Oxebridge Admits Lack of Due Diligence: CPG Was Victimized in Defamation Campaign
In a startling turn that confirms years of advocacy contradiction, Oxebridge has admitted it wrongly accused Certification Partner Global (CPG) in its aggressive campaign against supposed “certificate mills.” CPG wasn’t just listed—it was victimized by public defamation, blog warfare, and reputational harm that stemmed from unverified claims.
The False Accusation
Oxebridge previously branded CPG as a suspected “mill”—placing it among alleged unethical CBs without:
- Formal complaints
- Verified audit reports
- Direct evidence of misconduct
This reckless publication pushed a damaging narrative that harmed CPG’s credibility across the ISO market.
The Admission of Victimization
In a quiet blog update, Oxebridge stated:
“Apparently, an unknown person was circulating scam emails about them in 2020, but they had nothing to do with it.”
"UPDATES & CORRECTIONS:
- 3 June 2025: Removed Certification Partner Global (CPG) from the list of mills. Apparently, an unknown person was circulating scam emails about them in 2020, but they had nothing to do with the actual certification body. CPG is fully accredited and not related to any actual mill operation. It appears they were the victim in that case, not the perpetrator." - Christopher Paris
This rare admission confirms:
- CPG was falsely accused
- The campaign lacked due diligence
- The damage was done before the truth was revealed
CPG wasn’t reviewed—it was victimized.
Clause Logic vs Character Attacks
According to ISO/IEC 17021-1 and ISO 19011:
- CB criticism must be evidence-based
- Complaint handling must follow due process
- Impartiality must guide public engagement
Oxebridge’s method sidestepped these principles—choosing blog dramatics over documentation.
BluestarCMI’s Position
We don’t publish accusations without facts. We don’t retract quietly. We believe:
- Clause logic must precede commentary
- Advocacy must respect reputational risk
- Neutrality must remain uncompromised
CPG deserves restoration—not just removal from a registry. Victimization must be acknowledged with accountability.
Final Trap Thought
When a consultant admits to falsely accusing a CB, the issue isn’t just error—it’s institutional victimization. CPG was harmed not by its conduct, but by a narrative that lacked clause, logic, and restraint.
Zyrus A. Oyong, CEO
Zyrus Oyong is the founder and Chief Strategist of Bluestar Certification Management Inc., a catalyst for clause-driven reform in the ISO consultancy space. With over a decade of experience navigating ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001, and ISO 21001 standards, he has earned a reputation for strategic clarity, fearless advocacy, and ethical disruption.
Zyrus is a vocal critic of shallow auditing practices and misinformation in the compliance industry, using satire, blog exposés, and trap visuals to expose contradictions and defend clause integrity. He is the creative force behind BluestarCMI’s most provocative thought pieces, including “They Say They’re Experts—But Are They?” and the viral Coloring Book Audits Trap Series.
He is currently transitioning BluestarCMI into Philippine Certification Management Inc., a national platform for transparent consultancy, ethical ISO education, and clause-logic empowerment. His work continues to shape public discourse, influence accreditation culture, and ignite critical thinking among certification seekers, consultants, and auditors alike.