SBS - The best value in QMS software

Registrar Accreditation Bodies - Unaccredited Accreditation


M Greenaway

Just saw this logo on a UK website.

Never heard of them, anyone else - also didnt know there was an outfit out there offering accreditation other than UKAS ?


Elsmar Forum Sponsor



That is a great article! He has articulated what I have thought all along. In the thread where we talk about Dr. Eicher's comments it was mentioned that there was no objective evidence provided. Just whispers and innuendo from the Quality Geeks with a vested interest to keep the deck stacked. I like this statement:

"I believe that maintenance of standards is not the real subject here. Money is behind this issue and the protection of the market that the established certification profession is trying to cling onto."

There are many more and I recommend that anyone who doesn't swallow the ISO ideology hook, line and sinker, please read it. Sure it's just another opinion but it's refreshing to see someone take on the "establishment" of fuddy duddies! :vfunny:
:ko: :smokin:

Aaron Lupo

Re: Anyone heard of these ?

M Greenaway said:

Just saw this logo on a UK website.

Never heard of them, anyone else - also didnt know there was an outfit out there offering accreditation other than UKAS ?
MGreen, believe it or not UKAS is not the only out there you have UKAS, RAB, DAR, ZLG, JAB, there is a bunch of Accreditation bodies.

M Greenaway

Yes that was a very interesting article Jim.

ISOGUY - yes I am well aware of that fact, but in the UK I thought only UKAS existed - we all live and learn, even me, and maybe Jim.

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Jim Wade said:

The 'official' UK channels are very sniffy about the existence of the ACCREDITATION SERVICE FOR CERTIFYING BODIES (EUROPE) LIMITED.

You can read some opinions from the man who runs the body at


Wow! This is worth a read by everyone. It is not too long, but it says a great deal.


Re: Re: Excellent

Jim Wade said:

But I don't understand why you feel that ISO would have a vested interest in dämning the certification/accreditation process?

Surely one would expect them to take the opposite view and to close ranks with the rest of the Quality Geeks?


rgds Jim

Here is where I'm coming from on this. This was an earlier post in response to reading all the responses in your article on your website. Sorry for repeating it.

Energy said:

Jim, (partial quote)

I signed up at your site and downloaded Seddon's six pages. I also passed them on to our Senior Managers. By Monday AM, they will have been filed into their circular file, for sure.

Any way, I did like this because I wanted to see the proof of such strong statements. The 'truth" as you call it. I copied sections from the article on your home page,

"UKAS is aware that there is international concern about malpractice in the ISO 9000 certification field. We have participated in talks in ISO that led to the message given out by the Secretary General. We take very seriously allegations that there is malpractice, and we invite anyone with specific information relating to a UKAS accredited certification bodies to provide it to us for our action.

"It would appear, however, that there is cause for concern. There is enough smoke to suggest fire. In particular we hear of allegations that certification bodies mix certification with the provision of consultancy in such a way as to undermine the independence of the certification process. Accreditation bodies can only act against this on the basis of evidence, and this is most likely to arise from complaints. The audit process alone is unlikely to reveal evidence about deliberate malpractice. So we appeal to anyone with information that might substantiate these allegations to complain, with the evidence, to the body that accredits the certification body in question, whether this be UKAS or one of our sister organisations in other countries. The activities of unaccredited certification bodies are of course more difficult to control."

Finally, this: "It would be a tragedy if the valuable technical work being undertaken were to be undermined by innuendo . On the other hand, were there to be substance behind such innuendo , the certification industry would need to put its house in order speedily. UKAS would use all its available powers to bring this about. So, if you have evidence of malpractice, let us know so we an act".

