This is about the business of certifying companies based on ISO9001-like standards. That business always seemed to be strange to me. Now I know, that it is strange. It is tailored to the needs of the players in the certification business and not to the needs of the end users. I experienced myself that even the German accreditation authority tolerates sloppy audits. People who want to change that have to cope with quite some trouble.

Regarding the Proliferation of Online Defamation

In recent months, there has been a troubling, nearly “viral” spread of misinformation and defamatory claims made against Oxebridge and its staff. This includes a series of… well, insane posts on Ripoff Report, a site which then requests thousands of dollars to have them redacted. All the defamatory material is being published by ISO certification industry players who are frustrated with Oxebridge’s reform efforts. There is no surprise as to why this is happening.
Oxebridge is currently under a US Federal court order not to discuss issues pertaining to ongoing litigation in this area. Unfortunately, the publishers of such material are currently not restricted in this manner, and thus their misinformation is spreading while we cannot publicly rebut it. We are working with the Court on a means of allowing us to address the false claims while respecting other parties in the litigation and not, accidentally, defaming anyone else in the process. The court has a balance to strike, and we are hopeful we can help them find the right balance.
If you are reading anything about any litigation regarding Oxebridge, it is likely utterly false, since the parties themselves are currently prohibited from speaking about it. This includes any alleged posts of “court documents” published online by anonymous trolls.
For now, we ask that Oxebridge clients, supporters, readers and the public consider facts over any unfounded and anonymous rumors they may find on the internet:

  • Oxebridge is working to reform the certification scheme so that auditors may not simultaneously consult, thereby avoiding an Enron-style scandal within the quality assurance field. This upsets CBs and their auditors, who want to conduct both services with impunity, thus doubling their revenue streams.
  • Oxebridge is working to put the unaccredited “certificate mills” out of business entirely, so they will be forced to stop issuing “certs by mail” to any organization willing to pay a few hundred dollars. Obviously, the mill operators are upset with this.
  • Oxebridge is releasing free documentation kits to help companies adopt the new ISO 9001:2015 standard, which Oxebridge feels was updated unnecessarily. Both ISO and competing consultants are upset with this, as it cuts into their cynical profiteering.
  • Oxebridge is fighting the standards development bodies to ensure greater representation of ISO 9001 user organizations, and to limit the ability of private consultants from using their roles in such committees to enrich their private consulting practices. ISO, ANSI, and ASQ are upset with this, as it foils their publishing deals and high-priced seminars.
  • Oxebridge is positioning itself to testify before the US Congress on the scandals within the ISO certification scheme, and how they link to deadly disasters such as DeepWater Horizon and Takata airbag deaths. ISO and ANSI are upset with this, as it means they will be formally investigated.

While all of these efforts hope to benefit you, the user of ISO standards, obviously this puts us in the cross-hairs of the industry incumbents. For now, due to the court order, we cannot publicly rebut the critics and trolls. That is changing, however. Oxebridge is pursuing subpoenas to identify anonymous posters of defamatory information and engaging law enforcement when the activities violate the law. We are working with the court to be able to clearly and unequivocally debunk the false claims being made.
In the meantime, if you want to show your support of Oxebridge, consider a donation to the ISO 9001 Users Legal Defense Fund. The funds will go towards helping Oxebridge pursue legal challenges to the incumbents, and break their stranglehold over the end users of ISO 9001. Also, when you see negative online commentary about Oxebridge, be sure to let the posters know you’re not happy about it.
Have patience, and thank you.
Christopher Paris
Oxebridge Quality Resources International LLC

US TAG boasted internally that 9001:2015 will be the “Biggest Boon for Consultants Ever”

I am not in the standards business, but I am affected by standards, especially BS OHSAS 18001 and later ISO 45001. Initially I was naive an thought that standards are made to help many people. But could it be possible, that consultants influence standardization mainly to create business for consultants? That still could be a naive question 🙂
From an email from Oxebridge (spicy as usual):

[…] ISO 9001:2015 is a flawed product. It’s rife with confusing, feel-good platitudes, and light on actual requirements. It invents new concepts from thin air, and has abandoned the idea of standardizing established, mature Quality Management principles. It’s literally been called a “boon for consultants” by the very consultants that wrote it, giving you an insight into why they made it so incredibly frustrating. After all, now you have to hire them to decipher it. […]

OH&S management systems should help to protect the health of employees. If Oxebridge (not to be confused with Oxbridge) is right and if a “strength” of the coming ISO 45001 should be, that it has a concept like ISO 9001, that may be bad news for employees. Could ISO 45001 be “light on actual requirements” too and just convey feel-good statements which – if they are no requirements – don’t really help employees?

