Welcome to the debate. Today we are diving into,
well, attention that's really been defining the
quality management space for decades now. It's
this complex and let's be honest, often difficult
intersection between professional ethical mandates
and the harsh realities of commercial viability,
specifically within third party quality auditing
and those certification processes. And this isn't
just some abstract idea for quality pros, right?
It really gets to the heart of trust. The fundamental
question we're grappling with is whether the
credibility, the essential ethical mandate of
third party auditing is fundamentally compromised,
maybe even rendered unsustainable by this constant
commercial pressure to keep clients, to maintain
that business continuity. Right. And my position
here is really one of firm belief in the framework
itself. Now, I absolutely acknowledge that commercial
pressures are severe. I mean, who wouldn't? But
the ethical obligations that are explicitly laid
out in standards like ISO 1911, combined with
the ultimate pursuit of what I call quality with
a capital Q, well, those must remain our guiding
principles. The compromises we see, yes, they're
serious, no doubt, but I see them as correctable
deviations from an essential non -negotiable
standard. See, I come at it from a slightly different
angle. I think focusing only on correcting deviations
kind of misses the bigger structural problem.
The reality of the structure itself, you know,
The fact that third -party certification is primarily
a business, one that depends on recurring revenue,
well, that means professional ethics are, I'd
argue, routinely sacrificed for the sake of business
continuity. And in that kind of scenario, true
impartiality becomes tragically unsustainable.
The economic incentives just actively work against
it. My perspective really starts right where
the standard itself begins. ISO 1911, it explicitly
requires impartiality. And this isn't just a
suggestion, right? It's the non -negotiable ethical
framework. We have to uphold this professional
standard because our true goal, ultimately, is
providing genuine quality assurance to the end
user. When I talk about quality with a capital
Q, I mean that sort of transcendent commitment
to rigor, a genuine adherence to the intent of
the standards, not just, you know, mechanically
checking boxes for compliance. Failures like
lead auditors choosing not to issue nonconformities.
Yes, they're grievous, absolutely. But they represent
a lapse in upholding the standard, not proof
that the standard itself is irrelevant. That's
an interesting point, though. I guess I'd frame
it differently. I actually believe those failures
are the proof that the standard is, in practice,
structurally unenforceable. The documented behavior
is, frankly, chillingly consistent. Lead auditors
are choosing, consciously choosing, to issue
only observations in opportunities for improvement
instead of minor or major nonconformities. And
why? They stated explicitly to maintain the client
and the continuity of the business. This pattern
for me confirms my court thesis. Certification
is first and foremost a business where the immediate
economic incentive keeping that client simply
overrides the ethical mandate of impartial assessment.
So, just to clarify, you view this widespread
behavior not as, say, individual moral weakness
or isolated incidents, but as a symptom of a
systemic ethical decay, one driven entirely by
a destructive market dynamic? Absolutely, yes.
And I respectfully challenge the premise that
a written standard like ISO 1911 can realistically
hold the line against that kind of immediate
financial pressure. What we're observing are
the predictable consequences of a simple economic
reality. Professional rigor often just doesn't
sell in this high -volume, low -margin certification
market we've created. It unfortunately reminds
me of that dark sentiment from the auto industry
years ago, that safety doesn't sell. When a lead
auditor's business, maybe their bonus or even
their job security, depends on keeping a client
happy next year, the temptation to substitute
an observation, which is basically free advice
for a minor nonconformity, which triggers costly
follow ups and potentially strains the relationship.
Well, that temptation becomes overwhelming. The
current structure tragically reflects this focus
on the immediate economic priority. OK, that
observation on market behavior is it's sobering.
But let's dig into the core disagreement about
causality here. You argue that avoiding non -conformities
is a predictable, almost inevitable, structural
outcome of the commercial model. If that's true,
if the financial dependency of the auditor on
the audited entity makes the impartiality clause
of ISO 190011 functionally, well, meaningless,
how can the certificate itself possibly retain
any value whatsoever? Well, the value it retains
today is largely administrative, wouldn't you
say? It's become a bureaucratic cost of doing
business, you know, a required stamp you need
for supply chain entry or market access. But
its ethical value, its actual assurance of genuine
rigor, that's what's deeply compromised. The
issue isn't that ISO 1901 doesn't exist on paper.
