IJCA - Volume I - Flipbook - Page 46
46 The International Journal of Conformity Assessment
2022 | Volume 1, Issue 1
DOI: 10.55459/IJCA/v1i1/WF
Historical Understandings of International Conformity
Assessment Systems
By William T. Fiske, Director of Technical Affairs, Intertek Testing Services
Abstract
Introduction
The nature of conformity
assessment (i.e., testing,
inspection, and certification) has
evolved throughout the 20th and
21st centuries. This article reviews
the major changes that have taken
place over the more recent halfcentury, the current situation, and
ways in which those changes have
led to safer, higher-quality, and
less costly electrical and electronic
equipment and systems.
The author concludes that further
internationalization of standards
and conformity assessment is both
necessary and desirable.
For many decades, product safety
certification (listing) was strictly
a national matter. Whether by law
or by tradition, market access
depended on certification by an
organization recognized in each
country, and in most countries,
only one such organization
existed. This was duplicative and
inefficient.
Keywords: certification, conformity
assessment, International
Electrotechnical Commission,
standards development, testing
In 1985, the International
Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC), a global standards
organization founded in 1906,
entered into an agreement with
a loosely associated group of
European testing and certification
bodies (the CEE) to create a
worldwide organization that
facilitates trade in electrical
and electronic equipment by
eliminating duplicate testing
in member countries. The new
organization was called the
IEC System for Conformity
Assessment Schemes, for
Electrotechnical Equipment and
Components (IECEE).
Today, there are four IEC
conformity assessment
systems. Besides the IECEE,
there are IECEx, for equipment
used in hazardous (classified)
locations, IECQ, a quality
assessment system for electronic
components, and IECRE, for
renewable (marine, solar, wind)
energy generating systems. This
article explains the basic rules,
similarities and differences, and
the IEC mechanism for governing
them.
Until the early 1980s, every
country had its own requirement
for national testing and
certification of electrical
equipment for safety. The cost to
manufacturers, not only in direct
fees charged by the conformity
assessment (testing, inspection,
and certification) bodies, but
also in time of administrative
and technical tasks involved
in dealing with the conformity
assessment bodies, was
considerable, and to some extent,
wasteful.
In much of the world, including
nearly all European countries,
the national certification body
was a government entity (the
ultimate monopoly). Even in
Canada, the United Kingdom,
and the United States, where
private companies performed the
conformity assessment activities,
those bodies were de facto
monopolies—CSA, BSI, and UL
respectively.
It is worth noting that in
those three countries, the
sole conformity assessment
bodies also served as the
primary standards-developing
organizations (SDOs) for safety
of electrical equipment. In
essence, those organizations
developed, interpreted, and
enforced the requirements.
Hence, the relationship between
manufacturers and conformity
assessment bodies was
unbalanced.
Gradual Decentralization
Reduces Monopoly Power
In continental Europe, the
situation slowly began to
improve. In most countries, there
had traditionally been homegrown standards as well as
national conformity assessment
bodies in each country.
The first shift toward a
multilateral approach was a
pan-European agreement for
each country to adopt applicable
international standards as
national standards, with
national differences. The newly
harmonized standards were
called European norms (ENs).
Standards based on standards
of the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) were
designated as CEN standards,
and those based on International
Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) standards were designated
as CENELEC standards.
In North America, CSA standards
and UL standards were, for the
most part, technically equivalent;
however, the differences between
them often made it impossible
for a manufacturer to design a
product that would conform to
both countries’ standards without
making at least some changes.
Not satisfied with the
harmonization or nearharmonization of standards,
manufacturers continued to
apply pressure on another source
of inefficiency, that being the
conformity assessment schemes.
Requirements for testing in each
country meant products were
subjected to multiple rounds
of testing and certification that
provided no added value to
the producers or the users. In
addition, the national conformity
assessment bodies, having no
real competition, had become
imperious and inefficient.
Finally taking heed of the
complaints, the electrical
equipment certifiers in Europe
joined the European Commission
for Conformance Certification of
Electrical Equipment (CEE), an
agreement among the bodies
to accept one another’s test
results. This agreement mostly
eliminated the duplicative testing
in Europe.
Progress in North American
certification was also lagging.
The Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 which created
the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA),
put OSHA in charge of workplace
safety. This empowered OSHA
to set standards for electrical
safety as well as other potential
workplace hazards. The OSHA
general industry standards
(29CFR Part 1910 – subpart for
electrical safety) named only
UL Listed and FM Approvals as
permitted sources of product
safety certification. This de
jure duopoly remained until
1984, when a small private
testing company sued the U.S.
Department of Labor to open the
testing and certification market
to other qualified laboratories.
Testing and certification bodies
accredited by OSHA are known
as Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratories (NRTLs).
The IEC Steps Up as an
Advocate of Universal
Standards
Since its inception in 1906, IEC
has served as a standards body,
with only a tenuous connection
to product conformity. Looking
to grow, the Geneva-based
organization worked out
47
an agreement with CEE in
1985 to globalize conformity
assessments of electrical
equipment, based on IEC product
standards.
This development led to the
establishment of the IEC System
for Conformity Assessment
Schemes, for Electrotechnical
Equipment and Components
(IECEE CB Scheme). To this
day, use of IEC standards is a
fundamental requirement of
the CB Scheme. Although many
countries around the world
had adopted IEC standards by
1985,the United States was not
among them, so no U.S. body
could participate in the system.
The situation was similar in
Canada, although the latter
had begun to harmonize IEC
standards as CSA standards.
Eventually, the SDOs in both
Canada and the U.S. did move
forward on harmonizing
IEC standards (the U.S. has
harmonized far fewer than
Canada). With that, their testing
laboratories and certification
bodies became eligible to join the
CB Scheme’s mutual recognition
process. The U.S. member body,
USNC/IECEE, became a CB
Scheme member in 1992.
Other IEC Conformity
Assessment Systems Used
for Compliance Verification
As time went on, the CB Scheme’s
success drew the attention of
other sectors of the electrical industry, and those sectors
formed similar systems for the
mutual acceptance of conformity
assessment results. Besides the
IECEE-CB Scheme, these are:
• International Electrotechnical
Commission System for Certification to Standards Relating to
