Auditor Sued for Damages, for Failure to Warn of Process Risk

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#11
One of the questions I have is: Do the farm owners like the blind gopher auditor now?

Only with accountability at all levels conformity assessment works.
First, this assumes facts not in evidence. We have only allegations at this point, and no way of knowing what actually took place.

One of the problems inherent in so-called third-party auditing schemes is the very real conflict of interest inherent in the third parties being paid by the second parties. This extends to ISO 9001, AS9100, and any other certification scheme where the audited entity is paying for the audit. You can talk all you want about love, duty, honor and accountability, but we know, or at least we should, that when large sums of money are changing hands, corruption on some level is sure to follow.

The farm contracted with Primus Labs to do a safety compliance audit and Primus subcontracted the work to a FOURTH party. This is crazy and just adds another layer of complication and conflict of interest.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#12
You can talk all you want about love, duty, honor and accountability, but we know, or at least we should, that when large sums of money are changing hands, corruption on some level is sure to follow.
Basically you are inferring that any form of certification is corrupt and no confidence can be placed on certification.

I mentioned already, more than once, that you control this by making the price of ethical breach intolerable. Just like the price Arthur Andersen had to pay for being caught in the Enron debacle.

As long as there are people willing and happy to engage with and welcome unprofessional, incompetent auditors, verifiers and certifiers, they are on the other side of the corruption coin.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Staff member
Super Moderator
#13
As long as there are people willing and happy to engage with and welcome unprofessional, incompetent auditors, verifiers and certifiers, they are on the other side of the corruption coin.
Dude. A bit stiff, that.

Just because I don't feel the burden of correcting flaws in the auditing community does not make me corrupt (the other side of the corruption coin).
It means that I don't recognize that it has particular value to me one way or the other so I really don't care.

I understand where you're coming from and what you wish the world was, but go a bit easier... not all of us are in the war. Some of us are just living in the war zone.

I have thanked you for your passion to chase what you value. Keep chasing it.
But soften it a bit on those who aren't in the race, no?
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#14
But soften it a bit on those who aren't in the race, no?
I am not sure why you feel accused. I made a generic statement without directing at anyone in particular. I think you are taking this too personal, and, because of that, you don't see the big picture; at least, not the way I see it.

As a general statement, if the users of auditing services only accepted high caliber work, we would collectively minimize the chances of meaningless certificates and surveys in the industry. The "problem", though, would be the fact that such services would be significantly pricier than they are now.

Let's imagine a high performing and competent food safety auditor had audited the farm in question, subject of the post that originated this thread, had identified that the organization could NOT eliminate the melon washing/rinsing step and still get a superior rating because, by eliminating the step, we were introducing food safety risks.

The elimination of the washing step saved the farm a little processing time and money. Now we know the end result and, instead of improving their profitability, they are bankrupt.

The superior audit result was probably used by the farm to help sell their products to corporate buyers.

So, it is possible (and likely) that the farmers knew well that the elimination of the washing step wasn't right from a HACCP perspective. But the faulty process was approved by an external party and everyone was happy until people started getting sick.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#15
First, this assumes facts not in evidence. We have only allegations at this point, and no way of knowing what actually took place.

One of the problems inherent in so-called third-party auditing schemes is the very real conflict of interest inherent in the third parties being paid by the second parties. This extends to ISO 9001, AS9100, and any other certification scheme where the audited entity is paying for the audit. You can talk all you want about love, duty, honor and accountability, but we know, or at least we should, that when large sums of money are changing hands, corruption on some level is sure to follow.

The farm contracted with Primus Labs to do a safety compliance audit and Primus subcontracted the work to a FOURTH party. This is crazy and just adds another layer of complication and conflict of interest.
Basically you are inferring that any form of certification is corrupt and no confidence can be placed on certification.

I mentioned already, more than once, that you control this by making the price of ethical breach intolerable. Just like the price Arthur Andersen had to pay for being caught in the Enron debacle.

As long as there are people willing and happy to engage with and welcome unprofessional, incompetent auditors, verifiers and certifiers, they are on the other side of the corruption coin.
Mirabile dictu! Wes defends JW's statement. The qualifier is "some level," not "every level"

When I still kept my Professional Engineer certificate current, I had E&O insurance. It cost something, but I considered it a necessary expense, just like health, auto, fire insurance. One of the great things was that the insurance company offered a free evaluation of my practices, contracts, etc. as part of setting the rate - similar to evaluating the condition of my building, distance from fire station, distance from fire hydrants, etc. in setting my fire insurance rates.