Where do these allegations come from? Disgruntled employees? Frustrated Auditors? Word of mouth or see it posted somewhere? Makes for good copy. This organization above pleads three times for evidence. Can some of the complaints come from Companies that are certified and just don't believe that their competitor(s) can be registered above board? Before I join a bandwagon, I'm always skeptical of unsubstantiated charges no matter who makes them, I would like to see the evidence to warrant words from the mourned late Dr. Eicher like "malpractice", "dishonesty", "charlatans" and "lack of integrity" before I climb on board or even pass it along. I suspect that it isn't there, so they take "let's caution the Registrars" approach. Innuendos can be made fact if they are told often enough. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Some of us need more than others. I just haven't figured out what the gain is to repeat unsubstantiated allegations and attempt to discredit, with a very broad brush stroke, companies and registrars who may very well be able to contradict those immortal words as not applying to them.
So, I don't really blame ISO. I blame those arrogant Quality geeks that engage in whispers and innuendos to condemn others without any proof. Kind of like the Grand Inquisition where the crusty old devils surrounded the leader and whispered into his ear, "Off with his head" for whatever reason. The leader didn't know. And neither does ISO. The vested interest, IMHO, are the accusing, malicious, greedy Quality Professionals who stand to make a buck cleaning up the mess they started in the first place. No, I wouldn't close ranks with these "Charlatans". I would distance myself from those "dishonest" calculating types.

Ah, the Search fuction in the Cove is a wonderful thing. I knew I had addressed my emotions on this before and just could not locate it. So I typed in, guess what? INNUENDOS :vfunny: :ko: :smokin
Last edited by a moderator:


Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent

Jim Wade said:

In your opinion, I think, all this comes from falsehoods and innuendo spread by "geeks". But isn't it just possible that ISO executives might be less stupid than you seem to think? Isn't it possible that, rather than recycling "geek" stories, they are in a position to know the facts rather better than you or I?

Aren't you even just a little bit intrigued by the question "why would ISO take this stand if it didn't think something was badly wrong?"

I challenge you to answer that question - or is it just easier and more fun to blame it all on "geeks"?

rgds Jim

You still don't hear me.:bonk: Have the geeks produced evidence? What's so hard about that? Who knows why ISO has taken the stand that they have? No evidence they are willing to share, even though they have been asked to produce it? Is this like a Grand Jury? I don't know, do you? Are you just willing to follow the drum beat without a shred of evidence. Do you mouth their opinions to impress others? You aren't one of their advisers, are you? Remember the Pied Piper thread? Too many deals go on in dark, smoke filled rooms by connivers and manipulators in key positions for me to accept statements that are just thrown out there without attempting to justify them. "Hey, I said it so it's true. Don't believe me? Look at my credentials." Bullcocky. Show me. Here's your challenge. Give us some bolster the ISO argument. Challenge this! :biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:
Last edited by a moderator:

M Greenaway


How will this realiance on third party certification ever be shifted ?

Personally I think the stance of the bodies you mention in criticising ISO9001 certification mal-practice is in a hope to distance themselves from it, and be seen as the bastions of good practice - for marketing advantage. That is what I believe they hope to gain.

Clearly there is a lot of opinion on the merits or otherwise of certification, which undoubtedly falls on the ears of these guys. They either ignore it, or stand up and declare 'hey its nothing to do with us, but we know it goes on, so come to us for our more honourable service/stadard/model/ethos/whatever'.

If there is corruption or collusion, and people are effectively buying their certification without implementing a QMS then who cares - they are only fooling themselves. Clearly if their customers choose to buy from them, based on dodgy certification alone, then they deserve what they get, and if they are happy with what they get then one might argue the company has an effective QMS !

Chill Jim.:thedeal:


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent

Jim Wade said:

Me, I believe them. Why? For three reasons ..

1 I see them as decent professionals exposing a corrupt system, not as geeks.

2 I can't for the life of me see why they would lie about this. Can you?

3 What they say accords with what I have observed personally in many cases.

rgds Jim
1. Geeks is a term of endearment I use for bubbleheaded professionals with their heads in the clouds and out of touch with reality. Don't take it personally. A corrupt system? Nice weather we're having.

2. Sure. People lie to make money. All they need is a few gullible parrots to spread the word and "presto" we have a scandal.

3. Oh really? What, they didn't measure up to your sterling interpretation of the standard? I don't buy it.

One of the things I've been thinking about is why there is a lack of evidence willing to be shared with the poor slobs making a living at this corrupt system. Imagine the litigation resulting from accusations, from the almighty, of collusion between Registrars and Clients. Imagine the court room sharks trying to interpret the standard and apply it to the accused as proof of wrong doing and the defense applying the standard as proof of innocence? We can't agree here, with hundreds of members. A jury, forget it.

