The questions and answers marked with an * have been approved by ASI according to the terms of our contract with them. We also include information here on related items that are not subject to ASI approval but are important to understand as well.
Note: On 17 November 2017 ASI announced the reversal of the suspension decision of NEPCon’s FSC accreditation in Russia. This is followed by the SBP announcement on 20 November 2017 that the SBP suspension, as a consequence of the FSC suspension, is deleted from the records. Read more here.
Our FSC suspension in Russia was lifted on 19 April 2017. Please click here to read more.
If you have any further questions please feel free to get in touch with your NEPCon contact and we will try to get you answers to your additional questions if we can.
If you are a journalist please contact our Head of Communications (al@nepcon.org) who will be able to assist you.
Thank you for your interest.
Question A1*: What’s going on?
Answer: First we want to let you know that we disagree with the decision to suspend us and filed an appeal within 24 hours of being informed of this action by ASI. Our appeal has been accepted for a review process by ASI and we are hopeful it will be resolved in our favour.
In September 2016, ASI conducted what is called a compliance audit of one of our Chain of Custody-certified clients in Siberia, Russia. This is part of ASI’s normal efforts to monitor the work of Certification Bodies like us.
During the audit, the Auditor from ASI asked the Certificate Holder for copies of emails between our staff and their organisation. The emails showed that:
- our Lead Auditor had sent sample FSC Chain of Custody procedures to the organisation, and
- during the desk review portion of our audit, our Lead Auditor entered comments into the procedures, identifying gaps and providing an example of text for missing sections.
Later, the Manager of our Lead Auditor told the ASI Auditor that it is normal practice to provide available samples of procedures and do a desk review of procedures prior to the first assessment;
- ASI reported to us that they consider the activity of our Lead Auditor as ‘consultancy’ and a violation of FSC impartiality requirements;
- ASI also has a different understanding of the details of the verbal conversation with the Manager than we do. In other words, there is disagreement about what may have actually been said.
On this basis ASI has told us that they decided to suspend our FSC accreditation in Russia effective 1 December 2016 because they concluded we have a problem with the way we protect our impartiality as auditors in Russia which is a breach of the FSC Accreditation requirements. We disagree with this suspension and have filed an official appeal to ASI regarding their decision. We have a letter from them but we are not allowed to share it with you.
Please see this infographic that lays out a timeline of this matter.
(added on 20 December 2016)
Question A2*: Can you do any FSC certification work while you are suspended?
Answer: Yes, our FSC work is unaffected everywhere outside of Russia so things continue as normal there. In Russia there are some restrictions; generally, we can continue with annual audits and reassessments, but until the suspension is lifted we cannot take on new FSC clients.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question A3*: What are you going to do next?
Answer: We are working on several fronts to resolve this matter as soon as possible:
- Continue with our appeal of the ASI decision to suspend us. The ASI process allows Certification Bodies to appeal their decisions. We hope that the decision to suspend us will be overturned. If so, we will of course be in contact with you immediately to tell you the good news.
- We are working in parallel to address the specific concerns raised by ASI and to close the non-conformities as soon as possible so we can return to business as usual. We have requested ASI to review this work as soon as possible.
Please note that we believe that we should always be involved in continuous improvement of our work, and so we are acting on the ASI input; our core issue with this matter is not that we cannot do better, it is that we disagree with ASI’s determination that there is a problem with our work that requires suspension until it is corrected and that we believe were serious errors in the basis of the decision and its process need to be addressed. - We have also, of course, consulted with our lawyers to be sure that we are following all appropriate procedures.
- As we move through this process we will be constantly engaging with all involved parties to find the best and fastest path to a resolution of this matter that treats all involved fairly and allows us to continue doing our work.
(added on 20 December 2016)
Question A4*: What do you need to do to get the suspension lifted?
Answer: We have two paths to resolving this matter, we can be successful in our appeal of the suspension or we can provide documentation to the ASI Managing Director showing that their concerns are addressed. We are following both paths in a parallel effort.
ASI had informed us in writing that “Lifting of the suspension is subject to sufficient actions by the Head Office to the satisfaction of the ASI Managing Director within the six-month suspension period by 1st of June 2017.”
We also received specific direction from ASI on what we need to do to address their concerns. However they have required us to keep those terms confidential and so we cannot share them with you. If this changes we will update this question with the details of their requests.
We are working on documenting our responses to these requests.
Successful conclusion of our appeal of the suspension decision will also result in the suspension being lifted.
(added on 20 December 2016)
Question A5*: How long will you be suspended for?
Answer: We don’t know the answer to that yet. The longest the suspension will be in place is six months. During that time, we have been informed by ASI in a letter that “Lifting of the suspension is subject to sufficient actions by the Head Office to the satisfaction of the ASI Managing Director within the six-month suspension period by 1st of June 2017.”
The alternative path is that if our appeal of the Suspension is successful, the suspension will be lifted. The next step is that ASI will look for suitable independent and impartial investigators and let us know about their proposal. Once we confirm that ASI appointed investigators are acceptable to us, the total review of the appeal shall be held within 90 calendar days.
(added on 20 December 2016)
Question A6: What is the result of the appeal process?
Answer: The first appeal of one of the findings in the underlying audit report was filed on 30 November 2016 and was resolved via a "remediation" process by ASI and so withdrawn based on that outcome, it was not logged in the ASI system as an appeal.
We next submitted an appeal of the suspension on 2 December 2016 that was accepted by ASI on 5 December 2016.
We also filed two more appeals on 5 December and 11 December 2016. ASI denied these two appeals on 13 December 2016 for technical reasons.
