Ignorance is Bliss: ISO Certification Overseers Show Pattern of Ignoring Official Complaints

The chart below shows a sampling of complaints filed by Oxebridge on behalf of whistleblowers and stakeholders, and the status of each as of May 2024. The data goes back to 2019. As you can see, the typical response is for oversight bodies to “ignore” the matter outright, in violation of a host of allegedly mandatory accreditation rules, like ISO 17021-1, ISO 17011, and others.

A quick explanation of the hierarchy here:

CB – Certification Body – issue certificates such as ISO 9001, AS9100, etc., to their client companies. They must conform to ISO 17021, ISO 17025 or a handful of other such standards.

AB – Accreditation Body – accredit (authorize) the CBs to operate, and are supposed to oversee them. They conform to ISO 17011.

IAF – International Accreditation Forum – this organization is supposed to oversee the ABs’ conformity to ISO 17011, through peer evaluations performed either directly by itself, or by official IAF regional bodies. Where you see “IAF/XXX” the latter initials represent the IAF regional body responsible for that particular AB.

The hierarchy of any complaint is to file the matter with the CB first, and then escalate if the response is poor. The escalation must be sent to the AB, then the IAF or its regional body. There is no requirement that prohibits an AB or IAF from taking action on any manner prior to escalation, however. Historically, the ABs and IAF simply ignore the matter until formally notified of escalation, then typically will acknowledge the escalation, and drop the matter (without notice) afterward. When the IAF is notified, is simply never replies at all, and the issue is effectively buried.

Mind you, this contradicts the IAF’s official Bylaws—made legally binding under its US 501(c)(3) status—and thus any violations of these rules could be seen as business-to-business fraud. The IAF has convinced key governments around the world that its scheme works because it follows these rules, but in reality, it does not. In short, the IAF lies to world governments (including the US) by claiming to perform oversight when, as the data shows, it does not.

Telling government officials you do one thing so you can get money, and then doing something else? Sounds like fraud to me.

Meanwhile, defective products are released to the world’s markets, and people are injured and killed by companies holding ISO certificates that are granted without any effective oversight. The CBs, ABs, and IAF bodies all earn money per certificate, so effectively are paid to look the other way.

Note: some of the years are not fully accurate since a given issue might span a decade before it gets processed. I just included them here for rough reference.

When it says something was “ignored,” this means it was submitted by Oxebridge to the party, who then either never replied or simply acknowledged receipt of the issue but then dropped it without any notice. Thus, these are still very much open issues, despite having been buried by the parties.

Where it says “Issue Closed (OK)“, this means the matter was properly resolved the parties, and Oxebridge accepted the response.

Christopher Paris

Christopher Paris is the founder and VP Operations of Oxebridge. He has over 30 years’ experience implementing ISO 9001 and AS9100 systems, and helps establish certification and accreditation bodies with the ISO 17000 series. He is a vocal advocate for the development and use of standards from the point of view of actual users. He is the writer and artist of THE AUDITOR comic strip, and is currently writing the DR. CUBA pulp novel series.  Visit www.drcuba.world 

Advertisements

---

---