It's that it's structurally unenforceable when
the auditor is so financially reliant on the
entity they're auditing. You ask how the standard
can be overcome? Look, the financial pressure
to protect that revenue stream is an active,
immediate force. Whereas the penalty for lacking
rigor, like losing accreditation, that seems
distant, slow, maybe even unlikely in some cases.
How can you possibly expect a simple ethical
declaration as a standard to overcome that immediate,
almost existential threat to the certification
body's bottom line? I see why you characterize
it that way, focusing on the immediate incentive.
But I think that immediate financial pressure
might be obscuring a longer -term commercial
necessity. The very fact that impartiality is
explicitly mandated in ISO 19 -011, it means
the industry itself recognizes it as the core
non -negotiable principle, right? Furthermore,
if this kind of compromise were truly routine,
completely unchecked, wouldn't the certification
bodies themselves face much more scrutiny from
the international accreditation bodies? I mean,
if the system is utterly corrupt, why do major
certification bodies still exist, and manage
to maintain their high -level accreditations?
This suggests to me that while, yes, deviations
occur, the institutional buffers, those accreditation
mechanisms, they still enforce some minimum standard.
And that's likely driven by the industry's own
desire to maintain at least a veneer of credibility.
We need to focus on strengthening those buffers.
not dismissing the standard. Credibility is often
a lagging indicator, though. And right now, I'd
argue many bodies are kind of coasting on the
credibility that was established decades ago.
We're seeing the consequences today of prioritizing
that immediate business continuity, and the market
just hasn't fully registered the diminished value
of the stamp yet. OK, let's pivot slightly then
to the operational environment. Specifically,
the rapid acceleration of remote auditing, which
has become so common, especially post -pandemic.
How does this shift impact your assessment of
credibility? Now, while remote audits clearly
present verification challenges, you know, you
can't physically walk the floor, kick the tires,
so to speak, could the incorporation of advanced
technological solutions actually increase transparency,
perhaps offset some of that loss of on -site
rigor? I'm thinking about things like AI analysis
of digital evidence chains, maybe time -stamped
video records, sensor data, things like that.
I have to say, I'm not really convinced by that
line of reasoning, mostly because the evidence
I'm seeing suggests remote audits have actually
exacerbated the credibility crisis, not solved
it. I think you're focusing on the potential
of technology, which is fair, but maybe ignoring
the reality of human behavior under pressure.
What we seem to be observing is that remote tools
can make it easier for clients to gain the system,
often through quite sophisticated self -reporting.
They can, apparently quite easily, fill out self
-audit forms with everything perfect, and then
maybe just signal some small thing just to not
seem completely fake. But surely the very act
of signaling some small thing suggests there's
still some pressure towards honesty, however
minimal. It shows they know they can't submit
a perfect report. Or it signals they understand
the theatrics of compliance, not the reality
of quality. It demonstrates, I think, that the
auditing process has devolved into more of a
form -filling exercise just designed to look
adequate for the administrative requirement.
It's become a box -ticking exercise where the
boxes are often filled by the client themselves
and the auditor acts more like a remote rubber
stamp. The shift to remote models, in my view,
plays directly into this crisis of credibility
because it simplifies hiding the operational
reality that an experienced auditor might instantly
spot during an in -person immersive visit. But
technology could offer an alternative enforcement
mechanism, couldn't it? Precisely because human
assessors are so susceptible to bias and business
pressure. Why couldn't a standardized, technologically
enforced chain of digital evidence, something
immutable, time -stamped, provide a more reliable
check against fabricated claims than relying
solely on the subjective judgment of a financially
constrained lead auditor? Technology, if implemented
properly, could potentially mandate transparency,
reducing the opportunity for both the client
and the auditor to compromise. Well, that assumes
perfect, ubiquitous implementation and, frankly,
an infinite budget for verification technology,
doesn't it? In reality, remote auditing often
seems to feed into audit fatigue. Clients start
treating it as just another burdensome checkbox
activity. They focus their effort on making the
digital documentation look immaculate even if
the shop floor reality is chaotic. The current
technological implementation, I fear, often reinforces
the superficiality. Let's face it, it's probably
easier to fake a perfect data set remotely than
it is to convincingly stage an entire factory
floor for an unannounced physical inspection.
