Another EAGLE Offering Raises Questions About CB Conflicts of Interest

[UPDATED: EAGLE has responded with a clarification, see below.]

In years past, EAGLE Certification was considered a leader in the area of ISO 9001 certification body integrity. Of special note was its annual “Boot Camp” training of auditors, which was (reportedly) mandatory for any EAGLE auditor, even the subcontract ones. In addition, EAGLE ran one of the most aggressive customer satisfaction data-gathering activities, hiring an outside firm to do it, at significant expense.

Then they hired Ben Marchant as their new Director of Business Development. He took all of that effort and good will, shoved it in a handgun, and shot EAGLE in the foot.

His first act out of the gate was to create a deeply conflicted “Preferred Consultant” program, whereby EAGLE would award special status — and do some reciprocal marketing for — any consultant that could (wait for it….) deliver at least three certification contracts to EAGLE. Their claim was that this was to ensure the performance of the consultant, but all it really did was affirm the ability of the consultant to sell EAGLE contracts. (See update below.)

After much publicity, the program appears to be dead. Or, at least, EAGLE is running it in silence, and keeping it off the web. That they had to take such actions should act as an admission that Marchant did something wrong, but he’s apparently still working there. No surprises, this is an industry where you can try to forcibly hypnotize clients without their knowledge, and not get fired. But their recent claim that “EAGLE fosters a strong belief in transparency” begs some scrutiny as a result.

Now (or at some point, it’s not clear when) Marchant has created a deal to offer members of the Greater Brighton Area Chamber of Commerce (in Brighton OH) a whopping $1,275 “credit” towards certification services. This raises yet more off-smelling concerns: can a CB offer discounts to only members of a certain group? Do such discounts then create conflicts for the CB when conducting their allegedly objective assessments? Would the client have a right to be upset if they didn’t pass their audit, moreso than if they hadn’t been offered the credit? Does this create a rationale for EAGLE to write bogus nonconformities, with which they can later recoup their $1,275?

Now, technically this offering isn’t in violation of any ISO 17021 rules; specifically, there’s nothing explicit prohibiting it. The rules do require a CB to identify any “financial threats to impartiality” and this would clearly be one, but the ABs don’t aggressively demand that the CBs do much other than identify them.  It, like the “Preferred Consultant” program, just stinks.

This is not something you would see in any other profession dedicated to independent and objective assessment. Legal mediators, for example, don’t offer discounts, except in cases of indigent clients. Police don’t give discounts on traffic tickets. Consumer product testing labs don’t offer manufacturers discounts. This is because their roles require equal application of the rules in order to ensure trust and validity in the outcome. Those professions know that offering discounts injects doubt and confusion into that trust.

The problem appears to be that — and I’m just speculating — Marchant doesn’t really “get” the idea of CB objectivity. He doesn’t seem to know that CBs have a responsibility, above all else, to be free of conflicts of interest. This is probably due to the fact that prior to EAGLE, he worked for NCSI (later absorbed by BSI), and prior that he ran a wedding DJ business. (His LinkedIn profile calls it an “entertainment business [that] catered to a unique corporate and private function market” which makes it sound like he was running hookers, not DJs, but what do I know?)

Without user participation in the development of CASCO rules on accreditation, including ISO 17021, these kind of issues never get raised in the forums where they need to be discussed the most. There should be language in ISO 17021 on this subject, either disallowing it or limiting it, but the standard instead is silent. And given that CASCO is run by the ABs and CBs, that’s not surprising. The committee that controls the conflicts of CBs is, itself, deeply conflicted.

So, for now the deal with the Chamber remains in effect. I recommend clients who are considering EAGLE to pony up the Chamber membership fee, and then grab the EAGLE deal to save themselves a few hundred dollars. You can always quit the Chamber five minutes later and it’s not like they are going to care if you’re not actually from Ohio. Or the United States.

If someone in EAGLE right now is thinking ,”jeez, that’s a dirty scheme,” well… you really need to get your priorities straight.

————–

UPDATE 5 July 2015: Ben Marchant provided a clarification on the “referred Consultant” program:

We receive requests for consultants regularly, and we would like to steer clients in the right direction and where to look.  Feedback from yourself helped push us in the direction we are now – 3 references, as opposed to 3 leads.  A pay to play situation was never the point.  We decided that while auditor feedback from our team was important, customer feedback was sufficient.

I maintain that while that’s better, it’s still pretty terrible. CBs shouldn’t be endorsing any consultant, period. If CBs think my position is radical. that tells you how off the rails the certification scheme has become.

CORRECTION: Ben Marchant was employed by NCSI Americas, not directly by BSI. BSI later acquired NCS. The story has been corrected.