Accreditation & The GOB
Introduction
Many convey through articles and social media emphasis of international standards, yet country sovereignties bring and apply laws and regulations. These emphasize differences in standards matters within the diversity of supply chains. Regardless, these are to protect communities of consumers. This is through sovereign nations within their own roles and challenges to protect citizens and provide for their protection is challenging. Specially challenging with a dominance circle of standardization.
Interestingly, believes are that different standards only deliver differences in performance upon implementation. Whether a product is certified or not, whether a management scheme is certified or not, the decision-making needs to imperatively consider the various community of consumers worldwide each nation’s sovereignty. Further, within the gamut of supply chains decisions need be made by purchasers in a chain to ultimately protect consumers with reliable confidence.
Assurance through accreditation is dependent first on competence through integrity in ethics of a given body, namely for the act to assess, attest and thus to validate, inspect, certify and likewise working activities. For the effectiveness of this chain of actions needs be integral in ways that attests to assure accreditation. Further, accreditation needs to not only follow a model of competence but one of proficiency, ultimately to protect communities of consumers.
Many accredited entities-bodies exist worldwide, in all over 4,000. In this vast number of accredited bodies is worth asking whether each of these are reliable; is worth asking the protocols by which accreditation bodies demonstrate reliable integrity in ethics? If accreditation bodies can show that they are equally reliable then there is mutually inclusive process by which accreditation to third-party certification bodies is effectively achievable.
This article provides a path to understanding accreditation in ways that deliver equivalency of accreditation through proficiently attesting third-party working activities. Third-party activities that encompass validation, inspection, certification and other programs, et al favorably and protective value to most community of consumer; whether these are community of elderly, mothers, children, patients, workers, health care providers, etc.
The agile consideration of a few models to deliver equivalency in accreditation of program, while realizing that perfection is something that we all continuously strive to achieve. And that accreditation can provide the basis for operational enhancement and ongoing growth in a manner consistent with laws and regulations of sovereign nations operating within free-market economies.
A basic framework
First, some basics, it is important to discuss this matters of accredited third-party working activities through internationally recognized and generally accepted (IRGA) benchmarks. Many of these IRGA benchmarks are established worldwide or at the level of industry sectors. This brings the ISO publications to the forefront of IRGA benchmarks popularized for the workings of third-party certification bodies as an effective managerial tool. To this effect, third-party service providers such as certification bodies have available provisions to establish, implement and earn accreditation, through the ISO namely standards. For accreditation bodies, there is IRGA ISO/IEC 17011 and for third-party services there are number of IRGA benchmarks including ISO/IEC 17020, ISO/IEC 17021, ISO/IEC 17065 and effectively others.
Through these IRGA benchmarks accreditation bodies-entities establish, implement and operate in adherence to ISO/IEC 17011 can provide assessment for third-party services providers in fulfilling the likes of current revisions of ISO/IEC 17020 for inspection, ISO/IEC 17021 for management systems certification, and ISO/IEC 17065 for product certification. The exercise of due-care, whether an accreditation entity (body) or a third-party service provider is invariably of great importance to the purpose in protection of consumers. The ISO graciously provides guidance documents to help with IRGA benchmarks specifics. Authoritative validation of accreditation entities-bodies to carry their work needs to be legally binding regardless of whether groups joining together. Thereof, the basis to carry accreditation work resides in legal authority. E.g. attune to legal principles in following the money trail, the GOB authority for accreditation is tripartite. These provide the necessary for integrity in accreditation and recognition work. The legal boundaries within which the GOB operates, is through their bylaws, which provide for self-independence to assure impartiality while adhering to antifraud, anticorruption and antitrust laws. Infringing on these makes an illegality within the free-market economies. As a public trust, the GOB, enters the realm of NGO and SRO (Non-governmental Organization and Self-regulatory organization).
Reliability on the insights of operations and administration work of third-party provider needs be sufficed to assure integrity to the specified IRGA that is rendered as an instrument of attestation as the basis for accreditation and then certification. The role of any accreditation entity-body is to attest thus provide assurances that a given third-party service provider carryon operational and administratively their work in a consistent manner to ISO/IEC 17011.
The activities of accreditation and say certification apply IRGA benchmarks to assure effectiveness through the integrity of the holders within its respective supply chain (services or products). The effectiveness of the IRGA benchmark is not that of the GOB or any accreditation entity-body. To this effect exercising due-care through proficient assessment work is essential to the protection of community of consumers.
