standard (or legislation/regulation or whatever) to deal with issues like ignorance, wilful or otherwise. In fact, I can just imagine the furore such an attempt might cause, were they to go that route. I believe ISO has a far more important role to play than that particular one.

Any CB worth their salt would assist an organization in making sure that their press releases are correct.

Indeed yes. And all the ones I respect do. It is one of the responsibilities of the certifier - it's their name on the certificate, they awarded the certificate, and it has been part of every application that I've seen for the applicant to agree to the proper usage of the certification.

The devil's advocate in me says that, while the wording may not be accurate, at least it keeps the name in the public eye as a 'good thing' :notme:

Just an idle thought - do any of the CB organizations bother to spot check advertising by registrants during the annual reviews? My thought is that the misleading wording is as much detrimental to the reputation of the registrar as the registrant.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that 99.999% of the folks who view the misleading advertising have no clue it is misleading, since they are not quality professionals who are intimately familiar with the Standard and the limitations restricted to a system versus the products or service of the registrant.

Wes,

I think you hit the nail on the head. We have just attained registration to ISO 9001. Ever since we received the paperwork, most of my time has been explaining to IT (website admin) and sales what they can and can't say and how they can advertise.

I went to the point of giving all of these groups the "How to market your registration" handbook that our CB gave us with the paperwork. It details exactly how we can market this. Thankfully, this has allowed me to get back to work. :D

Unfortunately, industry relies on the systems within the ISO industry and the associated professionals (such as us) to ensure that the ISO name is used properly.

Depending the person responsible, they may not understand the nuances of an expression in English (I deal with almost every different language here). It can be difficult to explain to someone that doesn't have English as a first language some of these nuances. If nobody it there willing to check, you end up with some of the misuses you see. Having said this, it is rarely if ever purposeful. 99.999% of people will correct it without any issue IF pointed out to them. I know my CB has it as part of their initial check before every audit.

If anything, I wonder why Le Chiffre left out the company and organization names. If it's on the internet, I can't see why posting the company and organization here is problematic. I probably would have posted a link... :notme:

You're X-actly Rite!;)

Just an idle thought - do any of the CB organizations bother to spot check advertising by registrants during the annual reviews? My thought is that the misleading wording is as much detrimental to the reputation of the registrar as the registrant.Accredited CB's are required to "police" the use of the certification mark. There are stipulations on where and how the certification mark can be used. But CB's for the most part don't police the press releases or pieces of advertisement put out by their clients.

If anything, I wonder why Le Chiffre left out the company and organization names. If it's on the internet, I can't see why posting the company and organization here is problematic. I probably would have posted a link... :notme:
You're X-actly Rite!;)

I'm not quite sure in what way you're agreeing with Marc, but as I said earlier ...

I certainly wasn't out to ridicule or punish, that's why I didn't add a link or identify the company. It was to highlight a systemic problem that we "as quality professionals" aren't doing enough to correct. Notifying each organization of their mistake is not addressing the root cause. I'm frustrated with the common belief that anything "ISO related" relates only to final product quality, when we all know it's so much more. How can we do a better job of promoting the real definition?

And I think Sidney "hits the nail on the head" here...
Accredited CB's are required to "police" the use of the certification mark. There are stipulations on where and how the certification mark can be used. But CB's for the most part don't police the press releases or pieces of advertisement put out by their clients.I know from my experience with two registrars, neither has paid much attention to how we use the mark. Except for very cursory checks of a few product packages and brochures during surveillance audits.

ISO has websites and publications (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/certification/publicizing/index.html) that helps organizations in publicizing their "certification". Any CB worth their salt would assist an organization in making sure that their press releases are correct.

I believe that, while some press releases are poorly worded due to ignorance, most are "deliberately ignorant" and want just to inflate the "accomplishments". For many marketing folks, accuracy and truth is not that important. Promoting the brand, at any cost, is.

I thought it was normal practice for a registrar to explain how to use the ISO registration appropriately when the company was registered. Back in the early 90's, BSI actually gave examples of the correct way to use the ISO logo including marketing announcements. I also remember them checking it during a surveillance audit. Maybe the registrars have gotten lazy in providing the information and verifying its correct use and they should be reported for a noncomformance to their registrative body.

Bill Pflanz

As Sidney rightly says CB's are required to and do police the use of the certification mark. Having said that I'm surprised at how many times I go to my local computer mall and see countless pc products with the certification mark on the packaging when use of the mark on products is a no-no. How the CB auditor can miss a warehouse full of products with the certification mark on is a mystery to me.

