What is a standard?

ISO defines a standard as:  A document established by consensus and approved by a recognized body that provides for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.  (from ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996, definition 3.2)

While this is a good technical definition it does not cover all of the key points that are important. There are a few things that I would add.

First of all a standard should be written for the user, that is it should clearly describe what someone who is going to use the standard needs to do in order to conform to it.  

Writing a clear document can be best done when you know for whom you are writing and when you write to that audience.  A scientific paper written for a journal is written for an audience of scientists not politicians.  A policy brief can be written for politicians but would not contain the detail or extended explanation of the research methodology that scientists need.

A standard should include clear statements for each requirement of:

• what must be achieved,
• how it is measured and
• the level of that measure that must be met.

This clarity is important for two reasons:  1) the user can understand what is expected and 2) when audits take place in many locations by different auditors we know that the same specified requirements are being examined.

For the user's sake the standard should include everything that the user needs to do and nothing more.

A standard that says, for example, that 'logging shall not be done on stream banks' sounds like a good idea but this language is unclear and the user will not know what that means in each case.  For example should the distance from the stream be 1m, 5m, 25m or more?  Does this distance apply to every class and type of stream? Does this apply to rivers?  Where do you measure the stream bank from, is it the high water mark, where the water is on the day the auditor arrives or some other point? Should the cut-bank of a stream be treated the same as all other banks? Does the steepness of the stream bank matter? Does this apply to a watercourse that is seasonal?

A standard should be written in language that is easily understood by users.  For example, a standard for cryptography will most likely be written in highly technical language of the sort that mathematicians will understand but us mere mortals will not be able to follow. While a standard for growing tomatoes will use terminology that is known to farmers and farm managers and may not make much sense to mathematicians (except for the small subset of mathematician-farmers out there).

Finally, a standard should not include requirements that apply to others, including the auditor.  Instructions to the auditor about how to conduct an audit should be in a separate document written just for auditors.

Be useful...

The best schemes benefit everyone.

Some of those who get the idea to create a new social or environmental certification scheme may want to develop a system to benefit the environment, workers or the community at the expense of the companies that are subject to certification audits.  It is easy to get into this mindset; there is a problem and you want to solve it.  Companies are polluting so your scheme is designed to prevent pollution - companies that pollute cannot be certified.

This approach can make companies feel that they are the target of the scheme and not a client, stakeholder or partner in making the world a better place.  As a result they may feel that they are being used for the benefit of others or worse, that they are the patsy - being used to pay the cost and never gaining the benefit of being part of the project.

One way to get around this to design a scheme that benefits all the users, supporters and those whose business you hope will come to depend on your scheme.  It is never wrong to say that my scheme will reduce pollution - but what are the reasons that anyone in the value chain from the primary producers to the final user (or even a recycler) would participate?  Why would a retailer sell a certified product?  Why would an environmental organization support the sale of certified products?  What would motivate workers to support the scheme?  Local community leaders? etc...

Think through your value chain and find partners in each link. Invite them into your process and find out what you can do to make their lives, business, community or environment better.  Yes, every scheme will have elements that cost - the costs become acceptable when the benefits outweigh the costs.  Consumers will pay more for organic baby food because they feel it is worth it for the heath of their babies. A company will pay more for organic apples because their customers want organic applesauce for their babies. A farmer will go through the cost and inconvenience to be certified organic in order to sell to the baby food manufacturer.  Some or all of the players in the value chain may passionately believe in the benefits of organic food, some may just see economic benefit.

Most schemes consider benefits in the supply chain such as increased market access, larger market share, access to long term contracts, and occasionally a premium price for the product.

There are other benefits that can be considered including using your scheme as a way to better manage risk (e.g. food safety certification or making sure that child labour is not used to make the clothes that I sell...) 

Really inventive creators of a scheme may be able to think of more ways this scheme can improve productivity, reduce costs, enhance quality, improve the environment, improve working conditions, etc...   If the scheme adds value (regardless of the cost) throughout the value chain then companies will line up to join and your original goal can be achieved with the enthusiastic support of industry, service providers, retailers, consumers, workers, communities and advocacy organizations....and if you are really luck governments will not get in your way. 