The idea of corruption being rampant throughout the registrar community is never stated nor intend to be understood by any of our regular Cove contributors. The fact there is "some" corruption, "some" incompetence, some "mission creep" cannot be denied.

In hindsight, Arthur Anderson paid a much bigger penalty than warranted for its Enron association. To say the organization deserved the penalty would be like saying a father should be executed because his son committed a murder. Equating less than super-vigilant oversight of previously trusted managers with a workaholic dad not overseeing his trusted son and levying a penalty for the adult son's misdeeds is that same flawed logic.

It may be understandable for a highly visible member of the registrar community to take affront at accusations of misfeasance and malfeasance against the industry as being personal attacks on himself and his company, but it is not reasonable to engage in "mission creep" to create penalties far worse for one category of organizations than for other organizations (banks, groceries, hospitals, etc.) faced with similar situations of their employees and agents. Corporations may be inhuman, but they are run by humans and humans sometimes place trust in someone who has fooled them.

This is essentially a matter for a civil court of competent jurisdiction to resolve, not for some armchair "lawyer" unschooled and unskilled in liability and tort law to make a ruling BEFORE even hearing all the pro and con evidence.
 

TPMB4

Quite Involved in Discussions
#16
Can someone clarify? I read that they replaced the washing step that used chlorinated water with a washing step that was not chlorinated. They still washed the melons.

Not sure what the significance of that is but its a distinction worth pointing out. I don't know the food industry but if chlorinated water washing is standard practise then I'd say negligence on both farm owners and auditor. If it is not standard practise just best practise then why aren't more farms making people ill by not washing in chlorinated water? Is this a case of poor judgement in switching from best practise combined with bad luck? I'd be interested to know.

Also, why was the washing system changed? It seems it was effectively downgraded by removing the chlorination of the water. Was the old system failing and needed replacing which allowed them to save money by going for non-chlorinated? Again, I'm curious.

Basically, we don't know enough to really decide on this case. The courts will do that based on evidence presented. Good luck to them! When that has happened it will be time to look further into the audit, I think, based on evidence not conjecture. Evidence is what auditing (and Quality too) is about. Jeez! Am I sanctimonious or what???!!!!:D
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#17
This thread has been reported as a potential hot spot.
Please...
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#18
Basically you are inferring that any form of certification is corrupt and no confidence can be placed on certification.
I think that takes it a bit too far. There's no denying that the current system creates conflict of interest, and there's also no denying that the system as it stands invites corruption. When corruption is invited, it will almost always accept the invitation. This does not mean that "any form of certification is corrupt."

I mentioned already, more than once, that you control this by making the price of ethical breach intolerable. Just like the price Arthur Andersen had to pay for being caught in the Enron debacle.
You can't address conflict of interest without removing the conflict of interest. Punishment of illegal activities is a separate issue.


As long as there are people willing and happy to engage with and welcome unprofessional, incompetent auditors, verifiers and certifiers, they are on the other side of the corruption coin.
No doubt. It does take two to tango, but that doesn't answer anything either.
 

gpainter

Quite Involved in Discussions
#19
My question would be. Was this firm an auditing firm or was it a consulting firm? If it was a consulting firm then there could be some liability. If it was just an auditing firm auditing to a standard, then there is probably no liability. Sounds like it was more of a consulting firm or maybe both.:mg:
 
#20
Can someone clarify? I read that they replaced the washing step that used chlorinated water with a washing step that was not chlorinated. They still washed the melons.

Not sure what the significance of that is but its a distinction worth pointing out. I don't know the food industry but if chlorinated water washing is standard practise then I'd say negligence on both farm owners and auditor. If it is not standard practise just best practise then why aren't more farms making people ill by not washing in chlorinated water? Is this a case of poor judgement in switching from best practise combined with bad luck? I'd be interested to know.

Also, why was the washing system changed? It seems it was effectively downgraded by removing the chlorination of the water. Was the old system failing and needed replacing which allowed them to save money by going for non-chlorinated? Again, I'm curious.

Basically, we don't know enough to really decide on this case. The courts will do that based on evidence presented. Good luck to them! When that has happened it will be time to look further into the audit, I think, based on evidence not conjecture. Evidence is what auditing (and Quality too) is about. Jeez! Am I sanctimonious or what???!!!!:D
Let me help you! The food industry - including the farms - are required to establish and maintain a HACCP plan (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points). If the farm had done this, they would have had one for the potatoes they produce, which doesn't require chlorinated washing, because the potatoes are cooked, compared to melons which do need chlorinated washing because they are NOT cooked subsequently. If the farm had done their job, the HACCP process would have identified the problem and caused the correct actions to happen - regardless of the auditor!

