Organization (acronym)
Structure Finance Governance & Membership IAF √ ISEAL √ FSC √ √ √ MSC √ √ √ SAI √ √ √ IOAS √ √ MAC √ √ NOP √ FLO √ √ GG 21 √ CST √ NEAP √ IFOAM √ √ ISO √ TOI √
5.1 Comparison of Organizational Structure in
Accreditation and Certification Programs
Background
This chapter includes a range of information pertaining to accreditation and an assessment of how sector-specific accreditation bodies, such as the FSC, MSC, and SAI, operate. Non sector-specific accreditation is also examined. A SWOT analysis forms part of a comparative table that is provided for each organization examined. The overriding purpose of this review is to ascertain what lessons can be learned from these organizations, so as to avoid problems in the STSC.
On a global scale, there is currently a range of accreditation bodies that govern the performance of certification programs. According to Toth (2000), there are approximately 1400 accreditation bodies operating on different scales across the globe. Some of these operate in specific sectors (such as forestry or organic food), while others cover a range of sectors, but in one country or region only. Each accreditation body has a mission to apply a rigorous set of processes and procedures to verify and endorse that certification bodies are competent and capable of performing specified certification procedures correctly, against agreed principles and standards. Put simply, accreditation bodies ‘certify the certifier’ and
134
provide a type of license to certification bodies to carry out certification activities. Thus, accreditation adds valuable credibility to certification programs and the systems and procedures they engage. Accreditation bodies develop internationally recognized brands that facilitate consumer choice, and protect consumers, industry and certifiers against false claims. They also help certification bodies to develop programs by providing a forum to share experience and expertise, setting benchmarks and encouraging harmonization of policies, procedures and standards. Accreditation bodies also represent certification bodies and programs at an international level, providing a platform for lobbying to gain access to ‘green funds’ and attract political and financial support (Rainforest Alliance, 2000)
An important point to note is that certification bodies participate in accreditation programs in the expectation of some sort of economic benefit and/or return for their investment in obtaining accreditation (Toth, 2000). In these cases the certification body is attempting to enhance its own credibility with its clients and the consumer.
Accreditation follows very similar procedures to certification. Essentially the process involves self-evaluation by the certifier in the first instance, followed by an on-site assessment by a team of auditors, concluding with a judgment by an accreditation body that the certifier complies with applicable standards and guidelines (Toth, 2000). Some accreditation bodies employ their own specialist auditors, such as national accreditation bodies affiliated with governments, however others will use freelance auditors who have been especially trained to carry out the accreditation audit tasks (Toth, 2000).
It is not uncommon for accreditation bodies to be the developer and custodian of the actual standards against which the certifier assesses products, services, process or systems. In these circumstances the accreditation body will have a set of internal committees or working groups that will take on the standards development and revision activities, leaving a separate committee (or board) to deal with accreditation issues. Some existing accreditation bodies, due to pressures generated by the acceptance of ISO-based processes and the desire for global acceptance in the accreditation field, to separate the accreditation functions from the standard- setting function.
The idea of stewardship councils developed as an attempt by some sectors to provide a more multi-stakeholder partnership approach to resource management, which would allow various entities with different interests to engage in collaborative management of the resource. Stewardship councils operate in the same way as accreditation bodies do, in the sense they accredit certification bodies based on their performance to carry out certification in a thorough, objective, and transparent manner. Stewardship councils can also be the developer and custodian of the standards. The major difference is that stewardship councils tend to focus on one specific sector or industry, such as marine, forestry, and as proposed by the STSC, tourism.
To fully understand the role of accreditation bodies and stewardship councils, it is pertinent to examine several organizations themselves in detail, in order to assess their strengths and weaknesses and their relevance to the STSC. The following sections provide valuable background information on which the final recommendations for the STSC organizational structure are based. In addition to the details provided in these sections, an assessment of the financial structures of ten organizations and a review of the governance structures of eight organizations was undertaken. The results are presented below.
135
5.1.1. Summary of different organizations
International Accreditation Forum (IAF)
The IAF, based in Australia, is the worldwide association of conformity assessment accreditation bodies and other bodies interested in conformity assessment in the fields of management systems, products, services, personnel and other similar programs. The IAF aims to develop a single worldwide program of conformity assessment, recognizing that accreditation can both reduce risk to business of all kinds and offer customers assurance that accredited certification programs may be relied upon.
