ISO/IEC 17025:2017 requires in section 4.1.4/4.1.5, that the laboratory shall identify risks to its impartiality on an ongoing basis and, if risks are identified, shall be able to demonstrate how it eliminates or minimizes such risks.
Question:
With respect to this, is it only the laboratory, who is in charge to “manage” such risks and have procedures
to demonstrate (to the national accreditation body) that this risk management is taking place?
And what is the task of the national accreditation body in this respect?
Do the NAB just assess the existence and functioning of the risk management regarding to risks of impartiality or do the AB judge the outcome of the ongoing risk management of the laboratory?
In particular: May the national accreditation body determine or require that certain risks related to impartiality or certain relationships of the laboratory or its staff with clients or customers are unacceptable or need to be eliminated in general?
Similarly to the question on cl. 8.5 of ISO/IEC 17025 discussed during the Warsaw ISO/IEC 17025 transition workshop and the consequent answer agreed during the LC M40 (September 2020), it is deemed that the assessor should not judge the method applied by the Laboratory to perform its risk assessment but the compliance with the requirement of clause 4.1.4 should be evaluated. As stated in the standard, relationships do not necessarily present a laboratory with a risk to impartiality.
Where the assessor find that a risk is not identified by the laboratory or if a risk is not properly assessed or reviewed, and there is a proof that it affects the impartiality, then a finding should be raised.