Sunday, 29 December 2013

ISO and developing countries

ISO and developing countries

International Standards bring technological, economic and societal benefits. They help to harmonize technical specifications of products and services making industry more efficient and breaking down barriers to international trade.
For developing countries, International Standards are an important source of technological know-how. Developing countries can use International Standards to access knowledge in areas where they may lack expertise and/or resources.
In addition, International Standards can improve access to global markets. As they define the characteristics that products and services have to meet on export markets, International Standards help developing countries take part fairly in international trade.

Getting involved in standard development

Developing countries can also benefit from actively taking part in the development of International Standards. Standards are developed in an open process and reflect the views of many stakeholders including technical experts, government representatives, academics and consumers. Being actively involved in this process brings widespread benefits, including:
  • influencing the technical content of standards to make sure they reflect specific needs
  • gaining hands on experience in standardization work that can help build up national infrastructures, and
  • giving early access to information and technological knowledge
Playing an active role in the ISO community, promoting the national use of International Standards and taking part in their development, helps developing countries realise their full potential.

ISO SURVEY RESULTS




http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm?certificate=ISO%209001&countrycode=AF

Your boss says this year you need ISO certification


Your boss says this year you need ISO certification – is it a business necessity or time wasting paper chase?

ISO certification is accepted as the worldwide stamp of approval for businesses wanting to demonstrate compliance to quality systems. There are a whole host of benefits related to becoming ISO certified and so, if you aren’t already, 2014 could be a good time to start ISO facilitation.

Increasingly, companies require their vendors to be ISO certified; with this certification you can ensure you beat off the competition or are, at the very least, in the running to win the business. ISO implements a “system”, which encompasses everything that the company does. Procedures are written for every item that is deemed a task, these procedures are then examined, modified and audited. Once all of the procedures have been examined and compliance confirmed by the assessors, they then give their approval for certification.

Some may claim that the ISO process is a paper chasing exercise that eats up a lot of employee time. The advantages of following, documenting and evidencing your procedures are obvious; however the task of documenting is undeniably large and imposing.

Bodhi Sankar.K


Saturday, 28 December 2013

IAF News ISO 26000 Social Responsiblity

 

ISO 26000 Social Responsiblity

Its crystal clear. No certification to ISO 26000 guidance standard on social responsibility

ISO, developer of the newly published ISO 26000 standard giving guidance on social responsibility, is reinforcing the point that ISO 26000 is not able to be and may not be used for certification. ISO indicates that it will take action against claims of certification to the standard.
ISOs portfolio of 18,500 standards include a number of management system standards such as the well-known ISO 9001 for quality management, which has been specifically developed and can be used for certification. This means that a certification body audits an organisation's management system and issues a certificate that it conforms to the requirements of the standard
However, ISO 26000 is not a management system standard and specifically does not contain requirements against which an organisation or its management system could be audited and certified. ISO 26000 provides guidance on what social responsibility is and how organisations can operate in a socially responsible manner.
Further, the scope of ISO 26000 makes it very clear that it is not to be used for certification, stating: This international standard is not a management system standard.  It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use. Any offer to certify, or claims to be certified to ISO 26000 would be a misrepresentation of the intent and purpose and a misuse of this international standard. As this international standard does not contain requirements, any such certification would not be a demonstration of conformity with this international standard.
ISO reinforces the above position by declaring:
  • ISO 26000 has the purpose of globally enhancing social responsibility, sustainability and ethical behaviour in all kinds of organisations       
  • There will be no accredited certification to ISO 26000 as this is contrary to the intent and spirit of the standard
  • Any claims of certification to ISO 26000 are misleading and are not a demonstration of conformity to ISO 26000
  • ISO members will report any organisations providing certification to ISO 26000 to the ISO Central Secretariat
  • ISO shall communicate this to its members who will be requested to communicate within their own countries to regulators, stakeholders and industry.
ISO develops standards but does not carry out auditing and certification to its standards, nor accreditation of the certification bodies that operate independently of ISO. ISO does not control the activities of either accreditation bodies or certification bodies and the ISO logo does not appear on certificates of conformity to ISO standards. However, ISO develops standards to encourage good practice worldwide in conformity assessment activities, including certification.
The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) has members who accredit (approve) certification bodies as competent to carry out their certifications. A recent meeting of the IAF passed the following resolution:
"The General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Technical Committee, resolved that there will not be any accredited certification to ISO 26000 (publication date 1 November 2010).
ISO 26000 explicitly states that it is not intended or appropriate for certification, and any certification would be a misuse of the standard. Therefore, Certification Bodies are strongly urged not to promote or provide certification to ISO 26000 and Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies are requested to report any misuse or need for certification, to the ISO Central Secretariat."


Accredited certification delivers real added value

 




     Accredited certification delivers real added value

        by IAF Communications and Marketing Committee

To gain a clearer understanding of the ‘value’ of accredited certification, IAF carried out a survey of businesses in 40 different economies. The survey aimed to clarify the drivers for seeking certification, the factors involved in choosing a certification body, and the extent of any benefit derived from the certification process. A full report of the results can be downloaded from the IAF website.
Over 4,000 responses were received from businesses of all sizes operating across a diverse range of industries. While the majority of respondents were responsible for managing quality within their organization, over a quarter of respondents were either finance directors, marketing managers or other senior management personnel. This indicates that the value of certification is recognized across the spectrum of business functions, and not just in the traditional quality management arena.
This is positive news for accreditation bodies that invest a significant amount of time and resources in raising awareness of the benefits of accredited certification among businesses, government departments and regulators. The primary motivation for this is to enable organizations to make an informed choice on which certification bodies they use. Using an accredited certification body should assure the organization that it will get the business benefits and value it pays for. But was this recognized by those who responded to the IAF survey?