No doubt the auditor was somewhat asleep in determining what the controls should have been, but since it's a sampling activity (we know) it may depend on what was being processed (if anything) at the time of the visit, for example.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J IATF 16949 Internal Audit question - Auditor's responsibility Internal Auditing 6
W Redacting Info Before Giving to Auditor ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
T Quality auditor legal right to see Board meeting minutes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
V Certified Auditor - Need of additional certification specific to industry ( GMPs) ASQ vs ECA vs others Professional Certifications and Degrees 1
V Internal Auditor Competency KPI IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
R American Petroleum Institute - Becoming an API Auditor Professional Certifications and Degrees 2
B Lowest cost way to pass Lead Auditor exam ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
B Internal Auditor Competency - Product Auditors Internal Auditing 9
U Internal Auditor not trained but done Audit for some process Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
Z Auditor Findings ISO 14001:2015 vs. 45001:2015 ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 6
B IATF16949 audit requirement - Auditor request UCL and LCL must be show Xbar-R, IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
A Becoming an ISO27001 3rd Party Auditor Career and Occupation Discussions 4
L ASQ's Biomedical Auditor Course Test ASQ - American Society for Quality 1
M Tips on preparing for IATF 16949 Internal Lead Auditor exam Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
G Same parts but new customer - What will the auditor ask me? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
Gun46 ISO 9001 : 2015 Lead Auditor Exam General Auditing Discussions 16
K %GRR was between 10-30% so we have to have a "backup plan" per auditor IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
S ISO 13485 Lead Auditor - Debate between our Quality Team and Regulatory Auditor - Internal Auditor Training ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 17
R ISO 45001 Lead Auditor Exam paper Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 1
B Internal and external auditor competency to CSR's IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 20
A Our auditor told if we didn't have a patent we would have to do a validation or verification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
W Certification for IATF Lead Auditor will expire in 2020 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
D Impartiality of Internal Auditor ISO 9001/13485 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 18
Ed Panek Auditor driving us nuts - ESD requirements ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 23
A OHSAS 18001 external auditor finding personal interpretation? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 5
S IRCA Lead Auditor training and Exam tips Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 5
L ASQ CBA biomedical auditor - CBA primer material is enough to study? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
B VDA 6.3 Qualification as Process Auditor training course and exam VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 0
F ISO 21001 Educational Organizations Management - How to become an auditor Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
J Getting training either from ASQ or from SAI Global - ISO 9001 Lead Auditor training Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 1
P ASQ Certified Biomedical Auditor (CBA) Certification Preparation 2019 ASQ - American Society for Quality 3
M Medical Device Design Control Auditor Recommentations General Auditing Discussions 19
G Third party auditor mentions no grace period for calibration Calibration Frequency (Interval) 22
D Where (in US) can I get the VDA Auditor Edition book? VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 3
S AIAG CQI Auditor Qualification and 3rd Party Certification Requirements General Auditing Discussions 2
M IATF 16949 7.2.3 Internal Auditor Competency - Trainer's competency Internal Auditing 7
C Recommendations for UK-based ISO 13485 internal auditor training ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
Sidney Vianna AS9100 News July 2019 AAQG/RMC CB Auditor Workshop - Presentation Materials AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
D Scope of Facility - Our auditor asked us last week for our "Scope of the Facility" AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 12
A ISO 9001 lead auditor as Full time career India Career and Occupation Discussions 2
J Manufacturing Process Auditor Requirements - IATF 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
GreatNate ISO 9001:2015 Lead Auditor Course? (who to take with) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 15
A External Auditor issue with Internal Audits Internal Auditing 7
Q Internal Auditor competence for ISO 14001 ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 11
S IATF 16949: Is "Certified" Internal Auditor mandatory? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
S Internal Auditing for API Spec Q1 - auditor qualification requirements Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 6
J Your opinion on the better training org for IATF16949 Internal auditor and Lead Auditor IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
K Turtle diagram or process interaction chart - Making it easier for an auditor Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 23
C TL-9000 Certifying Body Issue - Auditor failed to find an issue for 10 years TL 9000 Telecommunications Standard and QuEST 16
C Advice on becoming a AS9100 Auditor - Need to audit organizations that are Design Responsible AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 12

Similar threads

Top Bottom