In recent years, validation and verification bodies have faced increasing pressure to demonstrate reliability, consistency, and independence. Accreditation under ISO 17029 and ISO 14065 has become the defining marker of credibility in the assurance world. Yet, despite the clarity of these standards, many organisations continue to struggle during accreditation assessments. They prepare diligently, compile documentation, and feel confident, right up until the moment the accreditation team begins to examine how their system actually operates.
What emerges during these assessments is rarely a missing form or an outdated template. Most weaknesses are structural. They lie in the gaps between what a system claims to do and what it actually does. They hide in habits, in assumptions, in invisible practices that nobody questions until an assessor begins to pull the thread. And once the thread is pulled, the entire system begins to reveal its inconsistencies.
This article explores those structural patterns. It explains why even experienced validation and verification bodies encounter difficulties, and more importantly, how they can be resolved by building a system that is coherent, traceable, and defendable, not only on accreditation day, but in daily practice.
Understanding ISO 17029: The System Spine Behind Validation and Verification
ISO/IEC 17029 is the global standard that defines what it means for an organisation to perform validation or verification. It applies to any sector; greenhouse gases, sustainability claims, environmental declarations, digital information, product footprints, due diligence reporting, or any other type of independent assurance.
Unlike ISO 9001 or ISO 14001, ISO 17029 is not a certifiable standard. Bodies are accredited against it. This matters because accreditation is not evaluated through surface-level compliance; it is evaluated through demonstrated behaviour. ISO 17029 forms the structure, the backbone, of how the assurance body must operate. It defines how impartiality is protected, how competence is managed, how evidence is collected, how judgments are documented, and how decisions must remain independent from the verification work.
Many organisations misunderstand this. They treat ISO 17029 as a collection of procedures. But ISO 17029 was never meant to live on paper. It was designed to live in the behaviour of the organisation. When that distinction is not understood, accreditation becomes fragile.
How ISO 14065 Complements the System
ISO 14065 introduces the additional requirements that apply when the information being validated or verified relates to greenhouse gases. If ISO 17029 explains how a body must operate, ISO 14065 describes what must be demonstrated specifically for environmental and GHG assurance.
This means that a body with a weak ISO 17029 foundation cannot succeed under ISO 14065, because the technical elements required in GHG verification depend on the structural strength of the management system. Conversely, ISO 17029 cannot be meaningfully implemented in the abstract; it becomes real when applied to technical work, such as GHG statements.
Together, the two standards create a unified assurance system.
The GHG Ecosystem: Why Understanding the Surrounding Standards Matters
ISO 14065 does not stand alone. It sits within a larger ecosystem of standards that describe how greenhouse gas information is produced and how it must be verified or validated.
Organisations preparing their own GHG inventories refer to ISO 14064-1.
Project developers who generate emission reductions use ISO 14064-2.
These two documents are not written for verification bodies, but they form the input that verification bodies must assess.
The work of the verifier begins with ISO 14064-3, which describes how an engagement must be planned, how risks and misstatements must be analysed, how materiality must be applied, and how evidence must be collected and documented so that a conclusion is defendable.
Finally, ISO 14066 defines what competence verification teams must possess both individually and collectively. It requires not only technical knowledge but also the ability to apply professional judgment, understand uncertainties, and evaluate whether the evidence supports the final conclusion.
For accreditation bodies, competence is one of the first elements reviewed. If the people are not strong, the system cannot be strong.
The Five Structural Mistakes That Cost Accreditation
Across different countries, schemes, and organisational sizes, the same five mistakes appear repeatedly. These mistakes may look different from one organisation to another, but their impact is the same: they weaken the organisation’s credibility and create visible gaps during accreditation.
Mistake 1: Treating ISO 17029 as Documentation Instead of a Living System
Many bodies create beautiful systems on paper: polished procedures, consistent templates, organised folders. But accreditation does not measure the quality of documents; it measures the coherence between documents and practice.
When a system is not alive, the symptoms become visible quickly. Verifiers apply steps differently because they interpret procedures in their own way. Reviewers struggle to understand the logic behind the file. Decision-makers are left with incomplete information. QSE teams spend their time chasing evidence that should already be in the workflow. Internal audits confirm that procedures exist, but not whether anyone is actually following them.
Accreditation bodies see this immediately. They do not need to look deeply; the evidence reveals the truth.
