Welcome! Read this first! Then, feel free to introduce yourself here! If you need immediate, real-time support for the Oxebridge ISO 9001 or AS9100 Template Kits, click here to join our Slack chat channel.

Please consider registering
Forum Scope


Forum Options

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Japanese Earthquake Damper Manufacturer Who Falsified Product Data Held ISO 9001
sp_BlogLinkWhite Read the original blog post
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
5 May, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
30 December, 2018 - 10:30 AM
sp_Permalink sp_Print

The Japanese manufacturer who was found having falsified data related to earthquake dampers for highrise construction held ISO 9001 certification issued by Japan Quality Assurance, Oxbridge has confirmed.

The Gifu Japan plant of Kayaba System Machinery, a division of KYB, held an ISO 9001 certificate from JQA, accredited by the Japan Accreditation Board under the multilateral agreements of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). Furthermore, it appears that JQA has not withdrawn the certificate even after widespread reporting showed that the KYB company was falsifying data related to its quake “shock absorbers” since 2003.

Both Japan Quality Assurance and JAB are at the center of multiple data falsification scams in Japan, all conducted by companies holding ISO 9001 certificates issued by them. Other Japan Quality Assurance companies found to have falsified data include Kobe Steel, Hitachi Chemical, Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Toray Hybrid Cord and Asahi Kasei.

JAB has taken no action against Japan Quality Assurance despite their role in certifying companies that clearly violate ISO 9001. JAB has refused to respond to questions about this issue, nor what actions JAB is taking to ensure the validity of ISO 9001 certificates issued in Japan.

The IAF has also refused to weigh in on the controversy, ignoring multiple attempts to clarify what the IAF is doing to ensure the validity of JAB accredited certificates.

Data falsification scandals in Japan have cost the country billions of dollars in lost revenue, and have resulted in the firing of senior corporate executives and some criminal arrests.

It is unknown how many buildings are fitted with the potentially faulty dampers.

Another company, Koyo Seiki, also admitted to falsifying data in its quake dampers, affecting another unknown set of buildings. That company held ISO 9001 certification from Japan Quality Assurance, but it was withdrawn after the scandal was revealed. The company still holds ISO 14001 certification by JQA.

Forum Posts: 9
Member Since:
18 June, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2 January, 2019 - 6:49 AM
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Since ISO is nothing more than a publisher …. aka the Random House of Management Systems…… its not malice in any attempts by organizations certified by a registrar to any of its schemes…..  Further, neither is the technical committee who writes such international standards.    Knowing that INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, must meet the criteria of many different types of governance (of the People by the People, or State Controlled Systems such as Socialism, Communism, Progressivism or Dictatorships or Aristocracy)……   It becomes more understandable that the Technical Committees must consider such within the standard such variation as to provide for companies to become registered regardless of the governance system they operate under. 

Therefore ISO does not mean the same thing in a Communist country that it means in a free nation, as the government of the State of a communist country owns all corporations operating within the borders of its state.   Japan is a Parliamentary, Constitutional monarchy, modeled after Briton, which is vastly different from a constitutional republic such as America.  Therefore application of ISO requirements take on a different meaning in Japan opposed to America.  The same can be said of China which is a Communist country with total state ownership of any and all means of production.   The meaning of ISO requirements in China are quite different when compared to America.  Simply reading section 4 of ISO 9001:2015 indicates there is a very different perspective when applying that section of ISO 9001 to an organization owned by a communist state as one owned privately within a constitutional republic. 

Influence and control is held completely by the state in the first consideration and held by the Customer, the board of directors and management in the second. One therefore should never consider the twain to be equal, as they will never be, further ISO can never make them such, even though the word in the Greek means equal.  I have discussed this subject with registrars and they confess that internationally, they must walk a fine line based upon the type of government structure existing in the country in which they are auditing…..  

Japans parliamentary, constitutional monarchy, which is fashioned after the British model, is still very different, it therefore has different rules and expectations….  Where this does not excuse actions taken o falsify records, it just sheds light upon how such falsification might have found its authority, even though the organization was and remains ISO certified. A requirement of ISO is to deal with non-conformity, however the definition of non-conformity can take on quite a different meaning when viewed through the lens of various forms of governance. What might be acceptable on one society may be repugnant to another.  Slavery in some countries remains legal although repugnant to Americans. Imagine applying ISO 45001 to a country where slave labor is an accepted practice, or to a country where the workers are considered government property.  

Where it might be perfectly acceptable for an international standard to exist related a technical standard (such as thread pitch), an international standard for how an organization should manage its affairs becomes quite a different animal.  This is why my opinion on that subject remains fixed in each specific country being the master of its own form of management system.   Further that each country can as a matter of treaty agree to accept another countries management system standard.  This would make the eventual outcome more equal than the present attempts by ISO, which are currently proving not to be effective…. 

Forum Timezone: America/New_York
Most Users Ever Online: 64
Currently Online: Christopher Paris
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Mu Beta: 54
dozza: 32
royplchan: 28
annie: 23
jo9977: 23
KH: 20
wayintense: 14
jdgill1963: 13
Richard Billings: 12
lukeB312: 9
Newest Members:
Alistair MacFadyen
James van der merwe
Forum Stats:
Groups: 13
Forums: 43
Topics: 736
Posts: 1561


Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 1674
Moderators: 1
Admins: 1
Administrators: Christopher Paris
Moderators: OQRI