Should products carry the certification marks?

[Sidney Vianna]

As many of you know, Registrars are required to verify that certified organizations are not misusing the certification marks (the logos which normally carry both the registrar and the accreditation body logos, to designate that the management system is certified).

The concern is that people could mistakenly assume that the PRODUCT is certified, instead of realizing that the SYSTEM is certified.

We all know that a certified management system can still generate poor performing products.
Roger Frost, Editor of ISO Management Systems Magazine, had an interesting article last year, concerning this very subject. The article is available at
(broken link removed).
He questions if it would not make more sense to do exactly the opposite, ie, mandate that the products originating from certified management systems should be marked with the certification marks. The rationale is explained in the article.

I am interested to know if you think, AFTER READING the article, if products should be required to be marked, or should we keep the present practice which prohibits the organizations from doing so.

 

[WALLACE]

Sidney,
The article was interesting.
I am however interested and, very cautious regarding the authors potential and actual connections to certification bodies and registrars.
The article gives valid points relating to angles of approach to the interpretations of International business standards, namely ISO. The article is a good read and gives the proverbial both sides of the coin view.
I'm sure the ISO 9001/ 14001 certification bodies and registrars just love this article.
There are of course legal issues to be interpreted regarding, a potential legislated requirement of registered organizations to apply their mark to their particular products.
I voted No to a requirement of a mark.
Wallace.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I also voted "no"
I am not persuaded by the author's logic.
If I had my way, the ISO logo (definitely NOT the registrar's or certifying body's logos) would be treated the same way (same size type, ink color, placement and frequency) as the notice of the state or country of incorporation - which is to say, rarely, if at all, and hardly ever trumpeted in a big banner hanging over the entrance. If the company doesn't post its certificate of incorporation in the lobby, it should be prohibited from posting notice of its registration status with ISO. Both should be in a similar size frame.

Customers ask frequently for confirmation of an organization's legal status (incorporation papers) and thus are entitled to inquire about ISO registration.

Just as the fact an organization is incorporated does not confer any special "aura" - neither should registration to ISO.

I am impressed that the author made a distinction between a PRODUCT Standard and a management system Standard. I only wish everyone was aware of the distinction.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I voted No to a requirement of a mark.

I also voted "no".

As did I...

The product carries our logo, for the simple reason that we made it, not our registrar. There is also another very very practical reason: What happens if we decide to change registrars? Imagine the cost involved. :mg: That should qualify as muda, I think?

/Claes

 

[Wes Bucey]

As did I...

The product carries our logo, for the simple reason that we made it, not our registrar. There is also another very very practical reason: What happens if we decide to change registrars? Imagine the cost involved. :mg: That should qualify as muda, I think?

/Claes

Somehow the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I see food products with the testimonials printed in bigger type than the list of ingredients. Similarly, I would feel uneasy with large testimonials on my packages of fasteners instead of material certifications. After all, what is the registrar's certificate of registration but another "paid testimonial?"

I do make an exception for a seal from Underwriter's Laboratories because they actually DO test the product, even though they get paid by the manufacturer. Registrar's certificate of registration has ZERO impact on the value, worth, or effectiveness of a product.

 

[Joe Cruse]

When our plant first registered to the '94 standard, I heard that they DID put the ISO AND registrar's logo on all our stuff. That got nixed pretty quick.

What we do now is put a small note on our certificates of analysis and product labels that states

"An ISO 9001:2000 registered company".

It's a small line at the bottom of both documents, intended as a note that the company that produced the product has been registered to a known business standard.

I agree with the rest of you, in that ISO/QS/TS did not make the product, nor did the registrar, so it seems pointless to trumpet that over your own company's logos. I don't see a problem with a short note on business registration, but it should most certainly NOT be a requirement to label the product with this information.

 

[Hershal]

Sidney,

I disagree with the article for several reasons.

Let's begin with the QMS before moving to the product.

Typically, the laboratories and product certifiers in the U.S. and Canada are accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 and/or ISO Guide 65. The current interpretation of Guide 65 requires that accreditation under 17025 is a part of the Guide 65 accreditation. Guide 65 is also interpreted to include accreditation under ISO/IEC 17020 and then fill in the remaining bits from 9K.

Also, although the author of the article did not reference it, ISO 17011 should be on the street before long. It replaces both ISO Guide 58 and ISO Guide 62. 17011 specifically prohibits such a potential for misunderstanding and conflict of interest. Under 17011, all accrediting bodies that accredit laboratories (e.g. IAS, A2LA, NVLAP, SCC/CLAS, EMA) and all accrediting bodies that accredit ISO 9K registrars (e.g. RAB, UKAS, RvA) will have much more direct and specific language regarding those issues. Under 17011, the labs and registrars collectively are known as conformity assessment bodies.

Now for the products.

The requirements of 17025 are much more intense than they are in 9K and an accreditation assessment has stricter requirements than does a 9K audit. Putting a 9K registrar logo will not provide any indication of the quality of any product. A product certifier mark (e.g. UL, FM, CSA, ARL) means that the product has been tested and meets varisous requirements. The requirements almost always include safety requirements and destructive testing. Most certifier organizations have a periodic retest requirement, and many have further requirements for UNANNOUNCED inspections by the certifier of the manufacturing plant(s). These two components are critical to the continued confidence in a certified product.

Further, the assessments conducted by the accreditng body under either 17025 or 17020 must be performed by someone who is "competent", that is, trained/experienced in what they are assessing. For example, a chemical engineer can't audit use of nuclear density gages without specific training and mentored experience. Audit of your calibration lab must be performed by a Metrology professional, trained/experienced in the discipline being assessed.

This carries over to the field inspectors for the inspection bodies, that is the organizations accredited under 17020. Their inspectors must have specific training and/or experience to perform the assigned inspection of a manufacturing plant. In North America (NAFTA zone), there are three accrediting bodies (currently) that accredit organizations under ISO/IEC 17020 and all have the same same interpretation.

I realize this is a long explanation, but I hope to point out that putting a registration label on some product will not add value, and provide some explanation as to why.

Hershal

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

I too am a "NO".

I agree with all the above and adding a different perspective:

If it were to become a requirement, each customer drawing (or model) would have specifications on location, size, height/depth, etc. It would add absolutely no value to the product but becomes another "opportunity to fail" with customers (which no one needs any more of ).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The original link went dead. The current link is (broken link removed)