Why Global Trade and Out-Sourcing Make International Standards Organization (ISO) Certification A Joke
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.24.07
Brand China is so in the toilet over leaded toys made for export that the Chinese Government is starting to take action against pirates in the toy supply chain. The other interesting aspect of his story is that it points to the lack of US coverage, so far, of evidence that voluntary standards don't help when China is the supplier.
Owing to the fact that poor or no records are available regarding how toxic toys were made or to whom they were sold, ISO certification, the international Gold Standard of quality, is apparently of no benefit to Western consumers seeking assurance that manufacturers have Chinese supply chains under control enough to guard against lead exposures. Voluntary certification, in this case, appears to be the Lead Standard.
China has banned more than 750 toy makers from exporting in the last two months as Beijing bends to western pressure to stem a flood of dangerous goods, according to a European Commission report.A further 690 companies in the southern province of Guangzhou alone were ordered to renovate factories and improve product quality within a fixed period after Beijing investigated more than 3,000 manufacturers in September and October.
In spite of the quick response from Beijing, the report, published on Thursday, says the safety system needs a swift overhaul. In a quarter of cases the makers of dangerous toys cannot be traced because of poor record-keeping.“One of the main problems is incomplete or complete lack of information about the manufacturer, which prevents them [the Chinese] from following up effectively,” says the report.
“Traceability is a key issue for the industry and China,” said a Commission official. “As with food, we have to be able to find out where these goods originate to tackle the problem at source.”
If anyone has solid evidence indicating that ISO certification helps mitigate against toxic exposures from Chinese exports, we'd be glad to hear of it. Other wise the default presumption ought to be that its' worthless. And how much has been spent in getting ISO 14K certification over the last decade?
Ready for some black humor? The article cites a government official claiming this reason why regulatory reform is not needed in China.
“There is no immediate need for a sweeping change in the regulatory system or imports,” the report states, which also reveals that buyers have returned only a fraction of potentially lethal devices.Of the 500,000 magnetic toys sold in one member state, only about 10,000 were retrieved, the report says. Of the 13,000 toys containing lead sold in another member state, only 160 were returned.
Like, it's a good idea to ship tiny lead filled toys all the way back to China in order to register the need for reform.
And now for some diversity of cultural perspective.
Most Chinese consumers say they trust domestic brands more than foreign ones, according to a McKinsey survey that amounts to a stark warning for multinational companies about nationalist sentiment in China’s booming market.
I'm sure the Roman's could find the origins of some nationalist sentiment from makers and sellers of lead goblets.
Via::Financial Times, "China cracks down on toy exporters" and Financial Times, "Chinese consumers prefer own products" Image credit::Museum of London, Roman Lead Ingots
Eco-cheats: Scandal as Filter Fraud Threatens Cleaner Air
|
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life Dept.: the Melting Arctic
|
The American government don't do any thing cause of greedy politicians like George Bush have invested in company's over there were they have slave labor and no environmental regulations along with no safety standards.
We should at least fine them and give them the bill to ship them back and forth
ISO certifications in any form should be viewed with suspicion. I have had the displeasure of working with quite a few companies and organizations touting these sorts of credentials - IMO, it's a crock - the practice of getting the certification, then returning to (poor quality) business as usual seems to be quite rampant.
How long have the dangers of lead exposure been common knowledge?
Everyone seems to be looking at this as cases of ignorance or someone being careless in the supply chain or faulty inspections/quality control.
If it's none of the above, what's left?
When considering China, you always have to keep one word in mind, and that's hegemony. There's not much "beyond the pale" for them, and their pale is paler than most pale is pale.
Sorry, I just kind of spun out there.
With all due respect to the author, and Treehugger, this analysis is just a bit misleading to say the least.
Brand China? Do you mean RC2, Mattel, and other brands.. you know, the firms who not only made the choice to source from China but also circumnavigated their own procedures to ensure only quality products made it to market?
Now I realize the good folks at Treehugger are not greedy little capitalists like some of us, but there are multiple actors who failed to uphold their responsibilities to consumers.