This brings us to basic IRGA benchmark model and its working application that must consider applicable laws and regulations. Outstanding challenging questions arise for the many working activities to assure that each of the frameworks applying IRGA benchmarks are effective to the fundamentals of protection of consumers. This brings the challenges of applying laws and regulations within free-market world sovereign nations, as such a degree of importance, that when nonexistent it invalidates the application use of a given IRGA benchmark whether is producer of toys, infant formulas, forestry programs, food safety, medical care, devices and so on (e.g. QMSMDD ISO 13485, namely “Medical Devices – QMS – Requirements for regulatory purpose, and similarly ISO 14001, BS OHSAS and others). The emphasis in QMSMDD is regulatory purpose (e.g. FDA 21 CFR 820). For example, if we a given organization is to assess to environmental responsibility and there are no laws and regulations or even agreement, the assessment ought not to proceed in a manner consistent demonstrating environmental responsibility. And invariably to this need be adherence to antifraud, anticorruption and antitrust laws comes into vital effect. In this way, the framework for producing light bulbs, toys, foods and other necessities is applied consistently.
Perfection is something to continuously strive
Even though acceptance of independent third-party programs for validation, inspection, certification and similar others remains an imperfect method for verifying compliance with IRGA benchmarks it remains a valuable tool to ultimately protect consumers.
Conflicting interests arise from the business exchange of monies payable for service. Other conflicts include the possibility of cutting costs to achieve rendered services, pre-arrangements, repetitious assessment work, billing, lack of exercising care (and perhaps negligence). Then enters the eternal aspect of fraud, corruption and monopolies. The activity of accreditation attempts to address these imperfections and others. The challenges that are working activities face varies (whether at accreditation or certification it varies).
In Government We Trust
Credibility for accreditation is through the authority granted by government, as it is government main responsibility the protection of its citizens, within the free-market. These are officially sanctioned position for accreditation. In some countries, it may be a government designated role, as the sole national provider of accreditation services including management systems. Typically, in the free-market carry by accreditation entities-bodies.
Accreditation bodies, in certifying the certifiers there are basically two (2) models; government and certifiers choosing the accreditation entity-body that is non-government. Whether the government provides the role of accreditation, as it may be a national legal requirement (such as for import or export) of product and services. In some countries, the government designates and controls accreditation and certification programs. Other applications are for the commerce of product with certain claims (e.g. organic, non-GMO…Rx) and it may be within the realm of the government or the public sector. Regardless, the protection of the citizens ought to be essential.
In the event of a governmental based accreditation it may free the pressures to compete, which may not be favorable to consumers, as there is no competition. Regardless, many factors including given interpretation and risks weigh-in and either way is; governmental or private sector. Governments based accreditation bodies acknowledge not to consider other accreditation entities-bodies as providing an equivalent service. Also, in some sectors, the recognition of a granted brand-logo through accreditation takes effect, such as in food sectors, where monitoring is for the self-protection of a given program, albeit it may be for good intention.
Accreditation is lesser of a degree for internal country trade. The challenge raises, for third-party provider, when a country requires validation, certification, inspection and similar other verification and attestation programs. It means that raises the bar when accreditation needs to address matters of trade among sovereign nations. Regardless, the value that accreditation can provide is that of integrity in ethics when bearing assessments for a certificate of attestation. The potential value of an IRGA benchmark if the market perceive value that satisfactorily and constantly meets expectations that may carry-on to other countries, as it has happened to the GOB. Let it be known that consideration is given to the nature of product or service in their role to a finished-product onto a given customer, as in the case of an OEM interacting with different tier levels. Such example includes, among numerous other examples, is the fabric producer for furniture, avionics interiors or automobile industry. This raises the question on how far is a given IRGA benchmark required throughout the supply chain?.
Recently, consideration could have been given to a single or regional based accreditation entity-body for a given one-world global agenda while considering its effect over sovereignty. In such case a single accreditation recognized then certification bodies would be able to operate across borders with a single accreditation. Today, third-party certification bodies a free to choose or not to choose accreditation, this conveyed through such organizations as the ISO or country based regulations as applicable. It is sought, and we do, that accredited third-party providers bear proficiency to assess, investigate, inspect and likewise activities. ISO states “Check if it is accredited. Accreditation is not compulsory, and non-accreditation does not necessarily mean it is not reputable, but it does provide independent confirmation of competence.” Beyond, through the GOB we seek proficient assessments.