The Myth of the Integrated Management System


by Christopher Paris | Apr 22, 2014 | Opinion |
Our profession is awash with myths, told by dubious people with overt agendas and gobbled up by an unsuspecting public. The problem with myths is they usually come from cultures in decline, while progress is driven by fact and practicality. Ask the Mesopotamians how that whole Marduk thing worked out; you’ll have to dig in the ruins of Babylon to find out, since it doesn’t exist anymore.
Within the ISO standards world, we are constantly confronted with the notion of the “integrated management system” or IMS. Like the mythical griffin, Quetzalcoatl or Ancient Psychic Tandem War Elephant, the IMS is an amalgam of existing creatures, all glued together and presented as if the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It supposes that companies opt to weld their qualty, environmental and safety management systems into one bulging mass, using ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 to do so. The most recent versions of the myth decorate the resulting amalgam with nurnies of ISO 22000, ISO 27001 and an assortment of other standards. […]

[…] Now it is through the Annex SL mandate, affecting all ISO management system standards from here to eternity.
ISO itself has begun to self-perpetuate the myth, going so far as to incorporate it into the New Work Item Proposal for the future ISO 45001 standard, which is set to replace the OHSAS 18000 standard (which is not an ISO standard.) That document drops the “i-word” a few dozen times.[]

I couldn’t stop drawing your attention to this.
See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=”Annex+SL”+”ISO+45001″

ISO 45001 would not be used for OHS system certification?


[…] One of the promises for ISO 45001 was that it would not be used for OHS system certification. No one in their right mind believes for a second that BSI will surrender all that OHSAS 18001 assessment lucre, so ISO 45001 will definitely be used for certification purposes. Should be interesting to watch ILO’s reaction as ISO and BSI once again spit in their soup. Expect their outrage to be violently displayed in a … tersely worded internal email.

Surely, ISO 45001 draws controversy.
I was missing the spice in this standardization business. Here it is:

Fan Mail
The advocacy work by Oxebridge puts us in the crosshairs of charlatans, scammers, certification bodies, accreditation bodies, standards developers and even ISO itself. But it’s not all bad, and the work — along with our often nutty and hilarious spin on things — garners tremendous support and praise from the people who matter: standards users, clients and supporters of fair play. […]


“Certificate Mills” ist anscheinend ein vorwiegend von einem amerikanischen Grantler verwendeter Begriff für nichtakkreditierte Zertifizierungsgesellschaften, aber für alle Fälle merke ich mir diese wohl von “Diploma Mills” inspirierte Sprachschöpfung. (Die kommt zu “Badge on the Wall” dazu.) Denn ich kenne in Deutschland akkreditierte Zertifizierer, die nachlässig auditieren. Solange die Betriebsräte noch nicht aufgewacht sind, wird es nachlässige Audits geben.
Das liegt an der Struktur des derzeitigen Zertifizierungs- und Auditgeschäftes: Gerade bei Audits von Arbeitsschutzmanagementsystemen, die die Arbeitnehmer schützen sollen, sind die Arbeitnehmer selbst in der Praxis kaum an der Kontrolle beteiligt. Ihnen fehlt dazu in der Regel auch das erforderliche Wissen: Sie wissen oft sogar nicht, was ihnen hier an Wissen fehlt, weil sie die Wichtigkeit ihrer Mitbeteiligung an Audits nicht verstehen. Und so können Auditoren und Auditierte ohnen kritische Fragen eine harmonische Zusammenarbeit pflegen.