Impartiality Policy

This Policy applies, as appropriate, to GAR activities involving testing, inspection, certification, audit, verification, validation, conformity assessment, technical assurance and other activities where independent professional judgment is required.

It applies to relevant GAR personnel, auditors, inspectors, assessors, technical experts, reviewers, decision-makers, committees, subcontractors, laboratories, certification bodies and other competent resources operating within or through the GAR international network.

GAR applies a risk-based approach to identifying, evaluating and controlling threats to impartiality arising from its activities, relationships, personnel, financial arrangements and Network Resources.

Impartiality risks may be considered when establishing new services, accepting assignments, appointing personnel or subcontractors, changing organizational structures and reviewing existing operations.

Commercial considerations must not override technical or conformity-assessment requirements.

Business-development or commercial personnel must not exercise inappropriate influence over technical findings, reviews or certification decisions.

GAR recognizes that consultancy and independent conformity assessment can create significant self-review risks where roles are not appropriately separated.

Where GAR or associated resources provide consultancy, advisory or training services, suitable controls shall be considered before a related independent conformity-assessment activity is undertaken.

Personnel involved in independent activities are expected to protect their professional judgment and disclose circumstances capable of affecting their objectivity.

GAR may require relevant personnel to complete independence, confidentiality and conflict-of-interest declarations.

GAR seeks to ensure that personnel assigned to independent conformity-assessment activities do not have relationships or previous responsibilities that create an unacceptable threat to impartiality.

Relevant circumstances may include previous employment, consultancy, design or engineering involvement, ownership interests, financial interests, personal relationships or prior responsibility for the subject being assessed.

Where certification services are performed, certification decisions shall be appropriately independent from the evaluation activities leading to the recommendation.

Decisions should be based on applicable certification requirements, evaluation evidence, technical review where required, treatment of relevant nonconformities and applicable accreditation or scheme rules.

Testing conclusions must be based on applicable methods, competent execution, traceable evidence and technically valid results.

Laboratory personnel should be protected from inappropriate pressure to modify, suppress, select or misrepresent results.

Where laboratory activities involve Clients for whom GAR or a Network Resource has provided related development or technical services, potential self-review risks should be considered where relevant.

Inspection personnel must maintain the degree of independence required by the applicable inspection framework.

Where Type A or similarly independent inspection requirements apply, GAR or the relevant inspection resource should maintain appropriate organizational and operational separation from the parties responsible for the items inspected.

Verification and validation activities require independent evaluation of statements, information, claims, methodologies or performance.

GAR shall consider potential conflicts arising from previous involvement in preparation of the subject matter, development of relevant methodologies, preparation of reported information or advisory services relating directly to the claims being evaluated.

Appropriate safeguards shall be applied consistent with the applicable verification, validation or assurance framework.

GAR may coordinate laboratories, inspection bodies, certification bodies, auditors, engineers, consultants and technical specialists internationally.

Network participation does not remove impartiality obligations.

GAR considers whether relationships with associated organizations, partners, contractors or other entities could create threats to impartiality.

Such risks may arise through common ownership, directors or management, shared personnel, shared resources, financial relationships, marketing arrangements, referral arrangements, common Clients or consultancy relationships.

The existence of a relationship does not necessarily create an unacceptable conflict. The nature and significance of the threat must be evaluated.

Personnel must not accept gifts, payments, hospitality or other benefits that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their professional judgment.

Nominal hospitality consistent with ordinary professional courtesy may be acceptable where permitted by GAR requirements and applicable law, provided it cannot reasonably be interpreted as influencing an assessment or decision.

Confidentiality and impartiality are complementary professional principles.

GAR protects confidential information obtained during professional activities and restricts its use to legitimate purposes.

GAR maintains appropriate arrangements for monitoring impartiality according to the nature, scale and regulatory status of its activities.

Where an applicable accreditation standard requires a formal mechanism for safeguarding impartiality, the relevant GAR entity or Network Resource should maintain that mechanism.

Clients, employees, regulators, accreditation bodies and other interested parties may raise concerns regarding the impartiality of GAR activities.

Such concerns should be reviewed objectively and, where appropriate, independently from the activity or decision being challenged.

GAR management is responsible for promoting a culture in which professional integrity takes priority over inappropriate commercial or operational pressure.

GAR does not treat impartiality as a one-time declaration.

Impartiality risks should be reviewed as activities, markets, Clients, technologies, regulatory requirements and organizational relationships evolve.

The effectiveness of safeguards should be evaluated through appropriate governance, monitoring, internal review, accreditation oversight and continual-improvement processes.