IJCA - Volume 2 - Flipbook - Page 13
2023 | Volume 2, Issue 1
and confidentiality. Thus, it requires personnel
to disclose to the AB regarding existing, prior, or
enforceable relationships, which may lead to bias
and thus compromise impartiality. Moreover, clause
8.1.1 of ISO/IEC 17011 requires ABs to be responsible
through legally enforceable agreements for the
management of all information obtained or created
during the accreditation process.
When the AB operates different schemes, it may
require the development of specific guidelines, rules,
procedures, and frameworks to avoid the domination
or influence of a single party of a particular sector in
such activities. This will contribute towards avoiding
the committees appointed for the purpose risking
the AB’s impartial service. Therefore, ABs take
their maximum effort to ensure the participation
of interested parties in the tasks of developing
and defining policies, rules, and guidelines. This
requirement is addressed under clauses 4.4.5 and
4.6.2 of ISO/IEC 17011. In general, major activities,
such as the development of accreditation criteria,
conducting assessments, and decision-making in
relation to accreditation processes are carried out by
different personnel and it ensures the impartiality of
accreditation services.
TABLE 02: A COMPARISON OF TWO ACCREDITATION
BODIES TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS OF
FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS IN RELATION TO RISKS TO
IMPARTIALITY
Accreditation Body – A
Accreditation Body – B
AB conducts analysis of
conflict of interest (CoI) once
without considering the
changes.
Review on an ongoing basis/
continuously.
No mechanisms to
obtain relationships and
involvements of personnel.
Self-declarations, code of
ethics, and applications
have provisions to declare
relationships of CABs with
consultants, internal auditors,
and trainers, etc.
Notification of Assessment
teams and their organizations
to CAB; obtaining consent or
confirmation of no objections
for the assessment teams is
not obtained each time.
Objections from CABs, if any,
for assessment teams are
obtained prior to appointing
team members and dealt
with as per ABs’ policies and
procedures.
Internal and external
relationships of AB are not
fully reviewed to identify
CoIs due to management,
ownership, etc.
Analysis of internal and
external relationships are
collected and analyzed;
actions are taken to prevent
CoIs.
13
When ABs evaluate conformity assessment schemes
to determine the suitability as per ISO/IEC 17011, new
IAF MD25:2022 (Criteria for Evaluation of Conformity
Assessment Schemes) should be followed to
determine its suitability and demonstrate that the
review process is impartial.
In addition, compliance with the requirements of
clauses 7.12.8 and 7.13.8 in relation to the handling of
complaints and appeals, and clause 9.7.4-b relevant
to internal auditors are also required to prevent risks
arising due to self-reviews.
Can We Completely Remove Risks to Impartiality?
No we cannot, because there are risks remaining
even after taking actions, called residual risk.
Residual risk refers to those risks that remain after
we addressed the identified risk. For those risks that
we cannot eliminate after addressing it, we need to
perform continuous monitoring to ensure that risk
is controlled. Different approaches for monitoring
include proper recording or documentation of activity
to be reviewed or included in the Internal Audit
schedule as well as management review meetings.
Figure 02 illustrates the potential risks to impartiality
and possible approaches to mitigate them.
Case example: Identifying different approaches of
ABs to manage risks to impartiality
If we take two accreditation bodies as an example,
we can see how different approaches are used
to comply with the requirements and therefore,
significant variations can be observed.
Strategic Structuring of Accreditation Bodies and
Competence Management
When AB structures its organization, placement
of AB within the parent organization to prevent
any impartiality-related risks and risks associated
with the management of AB, is a demonstration
of schemes operated by the AB. This consists of
relationships with committees and their place
within the ABs’ structure, and demonstrates the
interconnected roles of different categories of
personnel. These are very important for an AB to
identify potential risks and also demonstrate how the
AB structure itself can support and prevent potential
risks. This showcases and proves the suitability of
the structure to ensure implementation of actions in
relation to identified risks.
Clause 6.1 of ISO/IEC 17011:2017 requires ABs to
implement a process to ascertain and certify that
their personnel have the appropriate knowledge and