Background
One of the primary reasons for IAF’s existence is to ensure that its members (accreditation bodies) are competent to do the work they undertake and are not subject to conflicts of interest. In response, the IAF provides detailed criteria for an accreditation body to become a member, and should there be some sort of conflict of interest present, the applicant accreditation body will not be admitted to the forum. This is particularly important in terms of tourism, as there is some suggestion that existing tourism certification programs are not independent and impartial, and often operate with conflict of interest (such as the certification program providing consultancy services to the client as well as auditing services). It could be an aim therefore of the STSC to become a member of the IAF, and in doing so, rigorous criteria would be followed to remove the risk of conflict of interest.
A major role the IAF plays is to establish Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MLA) between the accreditation body members. The MLA is the arrangement that leads to recognition of accreditations issued by one member all over the world. At that level applicants are assessed by a team of high level assessors who conduct a “peer review” and visit the applicant to examine the operations in the head office and also witness the applicant carrying out accreditation assessments of certification bodies - two or more times. It is envisaged that the MLA will cover all accreditation bodies globally, thus eliminating the need for suppliers of products or services to be certified in every country according to each country’s own accreditation rules and regulations – the concept of "certified once, accepted everywhere," so that all accreditation bodies recognize accreditation awarded by others. IAF believes that this is an extremely important tool in eliminating barriers to trade. Given that tourism is a global industry, the IAF could serve as a valuable organization in raising the credibility of the STSC, as well as remove the current confusion generated by the myriad of certification programs that exist, and allow widespread recognition of certified products and services globally. As an international accreditation organization, the IAF is actively involved in working with ISO on the development of standards.
Processes and Procedures
To become a member of the IAF, an accreditation body is subjected to a detailed assessment to ensure a potential member meets the criteria. IAF publishes guidance documents for the use of accreditation bodies when accrediting certification or registration bodies to assure that they also operate their programs in a consistent and equivalent manner. IAF guidance documents are intended to assure consistent application of ISO Guides.
136
All IAF Accreditation Body Members are obliged to comply with the IAF Guidance on the application of ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996 (General Requirements for Assessment and Accreditation of Certification / Registration Bodies), as well as ISO/IEC Guide 62:1996, ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 (General Requirements for Assessment and Accreditation of Bodies Operating Product Certification Systems), and ISO/IEC Guide 66 (General Requirements for Bodies Operating Assessment and Certification/Registration of Environmental Management Systems, EMS).
Importantly, the IAF MLA Procedure for Identification of Equivalence of Accreditations is intended to ensure that members of the IAF MLA and Regional MLAs are able to claim membership of the MLA in a consistent fashion. This then allows certification / registration bodies accredited by them to claim worldwide recognition for the certificates they issue, based on the accreditation body's membership of the IAF MLA (www.iaf.nu).
These requirements ensure that there are stringent procedures in place within the accreditation body itself, which makes it possible for the IAF to undertake assessments on a level playing field, as all accreditation bodies have to comply with international protocols, i.e., ISO Guides. Membership is assessed by way of peer review and continued surveillance of each member. The IAF has established its own set of internal procedures for implementing the IAF program. For the purposes of this report it is not possible to go into detail on all of these, but further information can be found on the web site (www.iaf.nu).
Organizational Structure
The IAF Secretariat is based in Australia. The organization is relatively small, with a team of officers carrying out day-to-day tasks, and another team of voluntary experts carrying out specialist work when required. There are several working groups that take on specific development tasks, on a voluntary basis. The IAF board oversees the organization as a whole. This board comprises six elected individuals, drawn from the membership base of the organization. Each board member serves a term of three years, on an honorary/voluntary basis, although expenses are reimbursed. The board of directors is the primary authority responsible for the implementation of policy in IAF, subject only to the members. The Board takes all legal actions necessary for the continued operation of IAF, recommends the budget to members for approval each year, makes recommendations to the members on the admission of new members, and approves programs for subordinate Committees (see Figure 5.2 for an organizational chart).
137