Credibility Principles Workshop - China
22 November 2012, Beijing
Summary notes

There were questions about the translation of “credibility” in Chinese and it was suggested that the
principles be called the “trustworthy and reliable” 可信度/可靠性criteria in Chinese because
“credibility” is not translatable except in the sense of “public trust” 公信.

This is evidenced by the discussion around ‘accessibility’ which was ranked initially fairly low. The quote
“even if my standard doesn’t work for small companies, it doesn’t mean I’m not honest” made it clear
that the word ‘credibility’ is not being understood to describe the more complete picture that we are
intending.

Related to the above point, need to articulate that being open and usable for small stakeholders impacts
the overall ability of the standard to be effective

And linked to this – should we call the principles ‘credibility and effectiveness principles’? We really are
trying to convey both concepts and since the principles are just a ‘proxy’ for effectiveness – should we
just say this? Consider the need to keep ‘credibility’ in for the emotive and depth of meaning, but adding
effectiveness could help with clarity of intent, and help to justify the inclusion of certain principles that
are otherwise difficult to justify or explain

Also asked ‘credible to who?’

Strong emphasis on the need to have a shorter list of principles – the principles should be
clearer/simpler/fewer – this was a very strong and repeated message

The importance of the involvement of the government was very clear, including the note that the word
‘standard’ is a controlled term in China.

Need to be clearer about the relationship with ISO and ISO’s principles, and a suggestion to try to be
‘integrated’ with ISO, or to converge with them (in the discussion of the principles noting overlap with
ISO 14020).

Need to be clearer about the uses; provide examples of how they could be used by different types of
users

Discussions about ‘truthfulness’ and the standard being very honest about what it does, and doesn’t,
achieve were much less noticeable here. It was surprising that it did not come up in the consultation
discussion because in the sidelines and in the context of other conversations it was clear that there are
The ISEAL Alliance is a not-for-profit company, limited by guarantee.
Registered in England and Wales, company number 4625800
concerns about the integrity of certifications, but may just be that ‘greenwashing’ is not yet a very
prominent or known concept in China.

It was clear that we need to present the Credibility Principles and who they apply to, and how
international standards relate to national standards, more clearly.

The tables reported back on the 13 principles in the order in which they were presented, which later
discussion clarified were a random ordering. It was noted that the final principles should either be listed
in descending order of importance or a specific note about the lack of importance rank be included in
the guidance. Principles were also distributed to the tables in a random order.
Principles specific notes – suggestions and ideas

Effectiveness – 10 - very important however the way that it is described is too ambiguous, too big of a
concept for one principle.
The group reporting on effectiveness considered this a 10 out of 10. Pushing economic or social
effectiveness is crucial. Multi-stakeholder participation is important. Economic effectiveness is very
important. This is a very good principle. The group added that the concept of effectiveness rests to some
degree on the strength of industry associations and other actors to represent weaker participants and to
drive uptake of the standard. Continuous improvement in the standard system is crucial. The group
thought that the description of this principle was more related to an evaluation system which might
better belong in a category like “relevance.”

Relevance –8 - important and can be used to ensure a consistent starting point for sustainability
The name in English was good, but the name in Chinese may need to be changed because the Chinese
name does not really represent relevance. (Stakeholders noted that 通信 should be changed to 沟通)

Rigour – 10 - very important. The standard must be able to be quantified and measured. There was a
suggestion to include the need for a comparable value, or a basic threshold value.

Accuracy – 7 or 8 – The principle ‘Accuracy’ is not being very well understood in general, but especially
in translated versions. Both in Brazil and China the importance was ranked low (very low in Brazil, 7 in
China) but after discussion about what was meant to be covered there, it scored higher. We need to
consider a different name, or a better introductory line to make it clear what we’re talking about.
Suggestion to call it ‘compliance’.
JW note: Accuracy and rigour seemed very similar and could be combined. It was suggested that the
name of “accuracy” could be changed to “compliance,” which increases trust in the certification process.
Compliance ensures that the certified entity is compliant with the context.

