In the global landscape, quality stands as the cornerstone that underpins the growth of trade and industry. However, the rapid commercialization of the quality accreditation and certification process is casting shadows of doubt on the integrity of quality itself. Accreditation and certification frameworks, once robust pillars of quality assurance, now find themselves in a precarious balance with commercial interests.
The essence of quality is at risk of being overshadowed by the relentless pursuit of revenue, a trend that has not escaped the eyes of any stakeholder within the industry, including ILAC and regional cooperatives. The commercialization has escalated to such a degree that the accreditation process is sometimes derided as mere ‘eye wash,’ a façade that conceals the need for substantial reform.
Alarmingly, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the commercial aspects of accreditation have bolstered the quality. On the contrary, I can attest to instances where the push for profit has led to a degradation of standards. This reality presents a paradox where those embedded within the accreditation profession may resist change that could shrink their business and, consequently, their revenue streams.
Despite this, one cannot overlook the professional growth that has stemmed from this environment. This growth is experienced by a broad spectrum of professionals from ILAC, regional cooperatives, accreditation bodies (AB), consultants, calibration labs, Certified Reference Material (CRM) manufacturers, and Proficiency Testing (PT) organizations. Yet, this very expansion mirrors the trajectory of the certification business, which has seen its own value diluted over time. Silence prevails, as dissent could jeopardize the vested interests of those whose professional advancement is tied to the current system.
The push for expansion is relentless, with ILAC and regional cooperatives like APAC, AFRAC, and others, aggressively promoting the growth of ABs across the globe. This expansion is not just for outreach—it’s a revenue generator. As the count of ABs and CABs surges, so does their income. There’s a concerted effort by these bodies to mandate accreditation for various trade and government organizations. This often leads laboratories, even those lacking the necessary infrastructure, to seek accreditation merely as a means of survival, managing somehow to fulfill the criteria.
Many ABs claim to operate as non-profit entities, yet the business conducted through them amounts to millions. While their books may not reflect profit-sharing among individuals or groups, profits are subtly redirected as benefits among the members of their networks. Notably, regional cooperation and ILAC are now even accepting applications from profit-oriented companies. Despite the apparent push for accreditation in international trade organizations, there seems to be a lack of rigorous control by bodies like ILAC or APAC over the quality of accreditation. Although non-conformances may be flagged during paper assessments, the reality of the on-ground application often reveals a system that operates merely for appearances.
The situation calls for a candid conversation and decisive action to rectify the trajectory of laboratory accreditation. Without this, the promise of quality in the realm of accreditation remains at stake.
About the Author
Dr. Sambhu Chakraborty is a distinguished consultant in quality accreditation for laboratories and hospitals. With a leadership portfolio that includes directorial roles in two laboratory organizations and a consulting firm, as well as chairmanship in a prominent laboratory organization, Dr. Chakraborty is a respected voice in the field. For further engagement or inquiries, Dr. Chakraborty can be contacted through email at director@iaqmconsultants.com and info@sambhuchakraborty.com. Additional resources and contact information are available on his websites, https://www.quality-pathshala.com and https://www.sambhuchakraborty.com, or via WhatsApp at +919830051583