Impartiality Risks: One of the Most Commonly Missed Accreditation Requirements!

What This Webinar Covers:

During accreditation assessments, impartiality is one of the most frequent sources of nonconformities. This is true for testing and calibration laboratories, inspection bodies, and product, personnel and management system certification bodies. In this webinar, PJLA explains what the ISO/IEC 17000 series of standards requires and where impartiality risks come from. He also walks through a practical six-step process to identify, evaluate, control and document those risks. The session includes six real-world case studies, the evidence accreditation assessors look for, and a live audience Q&A.

What You’ll Learn:

• What impartiality means under ISO/IEC 17021, 17024, 17025, 17020 and 17065, and why every standard calls for an ongoing process
• The six main sources of impartiality risk: activities, relationships, personnel, commercial pressures, financial pressures and other pressures
• A six-step approach: identify, describe, evaluate, control, record and monitor
• What an impartiality risk record can include (field, source, potential effect, significance, controls, owner, evidence and residual risk)
• How to handle common scenarios, including revenue concentration, prior employment, shared ownership, family ties, performance incentives and research funding
• What accreditation assessors look for, and the most common nonconformity patterns

Key Takeaways:

• A policy is not enough. A signed impartiality statement is a good start. Assessors also need to see that risks specific to your organization are identified, evaluated, controlled and checked for effectiveness.
• Having a risk is not the same as being compromised. Identifying a risk does not mean impartiality has been broken. The goal is to find potential problems and control them before they become a crisis.
• “Ongoing” means ongoing. Review risks whenever circumstances change, such as new clients, staff, ownership, services, instruments, incentives or partnerships. Don’t wait for an annual review.
• Look beyond the technical work. Commercial and financial relationships, such as customer concentration, sales commissions, bonuses, funding and referrals, are often left out of the analysis and are a common source of findings.
• Declarations don’t resolve conflicts. A disclosed relationship still needs a decision, such as reassignment, independent review, a cooling-off period or a restricted scope, and a record of why that control was appropriate.
• Design incentives carefully. Pay tied to volume, retention or favorable outcomes can unintentionally reward speed over technical judgment. The new ISO/IEC 17020:2026 addresses remuneration that could influence results.
• Audit it internally. Impartiality is a requirement in every 17000-series standard. If internal audits mark it “compliant” when no risks have been identified, that points to a second weakness in the internal audit process.
• Keep it simple, but systematic. The standards don’t require a formal risk analysis or a specific format. You choose the method, but it must be consistent and backed by evidence.

Q&A Highlights

• Labs within larger organizations: Pressure from production or management, such as pushing for faster results or a passing outcome, is an impartiality risk. Controls can include separate management and resources, or a firewall between departments.
• Certifying a parent company: This is a high-level risk. Whether it is acceptable depends on the standard and on safeguards such as independent management and firewalls. It must be carefully identified, graded and controlled.
• Impartiality committees: Most standards require a mechanism to safeguard impartiality, not a formal committee. ISO/IEC 17021 is more demanding, so always check the applicable standard.
• Contracted personnel: Impartiality requirements apply to subcontracted and contracted personnel in the same way as to your own staff.
• Governance risks: Pressure from top management or the organizational structure to meet financial or performance targets can threaten the objectivity of the conformity assessment work.

Presented By:

Dr. George Anastasopoulos
Technical and International Business Development Manager of PJLA