The problem with marketing material is partly one of time and the fact that marketing (as opposed to sales and contract review) isn't part of the standard or audit. Because marketing documents aren't normally to be found in document/records they are not captured in the normal course of an audit. why marketing is excluded or marginalised (see customer communciations) is another topic. So really its a case of whether or not the auditor or CB comes accross the nonconforming marketing material. And you can be sure the company won't want to show them it. But having said that a good CB would/should offer help/advise on how to market their certification before they produce it.

As Sidney rightly says CB's are required to and do police the use of the certification mark. Having said that I'm surprised at how many times I go to my local computer mall and see countless pc products with the certification mark on the packaging when use of the mark on products is a no-no. How the CB auditor can miss a warehouse full of products with the certification mark on is a mystery to me.

The problem with marketing material is partly one of time and the fact that marketing (as opposed to sales and contract review) isn't part of the standard or audit. Because marketing documents aren't normally to be found in document/records they are not captured in the normal course of an audit. why marketing is excluded or marginalised (see customer communciations) is another topic. So really its a case of whether or not the auditor or CB comes accross the nonconforming marketing material. And you can be sure the company won't want to show them it. But having said that a good CB would/should offer help/advise on how to market their certification before they produce it.


1. It depends on what the mark on te box says. I have allowed a few cases where it clearly said the company was certified to ISO 9001. It would not be permissable to suggest the product is certified.

2. Who says Marketing is not part of the ISO system? Most of my clients include Marketing in their Sales process, ...and I audit it. It is after all, a process in their organization, isn't it?

hjilling

1) Yes the rules are that it must not be implied that the product itself is certified. Although since 9001 is for a system then I'm not sure how it could anyway. If it could be made clear then of course nothing wrong but in most cases companies simply put the certification mark on the packaging and since it is product packaging I would say there is the implication that the product itself is Quality Passed.

2) Is Marketing covered by ISO9001. Tell me the clause. It's loosely there in customer communications which is why I felt to add the word "marginalised". The fact that clients may include it in their system is irrelevant. They could include Finance and billing in their system. The auditor is auditing against the standard and not directly against the client system. Any NCN would have to matched to a clause in the standard and unfortunately customer communications only addresses whether the channels exists and not whether misleading information has been given. You say you audit Marketing. What is the criteria of your audit? Is this an internal audit or a third party ISO9001conformity assessment?

hjilling

1) Yes the rules are that it must not be implied that the product itself is certified. Although since 9001 is for a system then I'm not sure how it could anyway. If it could be made clear then of course nothing wrong but in most cases companies simply put the certification mark on the packaging and since it is product packaging I would say there is the implication that the product itself is Quality Passed.

2) Is Marketing covered by ISO9001. Tell me the clause. It's loosely there in customer communications which is why I felt to add the word "marginalised". The fact that clients may include it in their system is irrelevant. They could include Finance and billing in their system. The auditor is auditing against the standard and not directly against the client system. Any NCN would have to matched to a clause in the standard and unfortunately customer communications only addresses whether the channels exists and not whether misleading information has been given. You say you audit Marketing. What is the criteria of your audit? Is this an internal audit or a third party ISO9001conformity assessment?


1. It is uncommon for my clients to put ISO on the package. I only accept it if it clearly states that "XYZ Company is certified to ISO 9001." It must be clear or not acceptable.

2. The organization is to identify their processes (activities) in its QMS. If they define 21 processes, I will audit 21 processes. I don't select some of the processes they defined, I select all of them. If they define Marketing as a process, I will audit it to an appropriate degree. Usually Marketing was combined with Sales, or something linked with clause 7.2. But I don't audit clause 7.2, I audit the process and verify that requirements are being met. These requirements would include links to training, records, etc.

Yeah,it's really common,and around me, i often hear that.

On one of my CB audits I found that the organization had told a customer in a letter responding to a customer (aauto assembly plant) compliant that "the color change in the hand cleaner is due to a supplier change...our product is certified to ISO 14001." The VP of Marketing wrote the letter.

I was reviewing their CA/PA when I found it and this was really an ISO 9000 issue. I asked for a break and called the President of the CB and he told me not to worry about it. So I didn't.

I told this story in a thread a couple of years ago but can't find it now.