The following is some good info on Quality Policies:

--> Subject: Re: Q:Quality policy/Darracott/Naish/Scalies/Enop
-->
--> Mr. Scalies has again cleared away the dust and shed light on the real issue,
--> but to speak more to your exact question - it seems to me that in the process
--> of determining whether a company's quality policy is effective, or in the
--> process of determining whether a company's quality system is suitable and
--> effective in meeting the requirements of ISO-900X, and its own documentation,
--> an auditor ends up in the same place - the system: documentation, practices,
--> and records.
-->
--> I'm no quality sage, but none of the three registrars I've worked with has
--> picked apart the wording of the quality policies, and while they surely noted
--> it, I believe they straightway went about the business of auditing the system.
--> At the end of the day(s), if the system met its documented requirements and
--> the ISO-900X standard, there were high-fives, free food, and photos on the
--> front lawn.
-->
--> The quality policies in question were very different in the commitments they
--> placed upon the companies in question.
--> One was very general - "Either serve the customer superbly, or don't even
--> try." - another specifically called out zero defects as one of three quality
--> goals, and a third contained simliar 'top of the mountain" type statements.
--> Maybe the registrars just didn't want to get into a debate about the policy
--> since the systems were otherwise compliant,
-->
--> To come full circle, if I were king I'd want a policy that I could
--> objectively determine was supported by the system. For example, since I
--> support zero defects as the ultimate goal, I would clearly say it is a goal.
--> During reviews, I would then expect to find objective evidence that, when
--> practical, we move closer to that goal (e.g. less scrap, rework, returned
--> goods and other customer complaints), whether ISO-900X requires it or not.
-->
--> Maybe I just made more dust...