Three priorities: objective accountability, adopting a unified code of ethics, and implementing the role of the accountable manager

Emanuele Riva
IAF Chair

As Chair of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), I wish to address a crucial issue for the future of our profession: the need to establish objective accountability for accredited organizations in cases of ethical violations by their people who participate in the conformity assessment process.

This article outlines arguments and proposals to enhance ethical governance within our sector.

This new direction is also important considering the fact that conformity assessments are increasingly used in public or regulated areas. The level of usage has increased. The guarantee of the service we offer must also increase.

The Need for Objective Accountability

Objective accountability is a fundamental principle in ensuring that accredited organizations are held responsible for the actions of their inspectors. Ethical violations are not merely individual problems; they undermine the integrity of the entire accreditation system. Implementing direct sanctions against accredited organizations in cases of misconduct by their auditors or other people involved in the conformity assessment process is essential to preserving public trust and stakeholder confidence.

This accountability would enable accreditation bodies to act with greater firmness and consistency, adopting measures that could include minor sanctions or revocation of accreditation. Such an approach would not only deter unethical behavior but also promote a culture of responsibility and increased transparency within accredited organizations.

It is not acceptable for an accredited organization to distinguish its responsibility from the behavior of its collaborators. The responsibility of the legal entity must coincide with the responsibility of the people working in that legal entity.

A Unified Code of Ethics for All the People Who Participate in the Conformity Assessment Process

Another key proposal is the adoption of a unified code of ethics, similar for example to that adopted by accounting firms through the IESBA code, or the WADA Code of Ethics. This code should apply to all the people involved in accreditation and conformity assessment processes, including those from the IAF, regional bodies, and accreditation entities. I am referring not only to the evaluators, but to all the people who collaborate on the outcome of an evaluation, from the commercial phase to the decisions or the publication of the certificates.

A common ethical code would not only ensure uniform standards of conduct but also facilitate peer assessment among accreditation bodies. Creating a common language and shared expectations would help improve the consistency and reliability of evaluations, further strengthening the credibility of our system.

The ideal would be to have this code referred to in the accreditation standards themselves, and in ISO/IEC 17011. In these months the revisions of ISO/IEC 17024 and ISO/IEC 17020 are underway. We could start with these standards.

The Importance of an Accountable Manager

Incorporating the role of an “accountable manager” in every accredited organization could revolutionize how we manage audits and competencies. As already practiced in auditing firms (I am referring in particular to the figure of the Partner, who acts as a link between the responsibility of the individual auditors and the auditing firms) and aerospace schemes, an accountable manager would be responsible for decisions regarding the duration and nature of audits.

This key figure, identified for each certification practice, would allow for greater flexibility and adaptability in audit planning. Instead of relying on rigid tables, such as those in IAF MD 5 Determination of Audit Time of Quality, Environmental, and Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems, it could be established that the duration of an audit must be sufficient to ensure adequate verification of the organization’s compliance with applicable standards. This approach would not only streamline the process but also enhance the effectiveness of the audits.

However, this shift would only be possible by clearly identifying who the “accountable manager” is for each certification practice—someone who assumes full responsibility, including legal and sanction-related accountability, not just accreditation matters. Currently, our system has become convoluted, diluting responsibilities. In cases of errors, who is accountable? The verification team (the team leader, auditor, or expert?), the decision-maker, top management, the review committee, or the impartiality safeguards committee? As it stands, we have created a series of boxes that obscure accountability. If we want to make a significant change in our sector, we must have the courage to define who this “accountable manager” is, ensuring they are the ultimate guarantor of the entire process.

Conclusions

I believe that introducing objective accountability for accredited organizations, adopting a unified code of ethics, and implementing the role of the accountable manager are essential steps to elevate ethical and professional standards in our sector. Each of these elements contributes to building a more robust, credible, and responsible accreditation system, capable of facing future challenges with integrity and transparency.

I invite all stakeholders in our ecosystem to reflect on these proposals and work together towards an accreditation process that not only meets regulatory requirements but also serves as a model of ethical and professional excellence.

In 2016, efforts were made with ISO to draft an ethical code (by the ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group[1]). We have a starting point from which to build.

[1] https://committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/tc176/files/documents/ISO%209001%20Auditing%20Practices%20Group%20docs/General/APG-Code-of-Conduct-%26-Ethics2015.pdf