EXE Impartiality SOP 13 en

Impartiality
Standard Operating Procedure
Valid from: 02/03/2017
Distribution: Internal & External
 EXE Impartiality SOP

Table of contents
1 Purpose of this document ........................................................................... 3
2 Area of Application ....................................................................................... 3
3 Definitions ..................................................................................................... 3
4 Public Statement of Commitment ............................................................... 3
5 Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 4
6 Auditor Independence .................................................................................. 4
7 Impartiality Risk Matrix ................................................................................ 5
8 General approach ......................................................................................... 5
9 Procedure...................................................................................................... 5
9.1 Whistleblowing .............................................................................................................. 5

9.2 Random case review ..................................................................................................... 6

9.3 Engagement of the FLOCERT Leadership Team........................................................ 6

9.4 Engagement of the Impartiality Committee ................................................................ 6

10 References .................................................................................................... 6

VERSION: 13 / 02.03.2017 PAGE 2 OF 6

 EXE Impartiality SOP

1 Purpose of this document

Impartiality is a fundamental element of any credible assurance system. The overall aim of assurance is to
give confidence to all parties that a product or a management system fulfills specified requirements. The
value of assurance is the degree of public confidence and trust that is established by an impartial and
competent assessment by a third-party. Being impartial, and being perceived to be impartial, is necessary for
an assurance body to deliver services that provide confidence.
This Standard Operating Procedure explains FLOCERT’s approach towards impartiality and describes the
mechanisms in place which shall prevent us from partial decision-taking.

2 Area of Application
This Standard Operating Procedure applies to all FLOCERT employees, freelance auditors, the Leadership
Team and the FLOCERT Supervisory Board in its function as Impartiality Committee.

3 Definitions
Impartiality is in place when decisions are based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or preferring the benefit of one party over another. In other words impartiality is the result of the
actual and perceived presence of objectivity.
Partiality: Conversely, partiality arises in assurance services when the assurance body's decisions are not
based on objective evidence of conformity (or non-conformity), but instead its decisions are influenced by
other interests or by other parties. Partiality may arise where there are:
a. Self-interest threats: threats that arise from a person or body acting in their own interest. By way of
example, a concern related to assurance, as a threat to impartiality, would be financial self-interest.
b. Self-review threats: threats that arise from a person or body reviewing the work done by themselves.
Auditing the client to whom the assurance body provided consultancy would be a self-review threat.
c. Familiarity (or trust) threats: threats that arise from a person or body being too familiar with or
trusting of another person instead of seeking audit evidence.
d. Intimidation threats: threats that arise from a person or body having a perception of being coerced
openly or secretively, such as a threat from a person in a position of power, such as a superior in the
organization.
Independence is freedom from situations and relationships which make it probable that a reasonable and
informed third party would conclude that objectivity either is impaired or could be impaired. Examples for
these situations and relationships are: ownership, governance, management, personnel, shared resources,
finances, contracts, marketing and payment of a sales commission or other inducement for the referral of
new clients. Independence is connected to and supports objectivity (more in section 6).
Certification is granted to organizations that participate in Fairtrade Certification. It is based on the fulfilment
of the Fairtrade Standards. The certification entitles organizations to trade in the Fairtrade system and to
receive the Fairtrade benefits. All Fairtrade organizations receive a Certificate and are listed in the Fairtrade
Customer Search that is open to the public.
Verification Services are offered by FLOCERT for several Sustainability Standards and Programs (such as
4C, EDGE, UTZ).

4 Public Statement of Commitment

FLOCERT’s Leadership Team is committed to impartiality in auditing, certification and verification activities
and has the overall responsibility to ensure that all decisions are taken in accordance with the corresponding
applied standards, the FLOCERT internal procedures and ISO 17065 requirements. It declares that it
understands the importance of impartiality in carrying out its auditing, certification and verification activities
and has mechanisms in place to identify and manage risks to impartiality.

