Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Informational Re-engineering of the IAF Accreditation and the Management System Certification Processes

UKAS and other valid CBs can advertise the names of the counterfeiters as being "not-accredited" which would inform the companies that were considering registering with them.
If only it were that simple. We live in a litigious society. Can you imagine if you were in business and your 'competitor' publicly states your service has no value? There is case law in the UK of an unaccredited CB winning just such a case. :nope:
Well, Paul, I would have thought that with the REGULATION (EC) No 765/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL in place, the Accreditation process would have more teeth and clean up the market from the charlatans operating, but, apparently, nobody really wants to confer "official" powers to the accreditors of CAB's. In the meantime, the market cant distinguish right from wrong and virtue-less virtual certification programs gain market share.
Here is my simple understanding of a complex situation :notme: :
  • The EU wants one AB per member state
  • Each member state has legislation in place to this effect
  • Those CBs who recognise accreditation from their recognised AB as a means Of demonstrating capability still do!
  • Unaccredited CBs who don't want to go for formal accreditation by a recognised AB are considering options including the following:
    1. Continue operating as an unaccredited CB without using an unaccredited AB
    2. Become accredited through their recognised AB
    3. Use an unaccredited AB from outside the EU
    4. Continue with an unrecognised AB from within the EU and wait for legal action (if it ever comes)
  • Until the situation becomes clearer no legal action will take place

I don't think the situation is quite as hopeless as sometimes we fear. As quality professionals (and the same applies for EMS, OHSMS, BCMS, ISMS, ...) we need to educate our organisations, customers and suppliers about the value of accredited certification and the risks of non-acceptance of unaccredited certification. Sharing some case history here will help. I'll post a link to some UK case law that may be useful.

The other side of this argument is for the ABs and CBs to up their game and make some clear distinction between their services and those of the unrecognised ABs and unaccredited CBs.
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
Here is my simple understanding of a complex situation :notme: :
  • The EU wants one AB per member state
  • Each member state has legislation in place to this effect
  • Those CBs who recognise accreditation from their recognised AB as a means Of demonstrating capability still do!
  • Unaccredited CBs who don't want to go for formal accreditation by a recognised AB are considering options including the following:
    1. Continue operating as an unaccredited CB without using an unaccredited AB
    2. Become accredited through their recognised AB
    3. Use an unaccredited AB from outside the EU
    4. Continue with an unrecognised AB from within the EU and wait for legal action (if it ever comes)
  • Until the situation becomes clearer no legal action will take place
Paul,

May I respectfully offer some difference in terminology, based on part of your response.

The option many labs also pursue is to use an ILAC Signatory (not as sure about IAF) that is outside EU. If I understand your use of recognized, then those ABs are in fact recognized.

EA, the Regional Cooperation - like it or not - is obligated to accept the accreditation and go to bat with regulators over it, or risk complaint leading to investigation and even re-evaluation by ILAC. Generally, those labs also use the National body for commerce within their country.

I do not disagree, just trying to clarify.

With respect to efforts that can be drawn by Signatory ABs compared to non-Signatory, I understand and generally agree. However, the ones that are trying to do it right and just not yet able to become Signatory should not be discriminated against, in terms of having the chance to become Signatory. That means they need a few accreditations, generally in areas where accreditation is not a requirement, in order to have the track record necessary to apply to ILAC or a Region.

Just my thoughts.
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

UKAS and other valid CBs can advertise the names of the counterfeiters as being "not-accredited" which would inform the companies that were considering registering with them.
Helmut, who says their work is counterfeit? I am all in favour of regulation but we don't know that the audits done by all of the non-UKAS (for example) CB's out there are poorly conducted do we?
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
Well, it looks like the EA is driving a change in the IAF (the coalition of the willing) peer review process and some information can be perused @ A few keys to understand the re-engineering of the peer evaluation process - European Accreditation Apparently, there is still lack of awareness by AB's on the need to engage with the USERS OF CERTIFICATES. A totally inward delving process.

As I said, earlier in this old thread, my impression is that the people who created and continually tweak the management system accreditation bureaucracy can not think out of the box they've created.

Without naming names, but what conclusion should one reach when a major AB is audited by an Industry Group stakeholder and the audit result is 8 MAJOR NC's and the previous peer review audit results of that same AB showed zero findings of noncompliance?
 
Top Bottom