Contextual Clarification
Oxebridge alleges that Bureau Veritas (BV) failed to act on a complaint regarding IQFarma’s use of ISO 9001 marks on pharmaceutical packaging, claiming this violates ISO/IEC 17021-1. However, the situation involves complex jurisdictional overlaps and certification scope nuances that Oxebridge’s post oversimplifies.
Key Rebuttal Points
1. Jurisdictional Ambiguity
- Oxebridge cites UKAS accreditation, yet BV’s certificate may have been issued under INACAL (Peru) or ONAC (Colombia)—not UKAS.
- Certification bodies operate under multiple ABs, and the correct AB must be identified before escalation.
2. Scope of Certification
- ISO 9001 certifies management systems, not products. If IQFarma misused the mark, the responsibility lies with the client, not necessarily BV—unless BV explicitly approved the labeling.
- BV may have addressed the issue internally or during surveillance audits, but confidentiality clauses prevent public disclosure.
3. Complaint Handling Protocols
- Oxebridge claims BV ignored the complaint, yet BV has a formal complaints process governed by ISO/IEC 17021-1 and internal QESIS protocols.
- BV’s global structure requires routing complaints to the correct regional office, which may explain delays or redirections.
4. UKAS Limitations
- UKAS is not a regulator and cannot enforce sanctions. It operates under ISO/IEC 17011 and can only investigate within its accreditation scope.
- Oxebridge’s escalation may not yield action if the certificate wasn’t issued under UKAS.
Strategic Framing for Your Post
“While public watchdogs play a role in accountability, oversimplifying multi-accreditation structures and certification scopes risks misleading stakeholders. ISO 9001 is a system standard—not a product endorsement—and complaints must be routed through proper channels with jurisdictional clarity. Let’s uphold transparency without weaponizing ambiguity.”