Oxebridge’s recent blog post accusing UKAS of accrediting “concentration camp builders” is a masterclass in provocation—but not in precision. While the post aims to raise ethical concerns about ISO 18788 and human rights, it relies more on rhetorical shock than factual rigor.
Let’s unpack the flaws.
Misplaced Blame: Accreditation ≠ Endorsement
UKAS accredits certification bodies, not the companies they certify. In this case:
- UKAS accredited MSS Global
- MSS Global certified GardaWorld Federal Services
To claim UKAS is responsible for GardaWorld’s actions is like blaming a university for the behavior of a graduate’s employer. It’s a stretch—and it misrepresents how accreditation chains work.
ISO 18788: A Standard, Not a Shield
ISO 18788 sets guidelines for security operations management systems, including human rights safeguards. But:
- Certification doesn’t guarantee ethical perfection—it verifies system conformity.
- If GardaWorld violated human rights, the issue lies in audit execution, not the standard itself.
Oxebridge’s argument conflates certification scope with moral endorsement, which is misleading.
Satire Dilutes Seriousness
Comparing detention facilities to concentration camps may grab attention, but it:
- Undermines the gravity of historical atrocities
- Distracts from legitimate concerns about ISO oversight
- Alienates professionals who seek reform through dialogue, not drama
If the goal is accountability, satire should be a tool—not the entire toolbox.
Selective Outrage and Inconsistent Standards
Oxebridge has previously:
- Criticized consultants for recommending CBs
- Then recommended OPG Certifications, a CB it helped build
This pattern of “rules for others, exceptions for me” weakens its credibility as a watchdog. If impartiality matters, it must apply universally.
Final Thought
Raising ethical concerns in ISO certification is important. But doing so with exaggerated comparisons, selective blame, and theatrical tone risks turning advocacy into spectacle.
If Oxebridge wants to lead reform, it must trade satire for substance—and apply the same scrutiny to its own practices that it demands of others.