Conformity vs. Compliance

In the world of standards, the term conformity is use rather than compliance. This is to distinguish between requirements set by governments that are legal or regulatory requirements that are to be 'complied with' and voluntary elements set out in standards that are to be 'conformed with'.

While this distinction may seem trivial at first blush it is important to note that there are some fundamental differences in how these two processes work. Failure to comply with the law can result in penalties while failure to conform with a standard means that certification may not be granted, or if it has been granted may be suspended or withdrawn. Conformity is a voluntary act while compliance is imposed.

More importantly from the perspective of those creating a standard, these two processes begin with two different attitudes.

Legal enforcement processes (compliance) normally are undertaken with the express purpose of uncovering noncompliance, that is why police in most countries are allowed to lie when interrogating a suspect; their goal is to find out what you have done that is against the law.  They have no responsibility to help you demonstrate your innocence.

In the case of conformity assessment the process begins with the assumption that the client is in conformity with the standard and the job of the auditor and the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) is to evaluate the client's evidence to determine whether or not their belief that they are in conformity is correct.

It is not uncommon for inexperienced participants in a new standards writing initiative to model their standard after regulations or legislation.  

Government enforcement agents conduct investigations and in that process they search for new information.  

Auditors evaluate the available evidence and determine where there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate conformity.  When a non-conformity is discovered they do not start an investigation, rather they point out the non-conformity and ask that it be resolved.  If the non-conformity is serious it may be decided that the client will not be certified, or if already certified swift action to demonstrate conformity may be sought  or a certificate may be suspended or withdrawn.

For the standard writer, work to keep in mind how audits are conducted and how audit evidence is evaluated and what a non-conformity means.

Types of schemes

So, now that you have a good idea for a new certification scheme, standard or consumer label.  My next question is what type of scheme do you want to create.

So to help get your brain working I have listed a range of types of schemes that have been used by other folks.  The test is to figure out what you are tying to do with your idea and then select the type of scheme that you can use - or better yet create a new idea that steals from several of these...

Bench-marking schemes

This approach is designed to compare a number of schemes that are out there.  There are a number of ways that this can be done.  The most common approach is to design a set of criteria and then evaluate other schemes to see how measure up against them.  In the these systems the goal is to establish which schemes meet the benchmarks.  

The schemes that are recognized as meeting the criteria can use that recognition to gain market acceptance.  

EXAMPLES:  GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative), GSTC (Global Sustainable Tourism Council)

Product standard

In some ways this approach is one that is the most well understood by producers and consumers.  In it the scheme is designed around the performance of the product and not by how it is produced, the sources of the materials, the treatment of workers or any other factor that is not inherent in the product.  

Product standards may apply to one or several characteristics of the product.  For example a standard may focus on the energy efficiency of a window but not on its durability, how breakable the glass is, or whether or not it may fall out of its frame.  

Many products are produced to conform to more than one product standard.  Just look a the AC adapter for your laptop or the bottom of your coffee maker and you will likely see several certification marks.

Standards that focus on one or a set of related characteristics can be very useful, they also allow the producer, retailer or consumer to select the ones that are relevant for the product.

In the case of upholstered furniture you may want them to be certified for fire resistance but only those that have an electric motor in them may need an additional certification for electrical safety.

EXAMPLES: Look at the back of your computer or power brick for lots of product certification marks.

Management System Standard

These standards are a relatively new phenomenon in the standards world.  The first of these standards appeared in the 1970's.  Over time the benchmark ISO 9000 family of standards appeared in the 1980's.

Management systems standards describe the structure and function of the policies, procedures and practices for the management of an organization.  These standards do not include any performance minimums beyond those set for the management system.  

The point of management system standards is for the organization itself to set its own performance objectives (quality, environment, social responsibility) and to use the system to achieve them.

EXAMPLES:  ISO 9001 Quality Management Standards; ISO 14001 Environmental Management System Standards

Process or Production Methodology Standard

These standards focus on how something is done rather than the management system or the specific characteristics of the product or service.   As a result, these standards focus on areas like worker rights, the treatment of animals or how resources are extracted.  