It is not a "China" problem. It is not a problem of outsourcing. It is much more complex, and blaming a single actor will do no one any good or stop a single product failure from occurring.
r
www.allroadsleadtochina.com
=== author's response follows ===
No disrespect taken.
'Brand China' is a metaphor for the perception customers are left with after a series of hazardous customer exposures in 2007. Stereotyping is never fair, but real nonetheless. As long as it took to develop a negative connotation to Chinese goods, it can take longer for trust to be regained,
The main point of the article, however, was that certifying with ISO that procedures are done in a standard way and that those procedures are fully documented is a Western convention that seems to have no effect on the Chinese toy and pharmaceutical supply chains. The post challenges ISO more so than China, per se.
That said, we are left to wonder if fairly basic quality procedures have not been adopted by Chinese supplier operations (hence leaving no SOP records to review) purposefully: so they can avoid being held accountable for their formulations and material selections; or, if it is merely a matter if the learning curve being too steep. This is a meaty question that deserves investigation- and is far beyond the range of TH.
it wasn't too long ago (or was a long time ago, depending on your perspective) that "made in china", or "made in japan" was unfashionable...you know....we used to flip the consumer item over to see if it had that "made in...." sticker on it.....we were looking for "crappy" items which bore the country of origin....looking for that "made in USA".....thank the unions for NOT greenery for that one.....concerned? wanna fight back? don't trust ISO, ABC, PDQ or SOB?....take control and don't purchase products from those countries whom you suspect are suspect of less than acceptable quality.....we as the consumer DO have ALL of the control....the corporations want OUR money....we have to give it to them......therefore we have the final say in what comes to into our homes and lives.
td
it wasnt too long ago (or was a long time ago, depending on your perspective) that "made in china", or "made in japan" was unfashionable...you know....we used to flip the consumer item over to see if it had that "made in...." sticker on it.....we were looking for "crappy" items which bore the country of origion....looking for that "made in USA".....thank the unions for NOT greenery for that one.....concerned? wanna fight back? dont trust ISO, ABC, PDQ or SOB?....take control and dont purchase products from those countries whom you suspect are suspect of less than acceptable quality.....we as the consumer DO have ALL of the control....the corporations want OUR money....we have to give it to them......therefore we have the final say in what comes to into our homes and lives.
td
It took me a couple of tries just to find a set of sheets for a gift for my Mom. Not because all the typical stores don't carry them, but I wanted to give some that were Made In USA. They cost a bit more, but I see a couple of positives from the extra money I spent. I feel better about the likely quality of the item and just maybe, I am helping prevent a company from making the decision to "go offshore" with another middle income job.
TH,
Thanks for the inline response.
This is a topic that many of us have been having for years, and one that I take very seriously.
your comments are both fair, but what American consumers need to keep in mind is that "brand China" is something that the American press came up with.
To date, the overwhelming majority of the products that have been recalled are American Branded items manufactured in China. Many of these supply chains are 100% controlled by the American Brand as they are identifying the suppliers, placing the orders, and implementing the QC systems.
So, if ISO is being circumvented, part of the responsibility lies with the American Brand who made the choice to outsource to China.
To date, every supplier I have worked with has procedures, and many of them are just as high (if not higher than in the U.S.), however the problems I have seen are usually on the American side. they treat China like a McDonald's. They drive up, place their order, and then go around to the other side.
For ISO to work, it takes will and investment. Consumers must place higher demand on the American brands to implement supply chains that have real integrity. Simply pointing at the certifiacations or the Chinese supplier is allowing American brands out from underneath the responsibility that is their's
Making sure the products sold in America, no matter where they are manufactured is ultimately the responsibility of the Brand. Certifications will only go so far. It comes down to investing in quality control and effectively managing the process to reduce the number of failures. Every process has failures. the goal is to reduce those failures into statistical anamolies.
You reference the "International Standards Organisation" on your site. That isn't their name. It is "The International Organisation FOR Standardisation".
You reference the "International Standards Organisation" on your site. That isn't their name. It is "The International Organisation FOR Standardisation".
Which of course explains why every one says "ISO" 4001, etc.