ISEAL External Evaluation – Compliance

with ISO/IEC 17011 Summary Report

1. Overview and conclusions
This report summarises the ISEAL external evaluation of and subsequent corrective actions taken by the ISEAL
member Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI) against the International Standard ISO/IEC 17011: 2004
– ‘Conformity assessment – General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment
bodies.’
The evaluation took place in late May and early June of 2016 and the corrective measures defined, agreed and
implemented between then and now. The process was guided by procedures developed by the ISEAL Secretariat.
The evaluation was led by an ISEAL peer member - David Crucefix, Executive Director of International Organic
Accreditation Services. It was supported by an external evaluator - José Augusto Allão Kendall Pinto de Abreu,
Director of Sextante Consultoria.The audit was carried out through sampling of activities, documents, records and
personnel.
The audit included personnel operating in the ASI Head Office, as well as assessors and Accreditation Program
Managers working from other premises, and interviewed through remote means. Besides interviews, other
sources of evidence were ASI documentation (manuals, procedures and records, including the Salesforce system).
All ASI accreditation programmes were assessed, as well as all documented procedures. All the 17011:2004
requirements were evaluated – but the following exclusions apply: 7.4, 7.8.6j) 7.9.3, 7.9.5 b), c) and d) and 7.15.
The audit team concludes that overall, ASI conforms to 17011:2004, and its Quality Management System is
effectively implemented.
The accreditation process is generally sound. Various strengths were identified and are detailed in the following
sections of this report. Various non-conformities were however identified, as well as a few Observations. The
non-conformities are also detailed below.

2. Strengths and best practice

- Confidentiality (4.4): The necessary arrangements were in place.

- Liability and financing (4.5): ASI maintains appropriate insurance and is financially stable.
- Accreditation activity (4.6): ASI adequately describes its accreditation activities and consults interested
parties in the development of procedures and other relevant documents.
- Management – General (5.1.1-5.1.2): ASI has established and documented a management system in a
Quality Manual and linked policies, procedures, terms of reference and forms.
- Management - Document control (5.3): Document control procedures are in place and the on-site visit
confirmed this.
- Records (5.4): Procedures for record keeping are in place and the record system based on Salesforce is
comprehensive allowing access by appropriate personnel.
 - Preventive actions (5.6): ASI has procedures for identification and handling of preventive actions and
reviewing effectiveness of actions taken.
- Complaints (5.9): ASI complaints procedure is well handled in practice. All complaints were promptly,
comprehensively and transparently handled. ASI work closely with the complainant, the subject of the
complaint and agree a public summary of the complaint which is available on the ASI web site.
- Human Resources (6): ASI have a good system for ensuring competent personnel are assigned to
appropriate work and a positive attitude to personal development and training.
- Accreditation process - Accreditation criteria and information (7.1): ASI maintain good information and
description of the requirements and process of accreditation on their web site.
- Accreditation process -Resource review (7.3): The application format includes a section for ASI resource
review.
- Accreditation process -Subcontracting the assessment (7.4): ASI use contracted personnel for many CAB
assessments but do not sub-contract other bodies.
- Onsite assessment (7.7): ASI maintain a Handbook for Assessors to guide the on-site assessment. This
Handbook complies with ISO 17011.
- Decision-making and granting accreditation (7.9): Questioning and review process was seen to be
rigorous.
- Appeals (7.10): ASI maintain an appeals procedure. Procedures allows for 2 stages; internal review and
external review. The cases reviewed were diligently handled and recorded.
- Reassessment and surveillance (7.11): The sampling and surveillance procedure of ASI is comprehensive
and well implemented.
- Extending accreditation (7.12): ASI use a specific application form extension of scope and maintain a work
instruction for staff on implementation.
- Suspending, withdrawing or reducing accreditation (7.13): ASI have prescribed infringements and
sanctions which include suspension and withdrawal and maintain a work instruction on handling such
cases.
- The witnessed audit and assessor performance: The ASI assessor demonstrated excellent competency,
required for accreditation body personnel. The assessment was procedurally correct and the assessor
conducted the assessment in a skilful and impartial manner.

3. Non-conformities and resolution

3.2 Major non-conformities
Evaluation findings
Impartiality (4.3): ASI provides for impartiality through open consultation on key documents, oversight of the
Board, technical accreditation decision review by the AC, provision of a whistle-blower policy amongst others and
the evaluators acknowledged the rigour with which ASI handled complaints and appeals. However, the evaluation
found that ASI lacked a documented and implemented structure to provide for effective involvement by
interested parties and oversight of impartiality. NOTE: although interested parties were not identified and are
not present in the organisational structure, evaluators found no evidence of abuse of power with the ASI team.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

In response to the identified issue, ASI has:
• Issued a new public impartiality policy (ASI-POL-20-109) and accompanying Impartiality Management
Procedure (ASI-PRO-10-112).
 • Created an active Impartiality Committee to oversee the effective implementation and management of
the Impartiality Management Procedure with separate TOR’s (ASI-TOR-10-118). The Committee held its
first meeting on the 21st August 2017.
• Revised its Risk Management Procedure (ASI-PRO-10-114), issued a new Conflict of Interest Management
Procedure (ASI-PRO-10-113) and amended its Quality Manual accordingly.