VERSION: 13 / 02.03.2017 PAGE 3 OF 6

 EXE Impartiality SOP

5 Responsibilities
Each FLOCERT staff member needs to be aware of the details of this Standard Operating Procedure and its
attached Impartiality Matrix in order to support the Leadership Team in their attempt to ensure the impartiality
of certification activities.
The process of handling Impartiality is under the responsibility of the Quality Manager. She gathers cases,
ensures that a decision on each case is taken, documents the proceedings and presents the cases to the
Supervisory Board in its function as Impartiality Committee for supervision of the implemented process.
More details to the process can be found in the following sections of this Standard Operating Procedure.
The responsibilities of the Impartiality Committee are described in the Terms of References of the committee
(EXE ToRImpartialityCommittee ED).

6 Auditor Independence
Auditor independence is a prerequisite for impartial certification and verification work, as information from the
field is gathered and lays the foundation for the further process. Independence relates to the circumstances
surrounding e.g. an audit, including the financial, employment, business and personal relationships between
the auditor and the audited customer.
Relationships with parties whose interests may be contrary to the interests of the audited entity (for example,
a competitor) may also be relevant to the appearance of the auditor’s independence. The need for
independence arises because, in most cases, users of certificates and other results of verification work do
not have all the information necessary for judging whether the auditor is, in fact, objective.
Although the auditor may be satisfied that his/her objectivity is not impaired by a particular situation, a third
party may reach a different conclusion. For example, if a third party were aware that the auditor had certain
financial, employment, business or personal relationships with the audited entity, that individual might
reasonably conclude that the auditor could be subject to undue influence or would not be impartial or
unbiased. Public confidence in the auditor’s objectivity could therefore suffer as a result of this perception,
irrespective of whether there is any actual impairment.
Therefore FLOCERT actively manages the independence of its auditors. The following structures and
measures are implemented:
1) Awareness raising: the topic of independence is regularly raised and discussed during auditor
trainings (workshops, webinars, etc.).
2) Independence Declaration: by contract the auditor is requested to disguise any problems with
Independence. Violations will lead to a contract termination. This Independence Declaration is
renewed every three years during the auditor on-site evaluation.
3) Audit assignment: auditors are solely selected by FLOCERT. The customer has no influence on
the selection, except if an Independence Risk is disguised.
4) Auditor rotation: no auditor will be auditing a customer more than 3 consecutive times (follow-up
audits excluded).
5) Prohibition of consultancy: after consulting an organization on the application of the Fairtrade
Standards, an auditor is not allowed to audit the same organization for a period of three years.
6) Fees: auditor fees are solely paid by FLOCERT. The customer thus has no direct relation with the
auditor and therefore the economic independence is not a threat as there is no economic bond
between the auditor and the customer.
7) Disclosure: the audit report as signed by the (main) auditor is fully documented in the software
system. Parts of the system are accessible to the customer.
8) Market forces: there is no incentive for an auditor to have a customer certified or not, as the auditor
has no influence on the audit assignments by FLOCERT.

VERSION: 13 / 02.03.2017 PAGE 4 OF 6

 EXE Impartiality SOP

9) Oversight: in FLOCERT monitoring of the auditors is performed in accordance with the auditor
competence system. To ensure that this is effectively working, the auditors’ work is examined by an
independent body, our accreditation body DAkkS.

7 Impartiality Risk Matrix

A crucial step in safeguarding the impartiality of our services is to find an appropriate way to identify, analyze
and document possible threats to impartiality arising from provision of certification and the provision of other
services – both related to, and independent from, Fairtrade certification services. When possible risks are
identified and analyzed appropriate mitigation measures can be developed and applied thus serve as
preventive actions to avoid the negative effect of partiality on the quality of our services.
Basis of this Standard Operating Procedure is the attached Impartiality Risk Matrix which more precisely sets
out possible risks, the assessed severity of the risk and the tools employed to mitigate the risk. This Risk
Matrix will change from time to time, as the nature and severity of risks change. It is reviewed by the
Leadership Team on an annual basis.

