Are Unethical Registrars a Small Minority of the Registration Community?

Are Unethical Registrars a Small Minority of the Registration Community?

  • Yes, Unethical CBs are a small minority

    Votes: 14 73.7%
  • No, unethical CBs are the majority

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • Total voters
    19

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
At about that time, GM announced that Entela was its "registrar of choice," the clear implication being that somehow the skids had been greased.
:mg: This is the first time I heard that!

I think that in general, the whole idea of registration has failed because it was the result of a failure to properly identify the problem(s).
Jim, as you know, I respect your opinions tremendously, and I can understand your perspective, but if we are to admit that the registration concept failed (as a whole), how can we explain the numbers? Almost 20 years after the first edition of ISO 9001, we have close to 3/4 of a million organizations certified around the World. I firmly believe that if the process had failed as bad as many of us believe, the numbers should show that. As previously expressed, I believe that the accredited management system certification process can improve a lot, but some times I wonder if I am not being overly critical of a sector that I work in. If accredited certificates were not delivering some benefit to some people, I think the number of certified organizations would have shrunk to a few thousand by now.
 
Last edited:

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
:mg: This is the first time I heard of this.

As they say in baseball, you could look it up.

...if we are to admit that the registration concept failed (as a whole), how can we explain the numbers? Almost 20 years after the first edition of ISO 9001, we have around 3/4 of a million organizations certified around the World. I firmly believe that if the process had failed as bad as many of us believe, the numbers should show that.

I guess if the sole criterion is number of companies registered, then registration has been a roaring success. I guess it depends on what process you're talking about. I always go back to the old joke about the salt salesman (see this post).
 
C

chaosweary

The numbers for registrations will grow because:
-It gives customers some assurance that the supplier has a quality system
-Its a business where people make money so they propagate certification, the economics of the AB, CB, and Certified companies are self sustaining. Of course ethical is subjective, most CBs I have worked with and the companies just keep their eyes on the prize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Q

qualitytrec

I think that the issue of the CB's being honest or not is somewhat moot. They have a business model that seems to be working. And like all business their job is to sell or promote their service. There are suckers out there that get the certificate because they think they have to others get it because they were told to and some do it because they see benefit to it.The issue is more along the lines of several other discussions already had here on the cove. That is if ISO in it's various forms is effective in bringing standardization to the various industries subscribing to them, and if those companies that are registered or moving toward registration truly understand the standard and it's benefits and requirements. The real question is do the buyers understand what they are getting.

JMO
Mark
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I think that the issue of the CB's being honest or not is somewhat moot.
I respectfully disagree. The whole concept of third-party certification hinges on buyers being able to trust the certificates. If certificates are being awarded and maintained to undeserving systems/organizations due to registrars ethical mismanagement, we have a major problem. Certainly, in ANY profession, we will have serious, responsible and ethical players. As well as the opposite. The concern is when the process rewards the chronic short-cutters, unethical players. If that happens, then, chances are, the unethical players will outnumber the ones that want to maintain the integrity of the process.

The real question is do the buyers understand what they are getting.
That is an excellent question. In my experience, most organizations who require their suppliers to attain some type of certification are ignorant and/or oblivious to the issues surrounding accreditation, scope of certification, etc...A fancy certificate-like document with the words ISO 9000 and some unidentifiable logos on it seem to appease most buyers.
 
Q

qualitytrec

I am sorry I was unclear with my thought. The reason I say that it is moot is because if the buyer knew what he was buying then the unethical sellers would have less success. I agree the CB's need to be credible and ethical.
Many companies are perpetuating the issue by not understanding the shalls and the underlying reasons for standardization, this leaves a loop hole for the sharks to come in. Worse yet perhaps are the wicked companies that knowingly hire the crooked CB's so they can get their paper easier.
As with anything there is always the real deal and the scam. $100.00 Vacuum $3000 vacuum they both suck until they don't.

Mark
 

DannyK

Trusted Information Resource
How about Bombardier giving Intertek the role of managing Bombardier's supplier database for AS9100 ?

Bombardier is mandating most of its suppliers to be AS9100?

Which registrar has seen the largest increase in AS9100 registrations in the last 2 years?

Who is Bombardier's registrar?

Is this ethical?

Danny
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
How about Bombardier giving Intertek the role of managing Bombardier's supplier database for AS9100 ?
How about that? What is the problem, in your estimation? According to your information, you are in Canada. Bombardier is a Canadian organization. Have you voiced any concern to them? The current AAQG chairman is Mr. Colin Clarke. He works for Bombardier. He is one of the most serious, respected, quality professionals I have ever dealt with.
Bombardier is mandating most of its suppliers to be AS9100??
I believe they are.
Which registrar has seen the largest increase in AS9100 registrations in the last 2 years?
I don't know for sure. Worldwide is probably BSI. In the Americas, is the one I represent, DNV Certification.
Who is Bombardier's registrar?
According to OASIS database, most of their certificates were issued by Intertek, but they also have some with BSI.
Is this ethical?
I have no evidence to the contrary. Do you?
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
I respectfully disagree. The whole concept of third-party certification hinges on buyers being able to trust the certificates. If certificates are being awarded and maintained to undeserving systems/organizations due to registrars ethical mismanagement, we have a major problem. Certainly, in ANY profession, we will have serious, responsible and ethical players. As well as the opposite. The concern is when the process rewards the chronic short-cutters, unethical players. If that happens, then, chances are, the unethical players will outnumber the ones that want to maintain the integrity of the process.

That is an excellent question. In my experience, most organizations who require their suppliers to attain some type of certification are ignorant and/or oblivious to the issues surrounding accreditation, scope of certification, etc...A fancy certificate-like document with the words ISO 9000 and some unidentifiable logos on it seem to appease most buyers.


As always, Sidney, you raise some good points.

I agree it is very important that CBs be ethical, and I think the accreditation bodies should be more aggressive on the few known problems, and ease up the suspician on the good guys.

I think very few are truly bad apples. However, there are a few CBs I have seen who have standards below what I think they should be. The issue may actually be more between good ones and "fair" ones. Those who are not unethical, but ust do poor or low quality work. They cheapen the whole process a notch.

I agree most Purchasing buyers do not know the difference bewteen an accredited cert with proper logo marks, and an unaccredited cert. On that point, why should the accreditation bodies allow an accredited CB to issue an unaccredited cert. At the very minimum, the unaccredited cert should be CLEARLY marked as such. It should not require an advanced ISO degree to recognize the difference. That practice could be changed overnight.
 
Top Bottom