Certification: where is it
headed?
What does the future hold for accredited certification? reviews recent government actions around the world and what they reveal about the industry
The Queen of England, talking about the ‘credit crunch’ recently, asked why nobody noticed it coming. It is a rather good question but one that is being drowned out as we all panic and governments intervene to save both national and global economies. In fact, 2009 looks to be the year of government intervention. This intervention will not be restricted to bailing out banks and car manufacturers, or implementing tough new controls on the financial sector. It will include our own industry of accredited certification.
For a number of years those involved in accredited certification have been aware that a ‘confidence crunch’ was on its way. For confirmation of this you only have to review the debate in this e-zine, as well as at industry forums, the International Accrediation Forum and International Organization for Standization. And while we have debated, governments around the world have been busy putting into place regulations that will have a considerable impact upon certification. Here’s a flavour of what we have seen so far…
EU: regulation for accreditation bodies
A regulation passed by the Council of the European Union, and formally adopted on 9 July 2008, will allow each European country only a single national accreditation body as of January 2010. This will cover the operation of accreditation in support of voluntary conformity assessment as well as conformity assessment required by legislation. The aim of the regulation, according to the EU, is to improve the consistency of accreditation services across Europe and to reinforce the status of accreditation in growing recognition of the importance of accreditation to the EU’s economic structure. It also sets common requirements for national accreditation bodies that will then be monitored by EU member state governments.
Japan: guidelines for reliable system
The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry passed guidelines in 2008 for the accredited certification industry. These outlined its concerns about the industry, including the fact that numerous scandals involving certification have occurred at companies that have acquired management certifications. The Japanese government sees the system as not able to prevent such scandals from occurring and considers society’s trust in the system is decreasing. At this stage the Japanese have issued guidelines, not legislation, and a strong message for the industry to heal itself and, in contrast perhaps to the EU, to do that in conjunction with the rest of the world.
China: rules for accredited certification
The Chinese government’s 2003 rules for how accredited certification operates in the People’s Republic are particularly complex and there is not room to explain them fully here. However, although some say these rules serve to protect domestic certification bodies, no doubt the Chinese government sees a risk in the system not delivering certificates that the global economy can trust.
What next?
Driven by a lack of confidence in what the global certification system delivers locally and a genuine desire to fix it, it seems inevitable that governments are going to step in more frequently where self-regulation has failed. But will government intervention succeed where the IAF has not? It seems unlikely, at least not unilaterally, because the problem, like the economy it is meant to serve, is global. Sorting out certification in one country is not going to resolve the problem of goods and services sourced from countries where problems still exist.
Just speak to the large retailers and manufacturers who source globally. They need a coherent system that delivers confidence worldwide and this is why the automotive industry and the food industry have bypassed the IAF system.
Let’s not forget that an effective global certification system offers a mechanism that makes trade cheaper and easier by reducing technical trade barriers, providing common standards, reducing the need for a second party audit and providing confidence in overseas supply chains. But for this global system to work, we need a global approach to dealing with the end user and government concerns. That solution remains the IAF, not individual governments. Perhaps the IAF is where governments should be putting their resources?
About the author
Vincent Desmond has worked in the accredited certification industry for over eight years, running IRCA auditor certification and developing new management systems auditor certification products and services.
 |
 Have an issue to raise? A question to ask? Give us your opinions now in the Online Forums. |