Evaluation findings
Reference to accreditation and use of symbols (8.3.1): The ASI mark used by the CABs (as an accreditation symbol)
is the same as the ASI mark that identifies ASI itself i.e. the accreditation symbol does not indicate the activity.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• ASI reviewed the existing ASI trademark policy (ASI-POL-20-108) and included the differences between
accreditation body logo and symbol.
• ASI created an accreditation symbol and accompanying terminology “certification against voluntary
sustainability standards” as required by the norm.
• CABs were informed about the changes that require them to use the new symbol to identify their
accredited status on the 10th August 2017.
• All certificates have been re-issued and now refer to the activity as indicated above; the opportunity was
further taken to include additional information on standards that CAB’s are accredited against by ASI and
that they can certify against.

3.3 Minor non-conformities

Evaluation findings
Related bodies (4.3.7) ASI related bodies policy required the MD to perform an annual review of risk raised by
such relationships and report to the Board. There was no record of the ASI Board being involved in this process.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• Analysis of ASI’s related bodies was presented to the ASI BOD on 9th July 2017 and shall be presented on
an annual basis in future.

Evaluation findings
Quality policy (5.2.1): ASI did not define and document measurable objectives related with the quality policy.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• ASI extended across the entire company Quality KPIs that were already established for some operational
programs. The outcomes against the measurable objectives in 2016 have been reviewed and minuted
across multiple Management Review meetings in 2017 with Critical Quality Indicators being scrutinised
more closely.

Evaluation findings
Records (5.4): ASI´s procedures for identification, collection, indexing, accessing, filing storage, maintenance and
disposal of its records did not cover all relevant records, referring only to ¨main records¨.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

ASI revised its internal Document and Record Control procedure (ASI-PRO-10-103) and clarified detailed
responsibilities for record management as well as covered other activities that were missing for record
management. Evaluation findings
Nonconformities and corrective actions (5.5): Although the ASI quality system acknowledged the difference
between corrections and corrective actions, the two were sometimes confused in practice making it difficult to
determine whether appropriate measures were implemented.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• ASI amended internal (System Improvement) and external procedures (Assessment Finding) to include
the definition for correction as per ISO 9001:2015. The internal procedure was approved on 4th November
2016 and the external procedure was subject to public consultation and published on the 6th February
2017.
• Training was provided to ASI Assessors at the beginning of 2017 on the new terminology and expectations
and information has been provided to CAB’s.
• Analysis of how implementation is working will be conducted, as well as ongoing training.

Evaluation findings
Internal audits (5.7): Actions related with the findings of internal audits were not always taken in a timely manner.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• Timeliness in defining Root Cause Analysis and Corrections and Corrective Actions and timeliness in closing
findings have been defined as KPIs for the Quality Management review. Trend analysis is now being
conducted and highlighted to the management team each semester.

Evaluation findings
Management review (5.8.2): The procedure for management review did not include: i) Feedback from defined
interested parties, just a set of them; ii) Fulfilment of the objectives (related with the quality policy); iii) as output
defining or redefining goals and objectives related with the quality policy.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• The procedure has been changed to include the missing inputs and was approved on the 4th November
2016. Review of the missing inputs are now analysed in Management Reviews.

Evaluation findings
Accreditation Process (7.2): The application form did not require i) details of human and technical resources; ii)
details of relationships within a larger corporate entity.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• The Application Form has been modified and the missing information was added.

Evaluation findings
Document and record review (7.6): The MSC/ASC scheme did not document a full review of all relevant CB
documents to determine conformity with relevant standards and accreditation procedures.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

Checklist were created for the aquatics program to ensure that ASI completes a full review of all relevant CB
documents to determine conformity with relevant standards requirements. Records are made of all
requirements that were assessed as well as notes from that assessment.

Evaluation findings
Onsite assessment (7.7.2): The ASI assessor did not raise a non-conformity on the CAB regarding incomplete
inputs to the CB management review as required.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

ASI´s strengthened its management review processes and improved on the way that inputs and outputs are
recorded. They have also increased the inputs considered, the number of management reviews per year, and
included all managers in the “top management” to carry out the management review.
ASI has ensured that the relevant scheme checklists used during assessments clearly articulate Management
Review (MR) requirements as necessary. (This is a common requirement for main schemes: RSPO, FSC*, MSC/ASC,
RSB, GSTC). Although of particular importance for initial assessments and re-accreditation. Training has also be
provided on the topic.

Evaluation findings
Decision-making and granting accreditation (7.9.4): The ASI certificate format did not indicate the
standards/normative documents to which the products were certified and all premises from which key activities
take place were not indicated.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• Certificates have been modified, and now include an annex with a field indicating “standards to which
CAB is accredited: full standard reference“. This annex will be further modified towards the end of 2017
to include all premises from which key activities take place.

Evaluation findings
Reassessment and surveillance (7.11.5): ASI’s own deadlines for resolution of major (3 months) and minor (12
months) NCs issued to CABs were not always respected. It was noted that this has been identified as an issue in
ASI’s internal audit.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

A NC handling mechanism was developed and initially introduced to the FSC, ASC and MSC schemes. This process
reduced the number of NC’s open outside of their deadlines to an acceptable level and it has now been
successfully implemented across all schemes.
A NC handler position was also established. The responsibilities are related to monitoring timelines, sending
reminders to CABs and assessors, and managing findings which have no assessor response (allocating to other
assessors, recommending suspension of assessor activities, etc.)

Evaluation findings
Responsibilities of the accreditation body and the CAB (8.2.1.b). Though certificates indicated date of expiry the
information made public on the web site did not.

Implemented and evidenced resolution

• The webpage has been amended and the following statement has been added to the section where details
on CABs accreditation is presented: “ASI accreditation is valid for five years. The expiration date falls five
years after the date of current accreditation, listed for each Conformity Assessment Body below”.