Peer Evaluation: Consolidating trust in the EA MLA
The European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) is recognized by the European Commission to operate the peer-evaluation system of its Members, the National Accreditation Bodies (NAB), according to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 setting out the requirements on accreditation.
Under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, the European Commission entrusts EA for maintaining a mandatory, impartial system for the peer evaluation of National Accreditation Bodies (NABs).
The strength of the EA MLA is maintained through a robust peer evaluation process. The main objectives of peer-evaluation activities are to:
- Evaluate the ongoing compliance of EA Members with the relevant requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and the standards for accreditation as well as the additional requirements defined in EA mandatory documents;
- Ensure that regulators, industry, consumers and any person can have confidence in certificates and reports issued by accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies under the EA MLA.
Why Peer Evaluation matters
Compliance with the requirements means confidence in the conformity assessment results from Conformity Assessment Bodies accredited by the National Accreditation Body (NAB) so that signatories to the EA MLA can promote acceptance of these results.
Procedure
How the Peer Evaluation process works
APPLICATION
A NAB applies for EA MLA signatory status for specific scopes; EA assigns an evaluation team.
DOCUMENT & ON-SITE REVIEW
The evaluation team performs the document review (management system and supporting documents and procedures). Then, the team carries out the on-site evaluation. The evaluation combines an evaluation of the management system at the office with observation of assessments carried out by the National Accreditation Body. Findings are presented by the evaluation team and discussed with the National Accreditation Body at the closing meeting.
REPORTING
The team drafts the peer evaluation report and makes a recommendation.
DECISION
A MAC Task Force Group reviews the evaluation report and issues a recommendation for consideration and decision by the EA Multilateral Agreement Council (MAC). The MAC decides on the peer evaluation and the EA MLA signatory status. The EA publications and website are updated accordingly.
For more information, read EA-2/02 EA Procedure for the evaluation of a National Accreditation Body
EA-2/02
EA Procedure for
the Evaluation of a
National Accreditation Body
Activity
Number of granted accreditations per MLA scope
Peer evaluation applies to the different MLA scopes, such as testing, calibration, inspection, management system, product and personnel certification, validation and verification, proficiency testing providers, reference materials, and biobanking. Each scope is evaluated and is granted the EA MLA recognition.
During 2024, EA Members delivered more than 35,080 accreditations under the EA MLA, distributed as follows:
Type of accreditation
2024
Calibration
3,601
Testing
16,341
Medical examinations
3,762
Products Certification
2,115
Management systems certification
1,275
Certification of persons
848
Inspection
6,568
Validation and Verification
248
Proficiency Testing Providers
238
Reference Material Producers
84
TOTAL
35,080
Compared to 2023, the level of activities (number of accredited certificates and reports issued by the EA MLA members) is relatively stable. But, in parallel, new fields of activity using accreditation have appeared, creating a need for recognition and therefore for expanding the EA MLA. Recently, such developments have led to extend the EA MLA to accreditation of biobanking, for which peer evaluations started at the end of 2025.
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total numbers of evaluations performed¹
13*
25
13
14
16
Total numbers of reports
discussed²
31**
13****
15
17
11
Total man-days for
evaluation
353***
1764
1,070
940
1,241
Total nbr of evaluations performed¹
Total nbr of reports discussed²
Total man-days for
evaluation
2020
13*
31**
353***
2021
25
13****
1764
2022
13
15
1,070
2023
14
17
940
2024
16
11
1,241
¹ Initial evaluations, re-evaluations with or without scope extensions and extraordinary evaluations (performed on site in the specific year)
² Reports of evaluations, but not necessarily conducted in the specific year
* 13 evaluations, out of which only 8 document review for the peer evaluations were postponed to 2021
** 31 reports, out of which 18 were related to transition to ISO/IEC 17011:2017
*** includes also the man-days for the participation of EA evaluators in IAF/ILAC evaluations
**** for which decision was made
To read
the EA MLA Report 2024
Trust the EA MLA!
Peer Evaluators & Training
EA peer evaluators are competent NAB staff—who undergo regular training to stay current on EN ISO/IEC 17011, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, harmonised standards for accreditation, and evolving EA, and international requirements, and EA peer evaluation procedures. Their performance is continuously monitored.
Why it matters to you
- Regulators gain confidence in the certificates and reports issued by accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies under the EA MLA;
- Businesses benefit from widespread acceptance of certifications, avoiding redundancy and reducing costs;
- Consumers rely on independent assessments to ensure safety and quality
Inside a peer evaluation, feedback from an EA Team Leader
First, please introduce yourself and tell us more about your role as MAC Vice Chair and Team Leader.
My name is Sergio Guzzi, and I’m the Laboratory Committee Chair, the MAC Vice Chair, and Team Leader.
My role as MAC Vice Chair is to support the work of the Chair in the preparation and management of the Council, and at the same time, being a Vice Chair means attending all the MAC Management Group meetings, where all the issues are discussed to have proper and democratic discussions in the plenary meetings.
As for the role of TL, we can talk of several tasks being under the mandate of the TL, from the initial planning of the evaluation, through the coordination of the team members’ activities and the role of facilitator which can be sometimes very challenging, going to a somewhat psychological behavior that is needed on all occasions.
Walk us through a peer evaluation
That’s a good question, as simple as it is!
A peer evaluation implies sharing experiences among different people, countries, and cultures, with, of course, the goal of a professional understanding about the trust that can be given to the NAB under evaluation. This is accomplished by evaluating the fulfilment of a long list of applicable requirements.
Being part of a peer evaluator team is an unforgettable and challenging experience, both interesting and demanding, with a special added value linked to the human aspects involved. The group spirit driven into the activities is something that will forever influence the behavior of a peer evaluator as a person.
The wrap-up step at the end of the evaluation —issuing the Report— can also be a very demanding moment, but it’s the peak of the peer evaluation, after which all things settled and friendships continue.
We can say that in the end the TL has the final responsibility of the overall peer evaluation activities, but it is important to highlight also that he/she is always supported by the EA Secretariat in all the steps the peer evaluation, in case of any difficulties, unforeseen issues or doubts on the requirements linked to any EA applicable document.
What has changed since the peer evaluation reengineering project?
One of the most significant changes was the implementation of the risk-based approach in all the main steps of the peer evaluation process.
It means that, in several cases, the process is strongly influenced by a decision taken after a careful evaluation of the risks linked to the specific step or issue, like for instance how the number of accredited CABs can impact the risk of losing something in the evaluation, or how to take into account the stability and maturity of the NAB.
Another important improvement is the assignment and definition of clear and important tasks to the EA Secretariat, fully involved in specific moments of the activities, such as the selection of the team and the overview of the risk assessment for the planning done by the TL.