The real value of certification

Over 80% of all respondents reported that certification had added value to their organization. As a more quantifiable measure, around half of all participants have seen an increase in sales as a direct result of the certification.
Internal business improvement was given by nearly half of all participants as the main driver for seeking certification, while approximately one third said it was a requirement of their customers.  However, respondents overwhelmingly stated that certification was important to their customers.  Despite only 12% citing it as the main reason for gaining certification, over 80% confirmed that certification had helped them meet national regulatory requirements.
Taken together, these figures indicate that certification is something that organizations are choosing to seek, primarily to improve internal operations and to provide customer confidence, rather than something that is done begrudgingly merely to tick compliance boxes. It’s not just the larger companies that are realising these benefits though, as nearly two thirds of respondents work in SMEs, half of which have less than 50 employees.

How important are certification bodies?

Over 90% of those who took part in the survey confirmed that their certification body was accredited by a recognized accreditation body, with nearly three quarters stating that accreditation was either essential or very important in their line of business. Only 3% reported that accreditation was not important.  When asked about the importance of the certification being covered by the IAF Multilateral Recognition Agreement (MLA), 35% stated that the acceptance of their certification in overseas markets was very important.
The survey also revealed that the vast majority of organizations use certification bodies that are based in their local economy, with less than one in 10 seeking certification from an overseas organization. To help them through the process, 60% of respondents reported that they commissioned the services of an external consultant.

Is there value for money?

While the survey identified that achieving certification could be fairly complex, businesses rated the competence of accredited certification bodies highly, and confirmed that the time to navigate the process met with their expectations. Asked whether the certification bodies provide value for money, 62% of respondents agreed.

Summary

The findings of the survey confirm that businesses are generating significant benefits and added value from accredited certification. Not only is it being used as a tool to deliver internal business improvement and to meet regulatory compliance, but businesses confirm that it has a positive effect on revenue. Given that the majority of businesses that responded to the survey (57%) employed less than 249 people, accredited certification clearly benefits small to medium sized organisations, as well as large multinationals.
Businesses taking part also reported high levels of satisfaction with the certification process in terms of the timeframe to achieve certification and the competence of the assessment teams. Given these positive findings, businesses perceive accredited certification as providing value for money.
Nearly all of the businesses that took part in the survey (91%) selected an accredited certification body, providing an assurance that these organisations have the required competence and impartiality to do so as evidenced by fulfilment of international standards and requirements.
The IAF has an ongoing initiative to capture feedback from the market in order to deliver value added outcomes, and so we would like to thank those who took part in the survey. IAF would also like to thank Databuild, a leading independent market research company, for their help in developing the survey and approving the results.  

Bogus Accreditation Association

An organisation identified as the Commonwealth of Nations Accreditation Board (CNAB) is hosting a website (cnab-global.org/) that plagiarises the website of the International Accreditation Forum (www.iaf.nu), presenting IAF information as its own and inserting the name CNAB in place of IAF. The organisation further falsely identifies the following IAF member Accreditation Bodies as members of CNAB.  The Chairman of IAF, Randy Dougherty of ANAB (the American National Standards Institute - American Society for Quality National Accreditation Board LLC ), stresses that none of these IAF members have any involvement with CNAB.
SANAS - South African National Accreditation System  
NABCB - National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies (India)
SAC - Singapore Accreditation Council 
DA - Directorate of Accreditation (Albania) 
SCC - Standards Council of Canada  
JAS-ANZ - Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand
INAB - Irish National Accreditation Board  
Standards Malaysia  - Department of Standards Malaysia 
DAC - Dubai Accreditation Center (United Arab Emirates) 
EMA - Mexican Accreditation Entity, (Entidad Mexicana de Acreditacion) 
HKAS - Hong Kong Accreditation Service
TURKAK  - Turkish Accreditation Agency 
INN - Instituto Nacional de Normalizacion (Chile)
OAA - Organismo Argentino de Acreditacion (Argentina)
INMETRO - National Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality (Brazil) 
PAO - Philippine Accreditation Office 
EGAC - Egyptian Accreditation Council 
BoA - Bureau of Accreditation (Vietnam)  
INDECOPI - National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Peru)  
JAB - Japan Accreditation Board for Conformity Assessment 
PNAC - Pakistan National Accreditation Council 
IAS - Iran Accreditation System  
JASC - Japan Accreditation System for Product Certification Bodies of JIS Mark  
NAC - National Accreditation Council of Thailand  
JIPDEC - Japan Information Processing Development Corporation - Information Management Systems Promotion Center (JIPDEC IMSPC)  
KAB - Korea Accreditation Board 
TUNAC - Tunisian Accreditation Council 
KAN - Accreditiation Body of Indonesia (Komite Akreditasi Nasional)  
SA - Slovenska Akreditacija (Slovenia) 
KAS - Korea Accreditation System  
MAURITAS - Mauritias Accreditation Service  
TAF - Taiwan Accreditation Foundation (Chinese Taipei)

Study into the value of ISO 9001

The results of a joint study, carried out by UNIDO, ISO and IAF, show that the implementation of accredited certification to ISO 9001 brings positive results both to certified organisations and their customers, and ultimately to the economies themselves. The study focused on the Asian region and involved a survey, interviews with purchasers, and visits to certified organisations.

The key findings include:
Economic benefits• There are clear empirical economic benefits to the implementation of accredited certified quality management systems.
Credibility of ISO 9001• In general, the perception of accredited certification to ISO 9001 in the region is positive.
Positive purchaser perceptions• Purchasers confirmed that they were satisfied with the performance of ISO 9001 certified suppliers, and in general performed better or 'much better' than non-certified suppliers.
A full copy of the report is available from the UNIDO website.