Complexity and options, at times increases costs within the realm of accreditation and third-party activities providers of certification, validation, inspection and other activities at times increases costs. Fortunately, when an accreditation body is a public trust, like the GOB, the focus can turn to assure integrity in ethics of the accredited body-entity, as monies need not be sought to increase a given coffer for salaries, bonuses and likewise. Further, the bylaws and governmental determination through supervision reporting provides what we consider a better model in comparison to today’s markets. Interestingly, organizations not-for-profit operations can be confusing with legalities and its operation. These provide matters to strengthen exercising antifraud, anticorruption and antitrust laws.
International reach
The GOB international reach accreditation program extends to third-party services providers with the primary purpose, which forms integral part of the GOB’s legal Charter. The international reach program includes delegates throughout the world. These are known professional within various disciplines and fields; Western Europe, Asia Pacific, America and Euro Asia - Middle East. This program – model includes three key elements: accreditation addresses international scope, international reach; it applies to a limited range of core programs (e.g. ISMS, BCMS, QMS, EMS, OHSMS, FSMS, QMSMDD, Health Care and similar others in bearing purpose (charter); and accreditation benchmarks that are publicly available provided by a true public trust.
As a first step, the GOB accreditation is established for the ongoing evaluation and monitoring of certification activities with international reach with consistency. The purpose of the GOB precedes agreed chosen IRGA benchmarks between third-party service providers and its community of customers. The notion of one accreditation body in question is helpful for the understanding in the marketplace, which includes exercising due-care all through applicable laws and regulations.
Further, the GOB accreditation – recognition model specializes in accreditations that are valuable onto consumers (citizens) in a limited range makes it manageable and thus effective. As accreditation is not promised to be granted to everyone and everywhere. This allows accreditation bodies to establish a core expertise, institutional knowledge and specific guidance toward internationally recognized and generally accepted (IRGA) benchmarks as well as to address issues of importance to given programs and sectors. Also, the GOB programs gyrate around IRGA benchmarks for credibility fusing ethical integrity respectful of the SRO and NRO the realm we been trusted.
This paper addresses the difference of a public trust that operates as a tripartite governmental authority where the State empowers its charter, as monies flow. Further, includes resources deriving from bequests, grants, donations and other legally permitted means. Value and legitimacy; empowered, determined and monitored. Non-Profit inclusive entity. The GOB provides a contrasting model to those accreditation entities that monitor themselves through own peers focusing on proficiency and not in necessarily in billing cycles, the GOB chooses openly reporting for money trails. While both models operate in the market place effectively, the GOB have made its choice based bylaws, laws and regulations.
The GOB provides accreditation – recognition for international yet with privacy in a credible manner, the GOB is one of the numerous alternatives.
However, it should be emphasized that there is monopoly that may be construe as an impropriety or even an illegality based bylaws, laws and regulations (as this may infringe into antitrust laws). If an accreditation entity-body is inefficient may it fail third-party service providers in protecting its respective community of consumers, thus their customers. This is to say that an accreditation entity-body focus on its realm of work to ultimately benefit consumer. At the same time, as a public trust, provides for reliable work without the burden of ever increasing excessive costs while exercising due-care.
This has brought us to span worldwide in programs and sectors that seek a purpose beyond conformity. President JFK factually and rightly stated, “conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth”. In a speech that equally applies in today’s free-market economies as it did in 1961.
Conclusion
The combination of accredited work through third-party programs can help in providing a model to protect consumers through its respective communities. The set fort protocols are not “perfect” yet it brings valuable platform to protect consumers, it brings purpose through the GOB.
The operational and administrative application of IRGA benchmark current revisions ISO/IEC 17011 sets forth the fundamentals through the protection of communities of consumers within free-market economies. The working activities of recognition and accreditation require to be signatory to our primary purpose; to protect communities and consumers.
The GOB establishes a legally binding international reach accreditation and recognition platform through legally available instruments free from self-protective conflicting interest, yet following international convention (such as the International Accreditation Forum). The GOB is free of conflicting interest that programs without instruments of self-protection (such as peer review), set forth by bylaws in adherence to free-market laws. This reach has helped in providing accreditation for cities (administration, education and health), and the issuance of the first accredited certification in Iraq in year 2010 co-joining with UNIDO.