Impartiality – 10 - very important, and the right word. Suggestion to ensure that the impartiality refers
to all components of the standard system. Government institutions are important too, this principle
could be used by the government to impose a trade barrier. There was a suggestion to refer to CASCO
for a definition.
Impartiality and government participation become crucial for avoiding erection of trade barriers and
ensuring proper recognition of the standard by consumers, governments, businesses and others. These
all lead directly to improved credibility of the standard system.

Co-ordination – 9 - very important and a good term. It was agreed that organisations must work
together to increase efficiency. It was noted that the last sentence is unclear.
There was comment against the use of “coordination” because it is a “nice to have” but not a necessity
for a standard to be credible. A standard can be credible even if it is not working with other standards.
Principle 3 (rigour) already includes language about the recognition of existing standards, so
coordination is not necessary. Coordination could be a combination of compatibility and consistency.

Operational efficiency – 7.8 (voting average of the table) term not clear – it does not represent some of
the concepts that we’re talking about in the remaining description.
The name was not very clear about what the content should be. From an auditing point of view, it could
affect the CB market.

Engagement – 10 - very important, nothing more to say!

Transparency – very important, must require more active transparency and communication. Potential to
include the concepts of truthfulness, openness and impartiality.
More media involvement in standards would help improve their transparency. This could be an
overriding principle for other principles.

Truthfulness – not so important, since it should be able to be included in transparency.
Not very important. This could be placed under “transparency” and is about labels or other things.
Marketing declarations are important. All groups should be able to get the correct information.

Accountability – scored fairly low – it was agreed it was important concept, but not significant enough to
be a principle in its own right (there was significant interest in decreasing the number of principles, so
there was support for removing some of them)
The content of this principle might be better if it was about than accountability as a general principle.
The translation could have been better. The translation of the principle in Chinese is more like “being
responsible,” so maybe it should be more about intention of being responsible rather than the act of
being held accountability as in a penalty. The moderator asked if a middle ground might be the
specification of a complaints process. About half of the room then voted in favour of keeping this as a
separate principle. One participant noted that “complaint mechanism” could be placed under the
principle of engagement rather than accountability.

Accessibility – 10 – very important and the name reflects the concept. It is vital to ensure that standards
avoid discrimination and ensure affordability.
Cost issues were important and need to be considered carefully to ensure that no one is cheated by a
standard or that false certifications are passed off as real certifications. But others asked whether this
was really a principle for credibility of a standard and that competitiveness of a standard would mean
that the information is available. Others noted that making the standard available could help ensure
that it is implemented properly even if the certification process was not accurate. Others wondered
whether the principle could be included under truthfulness.

Capacity – not necessary as a principle, and overlaps with accessibility.
Feedback showed that this principle was not very important and included too much repeating content.
Others argued that it is important, but brings higher prices to a standard setting body or to certification
bodies. Another participant noted that credible standards require other principles.
Observations

Suggestion to add a reference to the need to operate within the relevant legal framework – potentially
to include in ‘relevance’ or ‘rigour’ – this linked to interest or clarity regarding who was the standard
setter (or who was behind or backing the standard setter)

Need to emphasize that the weighting of different stakeholders is balanced – so that one group does not
have inappropriate influence, for example the government.

Two new principles or concepts were suggested, namely “legal compliance” and “the precautionary
principle.” It was noted that the principles already mention using the most applicable scientific evidence
and approaches, which would include the precautionary approach and this concept may be too detailed.

Combining principles ideas:

o
Truthfulness + transparency = transparency
o
Engagement + accountability + capacity = something ‘standard implementation system’
o
Rigour + accuracy = accuracy
First, it was discussed whether compatibility (or compatibility and consistency together) could be used
instead of “coordination”. It was suggested that principles 3 (rigour) and 4 (accuracy) could be combined
into one principle of “accuracy.”It was suggested that principles 8, 11, and 13 could be taken out. It was
suggested that principle 13 (capacity) and “transparency” could be about implementation. Principles 9
(transparency) and 10 (truthfulness) could be combined because truthfulness can be a result of
transparency. It was noted that in the next round of consultations, different groups of stakeholders
should be asked about which issues are most important to credibility, such as standards, customers,
businesses, etc.