ISO 14001 Standards Certification

ISO 14001 Standards Certification

ISO 14001 sets out a system that can be audited and certified. In many cases, it is the issue of certification that is critical or controversial and is at the heart of the discussion about the trade implications.

Certification means that a qualified body (an “accredited certifier”) has inspected the EMS system that has been put in place and has made a formal declaration that the system is consistent with the requirements of ISO 14001.

The standard allows for “self-certification,” a declaration by an enterprise that it conforms to ISO 14001. There is considerable skepticism as to whether this approach would be widely accepted, especially when certification has legal or commercial consequences. At the same time, obtaining certification can entail significant costs, and there are issues relating to the international acceptance

of national certification that may make it particularly difficult for companies in some countries to achieve credible certification at a reasonable cost. For firms concerned about having certification that carries real credibility, the costs of bringing in international auditors are typically quite high, partly because the number of internationally recognized firms of certifiers is limited at present.2

The issue of accreditation of certifiers is becoming increasingly important as the demand increases.

Countries that have adopted ISO 14001 as a national standard can accredit qualified companies as certifiers, and this will satisfy national legal or contractual requirements. However, the fundamental purpose of ISO is to achieve consistency internationally. If certificates from certain countries or agencies are not fully accepted or are regarded as “second class,” the goal will not have been achieved. It is probable that the international marketplace will eventually put a

real commercial value on high-quality certificates, but this level of sophistication and discrimination has not yet been achieved. It is essential to the ultimate success of the whole system that there be a mechanism to ensure that certification in any one country has credibility and acceptability elsewhere.

The ISO has outlined procedures for accreditation and certification (Guides 61 and 62), and a formal body, QSAR, has been established to operationalize the process. At the same time, a number of established national accreditation bodies

heavily involved in ISO have set up the informal International Accreditation Forum (IAF) to examine mechanisms for achieving international reciprocity through multilateral agreements (MLAs). However, these systems are in the early

stages, and many enterprises continue to use the established international certifiers, even at additional cost, because of lack of confidence in the acceptability of local certifiers.

Given the variability in the design of individual EMS and the substantial costs of the ISO 14000 certification process, there is a growing tendency for large companies that are implementing EMS approaches to pause before taking this

last step. After implementing an EMS and confirming that the enterprise is broadly in conformance with ISO 14001, it is becoming routine to carry out a “gap analysis” to determine exactly what further actions would be required to achieve

certification and to examine the benefits and costs of bringing in third-party certifiers.

ISO 14001 Standards Certification

ISO 14001 Standards sets out a system that can be audited and certified. In many cases, it is the issue of certification that is critical or controversial and is at the heart of the discussion about the trade implications.

Certification means that a qualified body (an “accredited certifier”) has inspected the EMS system that has been put in place and has made a formal declaration that the system is consistent with the requirements of ISO 14001 Standards.

The standard allows for “self-certification,” a declaration by an enterprise that it conforms to ISO 14001 Standards. There is considerable skepticism as to whether this approach would be widely accepted, especially when certification has legal or commercial consequences. At the same time, obtaining certification can entail significant costs, and there are issues relating to the international acceptance

of national certification that may make it particularly difficult for companies in some countries to achieve credible certification at a reasonable cost. For firms concerned about having certification that carries real credibility, the costs of bringing in international auditors are typically quite high, partly because the number of internationally recognized firms of certifiers is limited at present.2

The issue of accreditation of certifiers is becoming increasingly important as the demand increases.

Countries that have adopted ISO 14001 Standards as a national standard can accredit qualified companies as certifiers, and this will satisfy national legal or contractual requirements. However, the fundamental purpose of ISO is to achieve consistency internationally. If certificates from certain countries or agencies are not fully accepted or are regarded as “second class,” the goal will not have been achieved. It is probable that the international marketplace will eventually put a

real commercial value on high-quality certificates, but this level of sophistication and discrimination has not yet been achieved. It is essential to the ultimate success of the whole system that there be a mechanism to ensure that certification in any one country has credibility and acceptability elsewhere.

The ISO has outlined procedures for accreditation and certification (Guides 61 and 62), and a formal body, QSAR, has been established to operationalize the process. At the same time, a number of established national accreditation bodies

heavily involved in ISO have set up the informal International Accreditation Forum (IAF) to examine mechanisms for achieving international reciprocity through multilateral agreements (MLAs). However, these systems are in the early

stages, and many enterprises continue to use the established international certifiers, even at additional cost, because of lack of confidence in the acceptability of local certifiers.

Given the variability in the design of individual EMS and the substantial costs of the ISO 14000 certification process, there is a growing tendency for large companies that are implementing EMS approaches to pause before taking this

last step. After implementing an EMS and confirming that the enterprise is broadly in conformance withISO 14001 Standards, it is becoming routine to carry out a “gap analysis” to determine exactly what further actions would be required to achieve

certification and to examine the benefits and costs of bringing in third-party certifiers.