In the world of accreditation, impartiality is everything. Without it, the credibility of any conformity assessment body (CAB), whether a testing or calibration laboratory, inspection agency, or certification body, quickly unravels. Yet, as PJLA’s Technical & International Business Development Manager Dr. George Anastasopoulos has observed through years of accreditation assessments, many CABs still treat impartiality as a simple compliance box to check rather than a living, breathing part of their management system.
In his recent article, “Impartiality Under the Microscope: Understanding and Managing Risks in Conformity Assessment Bodies Accreditation,” Dr. Anastasopoulos explores why impartiality is often misunderstood and highlights the real-world risks that can quietly erode objectivity and trust.
Recognizing the Risks
Impartiality risks come in many forms, some obvious, others subtle. Among the most common are financial dependence on key clients, pressures to retain business, and conflicts of interest when the same personnel also act as consultants or trainers. CABs may also face governance risks, where owners or board members have ties to clients or industry groups that could influence outcomes.
Other threats are more personal. Over time, long-term relationships between auditors and clients can lead to “familiarity risk,” where friendliness replaces healthy scrutiny. Even marketing practices, like promising “guaranteed certification” or prioritizing customer satisfaction, can undermine public confidence in a CAB’s independence.
Dr. Anastasopoulos also points out that external pressures from regulators, industry associations, or political bodies can distort impartiality, especially when national prestige or commercial interests are at stake. Meanwhile, competence and resource limitations can create risks of their own, encouraging shortcuts and overreliance on client-provided information.
Managing Impartiality as a Living System
The good news is that accreditation standards, including those in the ISO/IEC 17000 series, do not expect CABs to eliminate every impartiality risk. Instead, they require organizations to identify, analyze, and control those risks systematically and to demonstrate that these controls are active and effective.
Effective CABs manage impartiality through:
- Structured risk assessments
- Independent impartiality committees/li>
- Conflict-of-interest declarations/li>
- Auditor rotation and governance oversight/li>
- Ongoing evaluation and improvement of controls/li>
What accreditation assessors look for is not a static statement of compliance, but a culture of impartiality, where risks are recognized, addressed, and continually monitored.
The Bottom Line
Impartiality is not about perfection; it is about awareness and management. As Dr. Anastasopoulos emphasizes, the true measure of a CAB’s impartiality framework lies not in the absence of risk, but in its ability to recognize, manage, and justify how those risks are controlled.
By treating impartiality as a dynamic part of everyday operations, CABs can strengthen both their credibility and the confidence of the clients and communities they serve.
For more insights, read Dr. George Anastasopoulos’s full article on LinkedIn here or contact him directly at [email protected].
In his recent LinkedIn article, PJLA’s Technical & International Business Development Manager, Dr. George Anastasopoulos, reflects on why process-based auditing, though introduced with ISO 9001:2000, continues to challenge auditors/assessors more than two decades later.
Article from Dr. George Anastasopoulos
By Dr. George Anastasopoulos
We are proud to share that Dr. George Anastasopoulos is in the June 2025 edition of Quality Magazine. He is the Technical and International Business Development Manager at Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc. (PJLA). He titled his article “The Modified FINK Risk Analyzing Method for Conformity Assessment Bodies.” Dr. Anastasopoulos is a well-known leader in conformity assessment. He has decades of experience in laboratory accreditation, risk assessing, and quality management. His article presents a new way to evaluate risk for Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). It builds on the FINK model and changes it to fit the needs of accredited organizations better.
In “The Modified FINK Risk Analyzing Method for Conformity Assessment Bodies,” Dr. Anastasopoulos shares a useful method. This method helps CABs find, study, and handle operational risks. The modified model emphasizes:
Despite their importance, SMEs often encounter significant hurdles, such as limited resources and tough market competition. Accreditation can play a transformative role in helping them overcome these challenges. Through accredited conformity assessment, SMEs can demonstrate compliance with recognized standards, boost their reputation, access new markets, and gain the confidence of customers, regulators, and investors alike.
Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc. (PJLA) would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to everyone who stopped by our booth at the World Conference on Quality & Improvement (WCQI), held May 4–7, 2025, in Denver, CO. It was a pleasure connecting with so many professionals across the quality industry and engaging in insightful conversations about laboratory accreditation and quality assurance.
Participants joined from four different countries and ten regions across India. The diverse group created a collaborative and engaging learning environment. The training was specially designed to provide in-depth knowledge and hands-on experience necessary for PJLA assessors in the conformity assessment industry. 
