1. The Beginning of a Dangerous Shift
Accreditation was originally designed to ensure public trust, technical competence, and transparency in conformity assessment. Under the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC MRA), it was once clearly established that no accreditation body (AB) would enter another MRA partner’s country unless the host nation lacked an AB in that scope or did not have the resources to perform the function.
However, this principle has now been conveniently ignored. Accreditation bodies are crossing borders freely, establishing operations and granting accreditations in economies where competent local ABs already exist. This practice violates the cross-border policy and has turned the global accreditation ecosystem into a competitive marketplace rather than a cooperative quality framework.
2. Commercialization of Accreditation: The Shift Towards Profitability
The fundamental purpose of accreditation — to assure competence and consistency — has been replaced by a profit-driven mindset. Accreditation bodies now operate as commercial enterprises, competing for clients rather than upholding standards.
This shift has serious implications:
- Accreditation has become a business transaction, not a quality validation.
- Standards are diluted to increase client numbers.
- Healthcare and testing organizations receive certificates that are financially earned, not technically deserved.
The transformation of ABs into revenue-generating entities has created a system where quality takes a backseat to profitability.
3. Responsibility vs. Revenue: The Conflict Within Accreditation Bodies
Accreditation bodies are facing an ethical dilemma. On one hand, they are tasked with safeguarding impartiality and integrity; on the other, they must meet financial targets and sustain operations.
This internal conflict often leads to:
- Relaxation of audit criteria to retain clients.
- Pressure on assessors to issue favorable reports.
- A culture of “minimum compliance” rather than “best practice.”
The result is the gradual erosion of trust — both within the industry and among the public.
4. Profit Over Principle: Liberal Issuance of Accreditations
To attract customers, ABs frequently offer competitive quotations and accelerated assessment schemes, undermining their impartiality. When accreditation becomes an easily purchasable certificate, its credibility is destroyed.
Healthcare and laboratory accreditations that once symbolized safety and reliability are now mass-produced certificates, often granted to institutions that fail to meet even basic compliance criteria.
5. Unethical Alliances and Indirect Consultancy: The Hidden Conflict
An even deeper concern is emerging in the form of unethical alliances between some accreditation bodies and consultants.
Several ABs, directly or indirectly, are engaging in consultancy-related activities — a clear violation of impartiality principles. In some cases, they offer incentives or kickbacks to consultants who bring them clients, effectively turning the accreditation process into a commission-based business model.
Others are seen sending open mail campaigns inviting consultants and laboratories to “bring support” or “refer clients,” promising faster or easier accreditation processing. Such practices not only compromise independence but also blur the ethical boundaries between accreditation and consultancy.
This behavior undermines the foundational principle of impartiality and creates a cartel-like ecosystem, where consultants act as business agents for accreditation boards rather than independent advisors for quality improvement.
As a result:
- Consultants are incentivized to prioritize business links over quality outcomes.
- ABs gain clients through indirect solicitation rather than competence-based recognition.
- End users — laboratories, hospitals, and industries — are misled into believing they are earning merit-based accreditation, when in reality, they are victims of a commercial exchange.
Such practices represent the most dangerous form of conflict of interest, as they silently erode public confidence in the entire accreditation system.
6. Cost Cutting at the Cost of Quality
In the race to remain “price competitive,” many ABs have slashed assessment costs, directly affecting audit quality:
- Reduced assessment duration, limiting the depth of evaluation.
- Employment of underqualified assessors, compromising audit competence.
- Superficial document reviews in place of rigorous on-site inspections.
- Infrequent surveillance, leaving non-conformities unchecked.
The cost-cutting strategy has replaced value-based auditing with budget auditing, where price takes precedence over quality.
7. IAF–ILAC Merger: A Warning for the Future
The recent IAF–ILAC merger was intended to harmonize standards and streamline governance. In reality, it risks further devaluing accreditation integrity.
The IAF model already faces heavy criticism for turning certification into a commercial tool, and ILAC’s integration could accelerate this decline.
Instead of strengthening impartial oversight, this merger may:
- Merge commercial and conformity assessment under a single roof.
- Create conflicts of interest between profit-making and standard enforcement.
- Transform accreditation into a global sales network rather than a quality assurance framework.
8. The Financial Paradox of ‘Non-Profit’ Accreditation Bodies
Most ABs claim “non-profit” status, yet they generate millions in revenue annually through accreditation fees, assessor training, and renewals.
This “non-profit” label masks a deeper financial paradox — while profits aren’t formally declared, they are recycled through internal bonuses, travel programs, and conferences, benefitting insiders rather than the quality ecosystem.
9. Fabricated Compliance: The Rise of Paper Accreditation
In many cases, accreditation audits are reduced to paper compliance exercises. Assessors merely review documents without verifying practical implementation.
This “audit-by-document” approach means that hospitals, laboratories, and certification bodies look compliant on paper while failing to meet real-world standards.
The outcome:
A growing gap between documented quality and delivered quality.
10. Regional Cooperation’s Decline and ILAC’s Silence
Regional cooperation bodies such as APAC, AFRAC, EA, and IAAC — once the watchdogs of global accreditation — have become silent spectators.
Their primary focus now seems to be on membership growth, conference organization, and revenue collection rather than enforcing compliance.
The silence of ILAC on the unchecked privatization and cross-border encroachment by ABs raises serious doubts about its commitment to safeguarding accreditation integrity.
11. The Profit-Driven Market Manipulation
Accreditation decisions are increasingly influenced by financial incentives. Some ABs offer discounts, kickbacks, or special “packages” to attract clients.
This commercial manipulation:
- Compromises impartiality.
- Encourages “buyable” accreditations.
- Creates unfair competition among CABs and honest ABs.
Accreditation — once a mark of trust — has become a negotiable commodity.
12. The Erosion of Auditor Competence
Under financial pressure, ABs are employing low-cost freelance auditors without proper training or technical expertise. These assessors conduct superficial reviews, overlook critical deficiencies, and lack the experience to identify high-risk issues.
This erosion of auditor competence undermines the credibility of the entire accreditation process and poses real risks to consumer safety and public trust.
13. The Urgency of Reform: Who Will Bell the Cat?
The global accreditation ecosystem is in dire need of reform and rebalancing.
The unchecked commercialization and privatization of accreditation have created a system that prioritizes profit over principle.
To restore integrity:
- Restrict cross-border operations to the original ILAC MRA intent.
- Reinstate a single national AB model in each country.
- Separate commercial activities (training, consulting) from accreditation functions.
- Enhance transparency through global publication of accreditation statistics and feedback.
- Rebuild assessor competence through independent oversight.
14. Conclusion: A Call for Courage and Accountability
Accreditation was meant to be a public safeguard, not a commercial enterprise. But with growing privatization, competition, and political silence, its foundation is cracking.
The question remains — who will bell the cat?
Unless ILAC, IAF, and their regional bodies act with courage and restore ethical governance, accreditation will lose its credibility, becoming just another market product — a certificate without confidence.
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 chairman of International Organization of Laboratories ( An ILAC stakeholder organisation), Dr. Chakraborty is a respected voice in the field. For further engagement or inquiries, Dr. Chakraborty can be contacted through email at info@sambhuchakraborty.com and contact information are available on his websites,https://www.quality-pathshala.com and https://www.sambhuchakraborty.com , or via WhatsApp at +919830051583