Good morning to all. You'll find attached the quality policy of one of our most important suppliers. I was told that even the auditors coming from XXX (well-known certification body with three letters :notme:) approved that policy. :bonk:. Sorry, but I read anthing about management commitment regarding section 5.3 b) ISO 9001. Your opinion, experiences and comments are requested. Thank you very much.

5.3 (b) says: "includes a commitment to comply with requirements... of the QMS".

The last paragraph in the document you posted talks about the management system of the organization (which is based on processes) being directed to serving the requirements of the customer. The 2nd paragraph says the company (thus, management) orients itself to meeting customer requirements.

Taking into account that a QMS "directs and controls an organization wrt Quality", and Quality is about meeting requirements (as per ISO 9000:2005), I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. A quick question to any member of management to confirm their understanding of that part would be enough for me to accept it (I am not an auditor for a Registrar, though).

I am not to bothered about the lack of a statement regarding management commitment, I think it is reasonably well implied. I can't see how it provides a framework for objectives though, apart from a vague reference in the 2nd last paragraph. Not knowing the type of organisation, I can't comment on whether it is appropriate or not - in fact, it could be any organisation that has staff and processes! :lol:

Since we don't know much about the company it's from, it's difficult to really comment. From a strict compliance point of view, I'd prefer to see something about 'meeting requirements' not just customer. This would have greater emphasis if it were a regulated industry, andwhat about meeting internal managements' requirements?

I'd agree also about the lack of anything substantial to drive objectives from.....:2cents:

@Colpart

... it could be any organisation that has staff and processes!

You're right ... all-too-true :tg: