Emanuele Riva
IAF Chair

Introduction

In the world of conformity assessment, the need to interpret and adopt new concepts to meet market demands is a current priority. One of these concepts, “professional agnostic”, was born in the technological field, subsequently took root in the accounting sector and today it offers fertile ground for reflection for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) community.

The “Agnostic” Roots of the IT World

The origin of the term “agnostic” in the professional context can be traced to the information technology (IT) and digital technology sector. In IT lexicon, ” agnostic” refers to a system, solution, or infrastructure designed to be neutral, generalized, and interoperable with multiple platforms, operating systems, or contexts of use. A software “platform agnostic”, for example, works without preference for Windows, Linux or macOS; an “agnostic cloud solution” does not oblige the customer to a specific proprietary architecture, making it possible to move between different technological environments without constraints or penalties.

Unlike proprietary solutions, agnostic solutions promote freedom of choice, resilience, and adaptability. In digital contexts, agnostic means inclusiveness, interoperability, and neutrality: the best solutions are those that can communicate with every stakeholder, adapt to new conditions, and ensure consistent performance as contexts change.

From IT to Accounting: Evolution of the Concept

Over time, this philosophy has spread to the auditing and assurance fields, finding fertile ground especially in the international debate on the skills of professionals and the “inclusive” nature of independent verification. In the accounting world, for example, the ISSA 5000 standard was proposed specifically to enable both accountants and other professionals to provide assurance services, without distinction based on their discipline but solely on competence, integrity, and compliance with ethical principles.

The adjective “agnostic” has thus evolved from a technical specificity to a systemic characteristic: a standard, a procedure, a professional process become stronger and more credible if they are designed to be adopted by a plurality of qualified actors, without privileging one specific group to the detriment of others, but requiring everyone to comply with the same rigorous requirements.

Meaning and Implications in the ISO World

In the context of conformity assessment, talking about professional Agnostic means rethinking the methods, boundaries, and rules of accreditation. It means asking: can we create a space where methodological neutrality and operator inclusion coexist with the solidity of the normative foundations of ISO accreditation?

The answer, today more than ever, is yes, and doing so is necessary. The key points are:

1. Neutrality with respect to schemes and standards. Each conformity assessment body (CAB) must have the ability to choose – and obtain accreditation for – the standard or scheme most suited to the demands of its target market, provided that this standard is accredited according to the strict and universal ISO criteria (and consequently those of the IAF, the Regions, or individual accreditation bodies).
2. Inclusiveness towards all types of organizations. Accreditation must remain open to any type of organization that demonstrates fulfillment of the required requirements; the legal status, history, or original discipline of the CAB must not constitute a barrier, provided the robustness of its processes, transparency, and integrity are demonstrated.
3. Common core values: competence and ethics. Accreditation bodies, which must be open to new standards developed even outside of traditional norms, aligning themselves with the emerging needs of a global and increasingly specialized economy, must, however, behave with equal ethics and competence, even if the stakeholder focus in the various schemes is different.

Concrete Applications

In practice, professional Agnosticism in the ISO system translates into:

1. The convergence of the standards under the same framework. We were used to having ISO/IEC standards. Now we have ISO/UNDP standards, that are standards developed by ISO in partnership with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and just recently ISO and GHG Protocol announced a strategic partnership to deliver unified global standards for greenhouse gas emissions accounting.
2. The ability to accredit organizations that operate with different standards: for corporate reporting, ISO 14019 or the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)’s proprietary standards; for food safety, ISO 22000, but also standards such as BRC, IFS, FSSC 22000, or GLOBALG.A.P.; for social responsibility, PAS 24000, FSSC 24000, or SA8000.

Accreditation remains rooted in its “foundations” – the universal criteria of the reference standards – but flexibly “modifies” materials and technical solutions to meet the concrete needs of the market. These solutions increase the recognition in the market and the possible applications of the standards by different players.

Controlling Agility With Rigor

Naturally, this openness, already present in accreditation standards (and consolidated by the IAF with IAF MD 25 Criteria for Evaluation of Conformity Assessment Schemes), requires even more rigorous controls: the risk of excessive flexibility, unsupported by independence, impartiality, and stringency in verifying requirements, can jeopardize the reputation of an entire system. This is why true strength lies in balance: while standards can and must be “mobile,” the foundations of accreditation – procedural integrity, impartiality, competence, and compliance with ISO standards – remain firmly immutable and represent the insurmountable constraint on which everything rests. We are on the eve of the revision of ISO/IEC 17067, which will open the concept of “scheme” to all conformity assessment standards. The risk is certainly that of confusing the market with similar schemes, created by different entities, whose differences can be difficult to understand. The neutrality required for accreditation requires us to approach these different schemes in the same way, even if they differ from ISO standards. However, to be accredited, these schemes must be “equivalent” to ISO standards in terms of stakeholder engagement and expert participation in development.

What Could Happen?

Let’s make a hypothesis (which is not imaginary, in certain fields it is already like this), in which the certificates issued by the CABs show the mark of the standardization body (for example ISO, or the International Electrotechnical Commission [IEC], or the European Telecommunications Standards Institute [ETSI]), or the mark of a scheme owner or authority that developed a scheme. This could open up profound considerations in terms of reputation.

The IAF, or accreditation body, or Region mark may need to be used alongside a scheme mark in the future, whether it is the mark of a scheme owner, or of a standards body other than ISO.

Are we ready for this step? We are already ready for the principle of professionalism, but are we prepared to be agnostic? Or are we still missing something to be confident in placing our brands alongside those of a standard-setting body other than those indicated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement?

Conclusion

We are perhaps on the eve of a new phase in conformity assessment, with the publication of the new ISO/IEC 17067.

Evaluating these innovations while keeping in mind the criteria suggested by a professional Agnostic approach would help provide concrete answers, promoting the quality, credibility, and adaptability of the international accreditation system, while simultaneously defending our history and reputation.