Regarding the accepted appeal of 2 December:
Once accepted, the appeals are managed through either an internal process or via a formal panel. In compliance with ASI rules we indicated that we would like to start with the internal review and processes and if that was not successful that we would then follow the formal panel process. ASI rejected our request on 13 December 2016 and required that we not take that first step and instead start with the formal panel.
Under these rules the appeal will start to be reviewed only when the independent appeal committee is established. The panel consists of members nominated by ASI and accepted by us. Once an acceptable panel has been identified it can take up to 90 days for the committee to complete the review. In late December 2016, nearly one month after we filed this appeal, ASI had not proposed any candidates for the committee and could not tell us when they would provide us with a proposed list.
ASI also informed us that Investigating the appeal and evaluating the certification body’s corrective actions would not be done as parallel processes and indicated that they would not review the corrective actions until the appeal was resolved. At the end of December that meant that it would not be likely to have this review until at least 120 days from then (assuming one month to appoint panel members and 3 months for their review). See QA3, A4, A5 for an explanation of why we completed the information on "Corrective Actions" even though we disagree with the stated rationale for the suspension.
Given the prolonged appeal process, and the fixed time frame of ASI requiring that a suspension be resolved within 6 months or termination be implemented we felt that there was no truly viable path to having the appeal completed before that deadline. Upon consultation with ASI and confirming an intent to work with all possible speed to resolve this matter appropriately we withdrew the appeal on 28 December 2016.
The matter is still open.
(added on 22 March 2017)
Question B*: You were suspended on 1 December but did not make it public until 6 December. What took you so long?
Answer: It is standard for ASI to request an embargo on their decision being communicated in these cases. It allows them, and us, to prepare our staff to be able to support clients’ questions and prepare our public statements for distribution. 6 December was the first day we were allowed to discuss the suspension publicly. Under the terms of our accreditation contract with ASI we are required to get all public announcements regarding an Accreditation Decision pre-approved by them which can take some time.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question C: Which client was involved?
Answer: I’m sorry – We’re sure you understand that we cannot disclose that information.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question D*: I’m an FSC client of yours in Russia. Can you continue to work with me?
Answer: In almost all cases, yes we can.
During the time we’re suspended, we are not allowed to:
- sign new FSC certification contracts.
- perform initial FSC certification assessments.
- issue new FSC certificates (except in certain very specific circumstances).
Therefore, if we have conducted (or started to conduct) an FSC on-site audit for you on or before 1 December 2016 that means nothing will change. We are allowed to:
- conduct surveillance audits for you.
- conduct re-certification audits for you.
- conduct audits for you for any new sites you may add to any of your existing certificates.
We have done a review of all our client relationships in Russia and found that only two of our clients may be directly impacted by this. Here is what we know as of now about our work with our clients in Russia.
Our records showed a very small number of clients that required a review by ASI to determine how and if we could work with them while the suspension is in place. We have taken several steps to get clarity on these cases:
- We have shared the client details and the status of our work with ASI as we are required to do. On 6 December, we received approval from ASI to continue our work with these clients.
- There are two additional clients that we know are impacted by this matter. We are working on developing alternatives for them and are in direct contact with them and will continue to be until they are successfully transitioned to a new Certification Body or our suspension is lifted. Our goal is that these clients are able to move forward with their certification on a schedule they want.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question E*: My FSC certificate will expire soon and I will need to have a full-scale re-assessment to renew my certificate. Can you carry out this re-assessment while you’re suspended?
Answer: Yes, we can. We will work with you individually on this, no matter where you are located. If you want to discuss anything directly with your local office just let us know and we will be in touch.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question F: I want to terminate my contract with you now and look for a new Certification Body right away. What is the process?
Answer: We would be sorry to learn that but just let us know and we will give you the information you need.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question G: Do you think that the FSC rules for what is considered consultancy could be improved?
Answer: We think that FSC’s rules regarding exactly what advice a Certification Body may or may not give a client are not currently as clear as they could be and could be sharpened.
This is not a problem with FSC, but an issue that is involved with almost all certification processes. It is clear that generic advice that could apply to all clients is considered fine, but specific advice tailored to one particular client is not.
In practice, the distinction between those two activities can be extremely blurry. We have asked FSC to clarify this and raised the issue more broadly in many ways – for an example, see this position paper we sent FSC last month and published on our website. In the meantime we direct our auditors to err on the conservative side and when we find they have not we work to ensure they understand our approach on these kinds of questions and monitor their ongoing work to ensure that our internal standards, and those of the accreditations we hold are complied with as robustly as possible. We’ve said it before, and will surely say it again, “We are dedicated to the concept of continuous improvement and see it as a signal of success of our systems that we are learning and improving as we work to protect the natural resources that are important to us all”.
(added on 8 December 2016)
Question H*: You do one audit for us where you assess us against both the FSC and PEFC standards. Will you be able to continue to do this?
Answer: Yes, we can continue to do that if you currently have your FSC certification or are actively in process with us as noted above.
(added on 16 December 2016)
Question I: What are you going to do now?
Answer: As NEPCon is an organisation dedicated to continuous performance improvement. We see that there are some areas that need more focus from us in the near future. These include, but are not limited to, the below listed actions:
-
We will work on fully addressing and closing 3 major non-conformities issued by ASI to us.
-
We will continue our ongoing efforts to try to fully identify and resolve any issues that could be seen as inappropriate consultancy activities when we do audits.
-
We will conduct a review of our impartiality mechanism and will continue to identify and address any threats to impartiality which could be seen as likely to arise from our work, in any part of our organisation.
(added on 16 December 2016)