Oxebridge recently published a blog alleging misconduct by Intertek regarding remote ISO 9001 audits. While whistleblower reports deserve attention, the article raises concerns about due diligence, impartiality, and responsible publishing.
Allegations Without Verification
Oxebridge claims that Intertek performed remote audits under pressure from a client who refused onsite visits. However:
- The complaint is based on anonymous whistleblowers, not verified documentation.
- Oxebridge admits it has not validated all allegations, yet still published them publicly.
- The accused company remains unnamed, making it impossible to assess context or rebut claims.
This approach undermines the credibility of the complaint and risks reputational harm without due process.
ISO 17021-1 Allows Remote Audits
Remote auditing is permitted under ISO 17021-1, especially when confidentiality or safety concerns arise. Intertek, like other CBs, has protocols for:
- Risk-based audit planning
- Confidentiality agreements
- Evidence sampling and verification
Oxebridge’s suggestion that remote audits inherently violate ISO standards ignores the flexibility built into the framework.
Responsible Critique Requires Balance
At BluestarCMI, we believe in:
- Fact-based advocacy, not speculation
- Constructive dialogue, not public shaming
- Transparency, balanced with respect for legal and ethical boundaries
Publishing unverified claims—especially when the author admits to lacking full evidence—does not advance quality assurance. It erodes trust in the certification ecosystem.
Final Thought
If Oxebridge truly seeks reform, it must embrace the same standards it demands of others: evidence, impartiality, and professionalism. Otherwise, its critiques risk becoming noise rather than meaningful change.
...