In these cases it is not possible to determine the difference between a conforming product from one that does not conform by objective tests applied to the final product.  When subjected to laboratory tests a salmon filet from an MSC certified fishery would perform exactly as one from a fishery that is not certified.

The goal of these systems are to change the systems of production to have less impact on the society, environment or culture where the production is occurring.

EXAMPLES: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

Value Chain or Chain of Custody Standard

These standards are used in two ways.  First, they are commonly used to support Product Standards and Process or Production Methodology Standards to ensure that the certified product sold is actually the product that was produced.  This way the client who purchases a prescription can be assured that the medication purchased is the same physical item that the manufacturer produced.

They can also be used to provide assurance to consumers about all of the participants in the value chain.  While first approach seeks to assure consumers of the source of the product sold the second seeks to assure the consumer about the performance through the value chain.  

EXAMPLES:  For the first approach the chain of custody systems of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). For the second approach the Responsible Jewelry Council (RJC)

Drawing on Other Standards

The last of the types I will describe are those that are built on a combination of other systems' standards and certifications.  These are usually used for large and complex projects or products.

One of the best examples of this approach is the LEED system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).  This system is designed to for the design, construction and life cycle of buildings.  Because there are so many parts to a building the LEED system specifies that products or services must be certified to specific systems.  This way the LEED system can draw on the experience and expertise of other schemes for complex areas such as responsible forest management for the wood used or energy efficiency of the lighting systems.

EXAMPLE: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

When is it a good idea to start a certification program?

If you read much about certification you will find a lot of criticism of social and environmental schemes, logos and claims.  Among these writers you will find that they represent a variety of opinions about the issues, many of which (in my opinion) are wrong.  These include groups and individuals that hold some of the following positions:

• Certification is a scam that is designed to extort money from companies.
• Certification is part of a larger plot to undermine free trade, capitalism or the like.
• Certification is undermining the authority of national governments to run their countries.
• There are too many certification programs and they are confusing the consumer.
• There should be more regulation of certification by governments.
• Competing certification programs should not be allowed.

All of these positions miss the point.  Certification programs live or die in the market.  If there is a demand, then the program survives. If there is no demand and no one gets certified then the program will go out of business.  

There is no single authority that decides whether or not a certification program can exist.  Successful certification programs have been started by companies, industry associations, government agencies, not-for profit organisations, activist organisations, charities, religious organisations and individuals.  Some serve global markets and products worth trillions of dollars/euros carry their certifications while others are small serving local or very specialized needs.

Some certifications programs are designed to reach consumers while others serve a business-to-business market.

There is no one size fits all approach to certification, nor should there be.

At its base, the principle issue in determining whether or not a new certification program is a good idea is whether or not is serves a need and if players in the field will step up and get certified.

If you are thinking about creating a new certification program I recommend that you start by asking the following questions:

1. Is there a need for this certification program?
2. Why would anyone want to be certified?
3. Can the program generate enough money to keep going?

If you have good answers to these questions then you have an idea that may be worth exploring further.

Welcome to The Kitbag: Certification for the 21st Century

The purpose of this website is to provide information about the systems, operations and requirements necessary for the operation of a social and/or environmental certification scheme.

This website is about the ‘stuff under the hood’ in certification, that is to say the elements of certification that make it work and allow you, the expert on a key issue area to turn your (and your organization’s) detailed knowledge of an issue into a certification system.

I am not an expert in forestry, fisheries, tourism, materials design, worker rights, or any other area to which you may wish to apply certification but I have worked on systems to certify for these things. My expertise is in how certification systems work and in helping issue experts create certification schemes that can transform markets, change peoples lives and safeguard the planet.

The real goal of any certification scheme is to power change by allowing business, governments and consumers to identify, specify and use processes, products and production methodologies that meet their needs and support their (and their customer's) values. The better built that a scheme is, the better the chance there is to make change happen.

The material in this website is not necessarily easy to accomplish and really serious folks will need professional help to get a new scheme up and running or to make changes in an existing one. It is my hope that this website will be a primer to provide the basics and help those who are considering the creation of a certification scheme by exploring a wide range of aspects in standards, certification and labelling systems.