B
Boingo-boingo
If you are referring to the ISO pamphlet on how to publicize the certification, I would not recognize that as a valid source for requirements. Since nonconformities can only be written against valid requirements, what ISO suggests, recommends, advises, etc... does not come into play. As I said before, there are requirements for the usage of certification marks, which, as already mentioned is covered in ISO 17021 and in the contractual arrangements between registrants and registrars. Outside that, auditors likes and dislikes are only that.
It is not the auditor's likes and dislikes. It is what is flowed down to them by the CB and in turn what is flowed down to the CB from the AB.
I'm under orders from my CB to enforce the document they provide to their clients. I'm not sure, but I believe that the client is bound by contract to adhere. I have not asked specifically where that authority comes from.
Further, it is my understanding that ALL CBs are bound to do the same, as everyone I have had a need to push a consulting client to learn about has discovered that their CB has an equilivant document that should have been enforced.
In reality, it only makes sense that the seals and the ISO termonology be used in a non-deceitful manner.
If the auditors are not to enforce it, who should?
I'm not clear on what you're saying has been flowed down. Can you be more specific? "Deceitful" connotes deliberate subterfuge, not a mistake born of ignorance.
Also, one of the "guidelines" in that ISO pamphlet is misguided, imo. I'm referring to the one that says a company shouldn't refer to being "ISO 9001 certified," but to use "ISO 9001:2008 certified." I'm pretty sure that if I rightly claim that my company is ISO 9001 certified, the assumption is going to be that it's certified to the current edition of the standard. Adding the date causes a lot of trouble when revisions to the standard happen and excluding it is harmless.
Also, one of the "guidelines" in that ISO pamphlet is misguided, imo. I'm referring to the one that says a company shouldn't refer to being "ISO 9001 certified," but to use "ISO 9001:2008 certified." I'm pretty sure that if I rightly claim that my company is ISO 9001 certified, the assumption is going to be that it's certified to the current edition of the standard. Adding the date causes a lot of trouble when revisions to the standard happen and excluding it is harmless.
I cannot be much more specific other than to say it is a topic in the audit workbook for some certification bodies that auditors are required to use.
Some of the misuse certainly is deceitful. Some companies that I have caught misusing the certification marks had "ISO 9001:2008 Certified" boldly stamped in very large print on every product box with their stated intent to show that their product was somehow superior. Some have intentionally made it look like certain of their locations were under the umbrella when only a few locations were. As to if the deceit was intentional or not, it has the same effect in that incorrect impressions are left with the public.
I would tend to agree on the "ISO 9001 Certified" being appropriate and I understand that it is being reconsidered as I mentioned on my original post.
Similar threads
