Is writing out the ISO9001:2015 standard full name a requirement
- Thread starter love02eat
- Start date
If you believe that all such claims are a) valid, and b) certified by an IAF-accreditation member CB
Scanton
Quite Involved in Discussions
My (very well known, global) certification body dropped the year from all of their logo's around a year or so ago, so I don't believe there is anything sinister at play here just a cost saving exercise of not having to update them (an all the associated paraphernalia) every 7 years.
Mainly because there are a lot of companies who claim to be ISO 9001 certified but aren't.
Maybe they were at one time. Maybe they were working at being ISO 9001 "compliant"
Maybe they just want customers to think they are certified when they aren't. This happens a lot.
If they are proudly advertising their ISO status wouldn't it make a whole lot of sense to show they are certified with the certification body, the certificate number, and the current revision of the standard? Otherwise is sure smells like they have something to hide...
Things like this remind me of a finding we got when the procedure doc required "will be recorded in blue ink".
Black ink was OK, but made it harder to focus in on...red was OK but annoying...I hate green ink as a personal pet peeve.
After healing the self inflicted wound, the procedure was rewritten to "will be recorded."...but everyone who brought it in with other than blue ink was given a blue pen for future and told why. Requiring Blue ink is just something else that could go wrong without hurting anything of significance (other than my eyes)...
Putting the year on a fully valid claim is just something else that can go wrong in the future..."I forgot to update it to ISO9001:2023 on the website"
Anyone who knows why someone would claim certification or "compliance" also knows enough to dig a layer deeper anyway...and they'll likely show up to audit anyway...JMO.
Black ink was OK, but made it harder to focus in on...red was OK but annoying...I hate green ink as a personal pet peeve.
After healing the self inflicted wound, the procedure was rewritten to "will be recorded."...but everyone who brought it in with other than blue ink was given a blue pen for future and told why. Requiring Blue ink is just something else that could go wrong without hurting anything of significance (other than my eyes)...
Putting the year on a fully valid claim is just something else that can go wrong in the future..."I forgot to update it to ISO9001:2023 on the website"
Anyone who knows why someone would claim certification or "compliance" also knows enough to dig a layer deeper anyway...and they'll likely show up to audit anyway...JMO.
I am (often) amazed at how little some organizations make of their certification. I guess when you (only) do it because it's a "requirement", it gets treated that way...
As a side note I recently purchased a new battery for my GPS unit. Much to my surprise the package the battery was contained in had "ISO 9001:2008" printed on it. A clear violation in several respects. The package also said "made in China" where such violations seem to be rampant.
The certification marks (which includes the ISO 9001 terminology) are not to be used an any manner that makes it look like the product is certified. The marks are not to be used on the product or the product packaging. The year of the applicalble standard does not have to be used, but if it is used it has to be the correct year. Finally, if you are a certified company the use of the ISO 9001 terminology must also say one of four words: certified, certification, registered, or registration.
To me it is pretty obvious that the battery maker is very likely not certified and is only trying to make it look like they are and that the product is also certified.
I wish there was a convenient place for such violations to be reported when encountered outside of the scope of an audit. I see such violations often among clients suppliers (which is outside of the scope of the audit and up to the supplier's CB to enforce) or other places in commerce outside of auditing activity. Without that, there isn't any teeth in enforcement of the pretenders or the organizations that don't have diligent auditors or diligent CBs.
The certification marks (which includes the ISO 9001 terminology) are not to be used an any manner that makes it look like the product is certified. The marks are not to be used on the product or the product packaging. The year of the applicalble standard does not have to be used, but if it is used it has to be the correct year. Finally, if you are a certified company the use of the ISO 9001 terminology must also say one of four words: certified, certification, registered, or registration.
To me it is pretty obvious that the battery maker is very likely not certified and is only trying to make it look like they are and that the product is also certified.
I wish there was a convenient place for such violations to be reported when encountered outside of the scope of an audit. I see such violations often among clients suppliers (which is outside of the scope of the audit and up to the supplier's CB to enforce) or other places in commerce outside of auditing activity. Without that, there isn't any teeth in enforcement of the pretenders or the organizations that don't have diligent auditors or diligent CBs.
Similar threads