Nah, it's easier to sling accusations and have them mouthed by those who have the most to gain by fostering the view that there are many undeserving companies out there who obtained their certification through less than honest dealings with registrars. Makes them feel superior. You know, above the fray? Kind of like, you know, lofty?
I promise to refrain from using the word Geek, as it seems to struck a nerve. I'll stay with Bubblehead. :rolleyes: :smokin:
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Which is the "Best" Registrar Accreditation Body? Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
K AS9100 Registrar Accreditation has been withdrawn by IAQG Registrars and Notified Bodies 22
P AS9100 Registrar Accreditation Audit Tips - Accreditation audit witnessed by ANAB AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 13
SteelMaiden Is there a List of RAB (Registrar Accreditation Board) Auditors? ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 45
T How much does an accreditation body charge a registrar for auditing? Registrars and Notified Bodies 5
Randy Discussion: The RAB (Registrar Accreditation Board) ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 34
Sidney Vianna ANSI-RAB NAP (Registrar Accreditation Board) Registrar Suspensions ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 117
G 0 non conformities in registrar audits over 4 years Management Review Meetings and related Processes 12
M Do AS9100 Registrar Auditors have nonconformity quotas? General Auditing Discussions 18
J Conflict of Interest Registrar/Notified Body/Testing House Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 4
R Change Notification - Registrar vs Notified body ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
Robert Stanley Which Registrar Should I Choose for ISO 9001:2015 registration? Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
E Choosing an ISO 9001 registrar with auditors familiar with our industry Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
L Audit boundaries - Is a Registrar permitted to audit a company's QMS by visiting their suppliers? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 26
Jen Kirley Is your registrar (CB) accredited? ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 9
K Seeking ISO 13485 Registrar Recommendations Registrars and Notified Bodies 15
P Notify Registrar of Escalation letter IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
M New AS9100 Registrar - Recommendations for Transfer Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
M Notifying Registrar of Significant QMS changes ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
A ISO 9001:2015 registrar Auditor requesting copies of procedure prior to audit ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24
N Does anyone know a registrar that offers both ISO 9001 and ISO 17020? Registrars and Notified Bodies 6
S Certification Body, Registrar, Notified Body - What is the difference? Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
1 ISO Registrar with waste water treatment experience Registrars and Notified Bodies 1
D How can a company transfer their AS certificate from a suspended AS91XX registrar? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
P Delay in IATF 16949 Certification from Registrar Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
M Should Potential Customer Complaint Outcome Define Registrar NC Rating? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Q Is a Domain Registrar a Critical Supplier? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
F Which Medical Device Standard Registrar would you recommend? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
WCHorn Transfering certificate from Registrar "A" to Registrar "B" ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
W Registrar Practices - Audit Plan with Scope, Dates/Times, etc. ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
D Breach of Contract from Registrar (Auditor Payment Issue) Registrars and Notified Bodies 18
V Under what circumstances will a Registrar Audit a Company? (ISO 13485 - Canada) Canada Medical Device Regulations 5
M Contacting a "Must Use" (aka Sole Source) Supplier's Registrar Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 6
C Registrar Charges Per CAR Written Registrars and Notified Bodies 18
Q Supplier evaluation for registrar? Registrars and Notified Bodies 2
A AS9100 Registrar Expense Report Practices Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
M Answered; Registrar Dropped ISO 14971 Certification Program; What Now? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
R Registrar Annual Management Fee Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
L Registrar Audit Report Length General Auditing Discussions 6
A AATT Aerospace Auditor Requirements for an AS9100 Registrar AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
E Consultant Person who implemented ALSO the Registrar Auditor? Consultants and Consulting 17
L Registrar Audit Scope and Limits ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
B TS 16949 Auditor Availability and Registrar Scheduling Delays Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
S QSB+ revoked - Notify registrar, what's next? Customer and Company Specific Requirements 3
P Which TS 16949 registrar do you use? Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
V Our Registrar has been Suspended AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
A Looking for an ISO 9001 Registrar in Bucks County, PA, USA Registrars and Notified Bodies 2
N Second Registrar Visit to Confirm Major Nonconformances Fixed ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
T Registrar Gap Assessments AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
M How to find a Good Registrar (Certification Body) for ISO TS 16949 certification Registrars and Notified Bodies 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom