Emanuele Riva
IAF Chair

An old professor of mine often claimed that Neanderthals froze to death in caves full of coal. With this phrase, he meant to underline how, in many occasions, we find ourselves surrounded by opportunities that we do not know how to recognize.

The Evolution of Standardization

Take, for example, the current phenomenon of the proliferation of conformity assessment schemes and programs. In the past, there was only ISO 9001. Today, however, we are faced with a proliferation of standards: ISO 14001, ISO 45001, ISO 37001, and many other specific standards for sectors such as food, automotive and aerospace. There are about 50 ISO standards on Management Systems alone!

This evolution has also led to the birth of private certification schemes, promoted by industrial sectors, stakeholders and non-governmental organizations.

The result is a wide variety of schemes, which unfortunately often overlap or compete, creating confusion, making it more complex to manage skills, surveillance (on site and witness) and collection of evidence by accreditation bodies (ABs) and conformity assessment bodies (CABs). With ISO 9001 alone, we know, everything was simpler. But how can we make the most of this situation?

Collaboration Proposals

Let’s see how we could exploit this situation to the advantage of Quality Infrastructure.

1. Collaboration between scheme owners (SOs) and ABs in the evaluation of CABs: help for ABs to understand if a CAB is at risk, and in which areas or sectors?

SOs often conduct independent audits on CABs, audits aimed at managing complaints, or to evaluate specific procedural or competence aspects. With their own rules, of course, but often with high competence, passion and attention. However, this information is almost never shared between SOs and ABs, although it could have importance, to help ABs and also SOs to focus their checks on the critical areas of the individual CABs. Obviously the roles are different, but an exchange of information could help to better define the sampling, to give a coherent response to market expectations. To the benefit of both.

2. Collaboration between ABs and scheme platform owners: could it help ABs reduce their reputational risks related to the accreditation of new schemes?

Many schemes are part of or developed by or within platforms or networks (in the voluntary sphere e.g. ISEAL Alliance, Global Food Safety Initiative [GFSI], International Electrotechnical Commission [IEC], or in the regulated sphere the European Data Protection Board [EDPB] for the data protection sector in Europe), which impose codes of conduct, levels of competence or take care to gather consensus from stakeholders on the various schemes. This work could be enhanced by ABs. The reference procedures for ABs foresee that the assessment of the scheme is limited only to confirming whether or not a scheme is suitable for accreditation. The demonstration that the scheme has been developed by sector experts, with the involvement of stakeholders, and that it adds value to the market is the responsibility of the SO. This protects the ABs, who are not so responsible for the level expected from the scheme, but at the same time it could expose the ABs to the risk of considering a scheme that is not very effective for the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Well, if the scheme was part of some network, with strong technical skills, that takes responsibility for checking the technical robustness and the involvement of the interested parties, it would be much better for the market in general. It is therefore hoped that the SOs join sector initiatives that can better ensure the robustness of the scheme in a broad sense. In these cases, ABs could, and I would say should, take this into account when evaluating the scheme, in order to reduce the potential risk associated with evaluations of “weak” schemes.

3. Collaboration between SOs: could help the competence, impartiality and independence of the SO?

Another area of opportunity is collaboration between SOs, which could also lead to the creation of scheme owner associations. Today there are CAB associations, but not really scheme owner associations. This could shed light on their needs, facilitate benchmarking activities, promote harmonization of system rules, and therefore raise the level and their preparation.

It is often up to the ABs, or CABs, to inform the SO on accreditation rules, which is sometimes not easy due to the different roles. If these growth services were offered directly by the scheme owner association I think ABs and CABs would benefit from it. Not only that, there is also a tendency, in some legislation and in certain areas, to require separation between SO and CAB (see for example the future European Green Claims Directive). The birth of these associations could perhaps help this change requested by some authorities.

Finally, let us not forget that there is always a veiled threat to impartiality.

There is little discussion today about the possible conflicts of interest of SOs. (Can SOs provide consultancy to ABs, or CABs, or companies that want to be certified? Can the stakeholders of a CAB or an AB be the same as those of the SO? Can SO staff also work for a CAB or an AB? Can an AB or a CAB be an SO?). This is still a little-discussed area, which I imagine will enter the discussion in the coming years.

Final Reflection

The current environment, characterized by a large number of schemes, presents significant challenges for ABs and CABs, such as managing reputational risks, finding new skills, and the growing workload.

However, we could exploit this complexity to:

• Optimize audits by focusing on critical areas using information provided by SOs.
• Reduce reputational risks, if the schemes belong to networks of proven expertise with strong expertise and stakeholder involvement.
• Improve the competence, impartiality and independence of SOs, through the aggregation of SOs in associations.

In conclusion, let us reflect on these opportunities.

Collaboration and information sharing can transform current challenges into opportunities for growth and innovation.

Let’s not forget the lesson that Neanderthals taught us.

“The cave you fear to enter, holds the treasure you seek.” (Joseph Campbell)