Okay, so if we accept, for the sake of argument,
the grim reality you're describing, that the
market demands certification primarily as a transactional
cost, and that auditors are indeed prioritizing
continuity over rigor, then we face your final
challenge. How can this passionate call for quality
to return to the first place, you know, with
that capital Q, how can that possibly be achieved
without completely dismantling the existing commercialized
business model? That really is the crux of the
matter, isn't it? And I have to respectfully
challenge the feasibility of simple self -correction
here. You can't just tell a certification body,
whether it's publicly traded or privately owned,
to sacrifice immediate measurable revenue for
some abstract concept of long -term credibility
that, as we've discussed, they might be demonstrably
compromising daily. Where is the evidence that
the market is currently punishing poor certification
at a pace that actually outweighs the immediate
benefit of client retention? If the serious consequences
for fraud or negligence are maybe a decade away,
but the rewards for compromise are in this quarter's
profit report, Well, the decision is pretty obvious
for any rational business. That is a harsh assessment,
I grant you, but I would frame the long -term
view differently. I'd argue that ultimately,
fundamentally, we are all clients seeking genuine
quality, whether we're individual consumers or
large industrial buyers. The market eventually
does punish poor quality, especially when it's
masked by meaningless certification. Perhaps
slowly, I agree, but eventually, and sometimes
violently, through failures and recalls. Therefore,
the long -term sustainability of the entire certification
industry actually relies on its perceived rigor.
If certification comes to mean nothing, then
eventually, no one will pay for it, regardless
of whether it's an administrative requirement
or not. So, making the ethical choice, upholding
rigorous assessment is, in the end, the only
truly viable business model. because the core
product being sold is trust. If that trust erodes
completely, the whole industry collapses. That's
a hopeful and perhaps philosophically necessary
grounding. But, you know, hope doesn't pay the
lead auditor's salary this quarter. And it doesn't
guarantee the survival of the certification body
next year against competitors who are willing
to compromise. The evidence right now seems to
show that compromise is favored precisely because
the consequences feel distant while the immediate
reward, client retention, is tangible and often
seen as necessary for survival. That analogy
that professional ethics don't sell is tragically
proving quite accurate in the short to medium
term where most businesses have to operate. Well,
I still stand by the necessity of adhering to
these robust ethical frameworks like 1901 -111
and recognizing the ultimate public interest
in true quality. Temporary commercial compromises,
however tempting, simply cannot justify long
-term ethical erosion, especially when the very
purpose of the audit is supposed to be public
assurance. While acknowledging the commercial
pressures are severe, the pursuit of quality
with a capital Q, that deep commitment to the
intent of the standard, it has to remain the
goal that validates the entire audit pressiness.
We must find ways to actively incentivize rigor
to preempt the complete erosion of trust you're
warning about. And I would reiterate that the
documented evidence we've discussed, auditors
consciously sacrificing non -conformities for
business continuity, a situation potentially
worsened by superficial remote self -audits,
strongly suggests the ethical system has already
been profoundly subjugated by commercial necessity.
This deep tension between the reality that the
certification business thrives on continuity
and the idealized role of third -party impartiality,
well, that seems to be the defining characteristic
of the current landscape. And until we address
the fundamental business driver that actively
incentivizes compromise, I suspect true rigor
will remain more of an elusive theoretical concept
than a consistent operational requirement. This
is certainly food for thought. for every professional
navigating the certification world today, where
that balance between profitability and integrity
is well, constantly being tested. Thank you for
this rigorous exchange on the structural pressures
facing our field. My pleasure. It's a critical
discussion to have.