In recent years, an increasing number of so-called “certification bodies” have appeared that issue ISO certificates in a certificate-mill fashion, prioritising volume over genuine conformity assessment. Such certificates are not recognised, have no value in a real audit, and can create serious risks for both companies and authorities, particularly during tendering processes.
For those who work with ISO standards, I would like to present a few simple criteria to verify whether a certificate is valid:
1. A legitimate certification body is accredited by the national accreditation body in its own country, which is recognised within the international IAF (International Accreditation Forum) network. An accreditation body that does not appear on the IAF website (iaf.nu) înseamnă că nu este un organism recunoscut și cel mai porbabil este un fake.
2. Accredited certificates can always be found in IAF CertSearch, the official global registry (https://www.iafcertsearch.org ). If the issued certificate does not exist in the platform, or if the certification body is not listed there, this indicates a problem.
3. Unaccredited bodies often use:
· impressive-sounding logos and names (such as IMAB, UAS, etc.);
· ambiguous terms (“verified”, “validated”, “audited”) instead of “certified”;
· references to self-declared “accreditations” or obscure associations;
· logos and client lists that have never had any real connection with these entities. One such situation is presented at the link below on oxebridge.com (https://www.oxebridge.com/emma/mcert-scammer-scandal-much-bigger-than-originally-reported/ ), but this situation is not an isolated case.
4. Unaccredited bodies are not subject to oversight by any authority and cannot demonstrate the existence of a genuine audit process. If someone presents a certificate that does not meet the criteria above, for clarification you may request the certification or surveillance audit report.
5. Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 establishes the European framework for accreditation and market surveillance. It states that within the European Union, only certificates issued by certification bodies accredited by a recognised national accreditation body are valid and recognised.
In other words, within the EU there are no “alternative accreditations” or “private associations” that grant accreditations, even more so accreditations originating from China, India, Singapore, the Emirates, and similar jurisdictions.
There is only one national accreditation body per country, recognised by law.
To avoid confusion, it should be noted that there are accredited certification bodies (for example, in Germany) that also operate in Romania. This is perfectly legal as long as the accredited body in Germany is the one issuing the certificates.
6. Another important aspect is the lack of training among some authorities when verifying ISO certificates. In many situations, officials do not clearly know what should be requested or how to check the authenticity of a certificate, which allows unaccredited bodies to promote their “documents” without any real basis. This is not necessarily the fault of individuals, but rather the result of a lack of institutional training in the field of accreditation and certification. There is a strong belief that the personnel responsible for organising public tenders should be the first to receive such training. However, the consequences are real: companies are exposed to risks, the market becomes confused, and the country’s image suffers when certificates without value are accepted or when European rules are not applied correctly. If credibility and professionalism are the goal, it is necessary for authorities themselves to be properly trained, so that checks are consistent and aligned with international standards.
Finally, there remains a sincere question for companies in Romania: why choose to pay for certificates with no recognition, when with the same financial effort it is possible to obtain accredited, verifiable certifications that are accepted everywhere?
The price difference does not justify the risks, and the difference in value is clearly in favour of accredited certification. An accredited certificate provides credibility, whereas a fake one can damage reputation.
In 2025, the information is public and easily accessible. Verification takes one minute.