5.2.1 of EA-3/01 states … When a CAB’s customer requires an activity, which is covered by the CAB’s scope of accreditation, it is an implicit expectation of the customer to get an accredited report/certificate…
And further, in the paragraph, it states:
In the case of certification of management systems, certification bodies (CBs) shall issue accredited certificates if they concern scopes for which they are accredited in accordance with the IAF Resolution 2016-17.
In the case of certification of products, CBs shall issue accredited certificates if they concern scopes for which they have been accredited in accordance with the IAF Resolution 2018-13.
The question we have regarding the use of the accreditation mark is regarding reports that certification bodies issue.
a) We consider the use of the mark obligatory for certificates, but not allowed on reports that are part/the output of the evaluation activities/phase by the CAB. For product certification the output of the evaluation phase can be recorded in combined or separate test reports and/or inspection reports and in some cases also in audit reports is supporting management system requirements are applicable. Should the reports bear the product certification mark? The ‘end-product’ of a CB is a certificate, not a report, therefor the certificate is the only product/deliverable t that is allowed and is expected to have an accreditation mark. Is this opinion shared by the other EA members?
b) Even if the CB does not issue/grant a certificate, simply because the product or system does not fulfill all requirements (no positive decision possible) and therefore a certificate can not be issued, a report by the CB is not allowed to have an accreditation mark if the CB is accredited for the specific scheme/standard.
Is this opinion shared by the other EA members?
- a) EA-3/01 states:
§3 refers to accredited reports/certificates containing conformity assessment results covered by the CAB’s accreditation scope and bearing the accreditation symbol or an equivalent reference to accreditation
§5.2.1 The NAB shall set out such conditions to ensure that the accreditation symbol is not used in such circumstances as may be considered to mislead clients or to bring accreditation and/or EA MLA recognition into disrepute. In particular, it shall not mislead as to what is accredited (scope) or who holds accreditation.
§8.1 An accredited CAB which holds accreditation for only part of its activities may use the accreditation symbol or make claims of accreditation status provided there is no confusion as to which activity of the CAB is accredited.
The other accepted uses for the accreditation symbol are on Publicity Materials and Websites (§8.2.2), Letterheads for commercial documents (§8.2.3) and Other uses (§8.2.4), which require approval by the NAB.
It is to be understood that where EA-3/01 refers to “accredited reports/certificates” it refers to the document or media used to communicate the accredited conformity assessment activity results.
So, in conclusion any report on intermediate outputs of a certification process (such as audit reports) are not accredited reports/certificates, neither a commercial or publicity material, and may induce confusion whether the CAB is accredited for other activities, activities which may also be covered by a different accreditation standard.
Therefore, it shall not be allowed.
- b) Where a negative decision is made by the CB, there will be no certificate issued. In such a case, the conformity assessment result is the certification decision, and it shall bear the accreditation symbol or an equivalent reference to accreditation.