8 General approach
Below the general approach in addressing potential Impartiality Risks is described:
1. Recognize a potential or existing impartiality risk;
2. Judge the chance of it leading to harm;
3. Decide what level of risk is acceptable;
4. Reduce the risk to a tolerable level;
5. Eliminate the situation if the risk cannot be managed.
The first two steps were addressed by the creation of the Impartiality Risk Matrix which serves as an
appendix to this Standard Operating Procedure and which is updated annually.
Steps 3 to 5 are addressed by the Leadership Team as described under section 9.3 below.

9 Procedure
Before any case can be processed according to this Standard Operating Procedure the possible Impartiality
cases need to become visible thus they need to be reported to QM. The awareness and sensitivity on the
topic of impartiality needs to be well trained and understood by all FLOCERT staff. As a basic measure all
new staff is trained on the importance of impartiality and the procedure at hand during the Quality
Management Introduction Session.
In the following two paragraphs it is described how Impartiality cases are brought forward to QM for further
processing:

9.1 Whistleblowing
Staff and auditors are asked to report to the Quality Manager:
• any cases where they identified political or some other type of interference in certification or
verification decision-making; examples for this can be found in the Impartiality Risk Matrix. Please
also refer to definitions under section 3.
• any other case where they identified a potential Impartiality Risk; examples for this can as well be
found in the Impartiality Risk Matrix. Please also refer to definitions under section 3.
Any staff member or auditor can report these cases to the Quality Manager in the way they find most
convenient. If the concerned staff member or auditor feels uncomfortable in formalizing his/her concerns in
writing (e.g. via email) he/she can also ask for a confidential talk with the Quality Manager. The case would
then be followed up by QM anonymously.
The Operations Department is handling Impartiality cases under its remit on an operational level. Often
cases are directly managed within the teams. In case of uncertainty there is always the chance to escalate a

VERSION: 13 / 02.03.2017 PAGE 5 OF 6

 EXE Impartiality SOP

case to the managers within the Operations Department. Alternatively, the Director of Operations brings it to
the attention of the Leadership Team in order to seek for advice. Therefore proactively reported cases will
usually be logged as concluded cases.

9.2 Random case review

In addition to the above, the Quality Manager will perform a random check on cases that were not brought
before proactively. This will be done once a year.
The cases should be drawn from Ecert according to the following parameter:
• extra-ordinary short processing time for an audit order,
• number of non-conformities raised during an audit has dropped significantly from one year to
another,
• during evaluation of the audit results a significant number of non-conformities has been dropped by
the analyst,
• exceptions have been granted,
• both certification and additional services have been sold,
• accumulation of income on one customer,
• clients with modified certification contracts.

The drawn cases should at least fulfil one of the above parameter and should represent cases from all 5
regions. The review of the case will concentrate on the last audit order, but can be extended further into the
certification history in case irregularities are detected.

9.3 Engagement of the FLOCERT Leadership Team

All reported cases are centrally documented by QM. In the event the logged case shows that exerted
pressures have led us to overstep the borders of the Quality Management System, the Quality Manager has
the responsibility to report to the Director of the Technical Services Department. He will then analyze the
incident and decide on a case-to-case basis on an appropriate escalation method: he either directs his
concerns to the Director of Operations or directly to the Leadership Team in case of high severity. In any way
all proceedings must be centrally documented by QM to be presented to the Impartiality Committee (see
section 9.4).

9.4 Engagement of the Impartiality Committee

The Quality Manager will include a summary of all logged Impartiality cases and observations into the QM
Submission Report for the Management Review. The final Management Review Report will be presented to
the Supervisory Board in its function as Impartiality Committee.
The Chair of the Impartiality Committee will then pick up to three cases from the list which will be presented
in further details in the Q1 meeting of the Supervisory Board. The Board in its function as Impartiality
Committee reviews the process as described in this Standard Operating Procedure by hearing the chosen
cases. Further details are provided in the EXE ToRImpartialityCommittee ED.

10 References
• Impartiality Risk Matrix (annex to EXE Impartiality SOP)
• Terms of Reference of the Impartiality Committee (EXE ToRImpartialityCommittee ED)

VERSION: 13 / 02.03.2017 PAGE 6 OF 6