A living system behaves differently. It produces files that are consistent across teams. It guides verifiers instead of overwhelming them. It supports reviewers instead of forcing them to reconstruct missing logic. It gives decision-makers a clear foundation for judgment. And it removes pressure from QSE teams, because compliance happens naturally within the workflow.
A living ISO 17029 system is not a set of documents. It is a culture of coherence.
Mistake 2: Confusing Technical Experience with Demonstrated Competence
One of the most common challenges arises when organisations assume that experienced people are automatically competent. Accreditation does not rely on assumptions. It requires proof.
Competence must be demonstrated through qualification, evaluation, witnessing, approval, and continuous monitoring. Without this chain of evidence, competence remains invisible, no matter how strong the individual may be.
Many organisations discover during accreditation that their people have the skills, but the system cannot demonstrate those skills. Accreditation bodies do not simply ask, “Is this person capable?”. They ask, “Can you demonstrate how this person became capable, how their competence was evaluated, and how it is being maintained over time?”.
When competence is managed structurally, the organisation becomes resilient. When it is assumed, the organisation becomes fragile.
Mistake 3: Treating Impartiality as a Static Requirement
Impartiality is not a form to sign once a year. It is the continuous evaluation of whether roles, decisions, relationships, and organisational structures create risks to independence.
In practice, impartiality risks evolve quietly. A technical expert begins supporting commercial discussions. A verifier takes on new responsibilities. The organisation develops new business lines that overlap with existing clients. These shifts are not always intentional, but they create risk.
ISO 17029 and ISO 14065 expect impartiality to be dynamic. Accreditation bodies look for systems that identify risks early, analyse them realistically, and implement appropriate mitigation before verification work begins.
A static approach to impartiality leaves organisations exposed. A dynamic approach protects credibility.
Mistake 4: Weak Traceability in Verification Files
Every verification file tells a story.
A strong file tells a story that is clear, coherent, and logical.
A weak file forces the reviewer or the accreditation assessor to guess.
Traceability is often the area where weaknesses become visible first. Plans do not match the evidence gathered. Professional judgments are not documented. Misstatements are handled informally. Decisions appear disconnected from the work performed. The file contains fragments instead of a narrative.
Accreditation bodies can see this within minutes.
A strong organisation designs its files so that anyone, even someone unfamiliar with the team, can understand the entire engagement from beginning to end. It is this clarity that demonstrates that the method has been applied, that risks were considered, and that conclusions are defendable.
Without traceability, even competent work becomes invisible.
Mistake 5: Decisions That Are Not Truly Independent
The final decision of a verification or validation engagement must be made by a person or a committee who stands completely outside the assessment path. Independence is not symbolic; it is structural.
Many organisations unintentionally blur this boundary. Verifiers influence the decision. Reviewers perform the work of verifiers. Decision-makers are not evaluated for competence. Commercial considerations influence the timing or the outcome of decisions.
Accreditation bodies are extremely sensitive to this issue. For them, the independence of the final decision is the cornerstone of ISO 17029 and ISO 14065. If the decision-making structure is weak, the entire assurance activity becomes questionable.
Building independence requires governance: clear roles, transparent pathways, competence for decision-makers, conflict-of-interest management, and a workflow that protects the separation of functions.
When this structure is strong, accreditation bodies see it instantly.
Building a Truly Defendable Assurance System
Strengthening an accreditation system is neither about adding documents nor adopting templates from other organisations. It is about designing a coherent structure that reflects how the organisation actually works. This requires clarity, alignment, competence, and the ability to demonstrate decisions through evidence.
When these elements come together, accreditation stops being an anxious event. It becomes the natural consequence of a system that works every day, not just during audits.
If your organisation is preparing for accreditation or simply wants to reinforce the strength of its system, now is the ideal moment to evaluate your structure. Many verification and validation bodies feel confident until the assessment begins. The organisations that succeed are those who identify weaknesses early, strengthen their system before they are exposed, and ensure that their methodology, competence, impartiality, traceability, and decisions form a single coherent whole.
If you wish to understand where your system stands or if you need specialised support to strengthen competence, redesign impartiality, improve traceability, or prepare for accreditation under ISO 17029 and ISO 14065, I would be pleased to assist.
A credible system is not built overnight. But with the right structure, it becomes your strongest asset.