DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE ACCREDITATION AND
CERTIFICATION MODEL FOR THE HUMANITARIAN SECTOR
DRAFT REPORT
This report represents findings from preliminary research only, and is intended as a scoping study
to inform the wider consultation that will follow in our research into certification.
CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Introduction
Demonstrating quality
Standards
Identifying a standard
Developing a sustainable certification model
Developing a sustainable accreditation model
A way forward?
Annex
About this report
This report has been prepared for Philip Tamminga, Project Coordinator of the SCHR initiated Certification
Review Project. Its aim is to briefly set out the most viable option/s for a sustainable accreditation and
certification model for humanitarian organisations, based on desk research and key informant interviews
undertaken during April and May 2013.
22 May 2013
Ben Emmens
ben@theconsciousproject.org
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 1 of 12
1. Introduction
Introduction
The drive towards the certification of International Non-Government Organisations (INGOs) continues
inexorably. More than 100 humanitarian quality and accountability initiatives have been created over the
last twenty years; some have had a significant impact on the way disaster relief has been designed and
delivered, others less so.
At the same time, institutional donors have introduced their own accreditation systems to vet INGOs; the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has made important progress
with its (International) Disaster Law Programme; the International Standards Organisation (ISO) has set up
a technical committee to develop standards relating to societal security and disaster relief, and more
widely, the success of the Global Reporting Initiative (approaching its fourth iteration) and the growth in
sustainability reporting all indicate the strong interest in quality and accountability, and in standards,
certification and accreditation.
The Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR) recently launched a two year project to explore
how certification of humanitarian organisations could contribute to quality and accountability towards
crisis affected populations and other stakeholders. And currently, three of the most well known
humanitarian standards organisations are exploring the feasibility of a new humanitarian Common Core
Standard, through the Joint Standards Initiative (JSI).
Why certify?
The primary purpose of certification includes the following areas that could contribute to stakeholder
confidence, in that:
1) programmes serve people well (in accordance with their wishes and international standards)
2) experience and recommendations are incorporated in future programmes to ensure continual
improvement
3) humanitarian organisations are more credible in the eyes of those they serve and those who fund
Context
Accreditation and certification need to be seen in context and the diagram below (adapted from an original
in ‘Toward Sustainability’, Resolv.org June 2012) helps.
Certification is invariably based on an accepted standard,
code, or framework. The process of agreeing a standard, its
status (voluntary or mandatory) and a compliance
mechanism can take considerable time. As organisations
adopt the standard, conformity or compliance can be verified
through a process of self-certification or certification, the
latter usually undertaken by a certification body with
designated authority. Once the organisation or product or
service is certified, it can be accredited.
In the humanitarian sector, most standards deal with the
‘supply’ side of disaster relief and humanitarian action and
have been developed by various stakeholders including the
INGOs themselves and donors. There are few formal
compliance mechanisms or accredited certification bodies.
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 2 of 12
2. Demonstrating quality
In any industry or sector, there are typically three ways in which an organisation demonstrates quality:
1
Self-certification
Where there are ‘voluntary’ standards, codes and good practice guidelines, and informed
stakeholders, then organisations often choose to self-certify. Self certification usually works best if
there is an associated surveillance mechanism which encourages comparison and transparency and
invites scrutiny from stakeholders.
An example might be humanitarian organisations that sign up to the Red Cross Code of Conduct, or
to fundraising standards, or to the INGO Accountability Charter, and then publicly report on their
performance against those standards. Their performance may then be publicly tracked and rated
by an organisation such as Guidestar or Charity Navigator or an online index or league table.
The cost of self-certifying is not trivial – membership of the INGO Accountability Charter can be
upwards of €5,000 in addition to staff time needed to prepare the report.
2
Customers
In many markets, quality is determined by the customer or consumer and the feedback they give.
When a product, service or organisation disappoints or falls below expectations, customers can
choose to vote with their feet or their wallet, and take their custom elsewhere. This ‘mechanism’
works where there is a market, and freedom of choice. It also assumes basic minimum standards
are being met and that consumers have some protection from dangerous goods.
There is not really a parallel with the humanitarian sector, where relief or assistance is often
provided in a ‘non-market’ situation and the customer is more likely to be a recipient, with little or
no choice over the product or service they receive, and weak mechanisms for giving feedback.
3
Certification
Many sectors typically have a mass of standards and codes, and most organisations will find
themselves bound by various regulations or laws and with substantial compliance and reporting
obligations. In these contexts, inspection regimes and certification bodies proliferate; some may be
private and some may be quasi-statutory.
Within the humanitarian sector, INGOs providing health services, or delivering water or sanitation
programmes, or constructing shelter, may find themselves bound by additional national or
international codes and standards. Host governments can impose reporting requirements and of
course there are legal financial reporting obligations as well as those required by insurers. Some
institutional donors have a mandatory ‘certification’ (and accreditation) process which INGOs must
go through before they can receive funding, for example ACFID (the Australian Council for
International Development). Evidence of the value of certification to aid recipients is still limited.
The cost and ‘red-tape’ associated with certification processes can be high and in the humanitarian
sector the cost of becoming certified and accredited by People In Aid or the Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership (for a typical INGO) is at least €5,000 and often upwards of €15,000, and
in addition to staff time.
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 3 of 12
3. Standards
An unregulated industry?
It has been argued that the humanitarian sector is an unregulated sector, with INGOs in particular often
operating in an unregulated and uncertified way. To the extent that there is not a globally recognised set of
regulations governing how INGOs operate, this is true, yet a conversation with any large humanitarian NGO
would suggest that far from being unregulated, there are a plethora of standards, certifications,
accreditations and internal review mechanisms applying to their national and international operations. For
example, INGOs that receive funding from institutional donors such as the European Union, or American,
Australian or British governments, have comprehensive stipulations and regulations imposed, and as
compliance is often linked to continued funding, conforming is taken seriously. However, the quality of the
feedback loop varies and there remains a “fundamental disconnect between those paying for the services
of humanitarian actors and those using those services” (John Cosgrave, ‘Humanitarian standards – too
much of a good thing’, February 2013,www.jointstandards.org).
A plethora of standards?
But institutional donor standards make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of standards.
When the Joint Standards Initiative (JSI) mapped humanitarian quality and accountability initiatives in
December 2012, more than 70 were identified, with varying certification mechanisms from none at all (the
majority) to voluntary sign up (14), a self assessment process (12) or a formal mechanism (10). They were
grouped by the following definitions:







Donor standards
Charters/Codes/Standards
Working groups
Reporting frameworks
Awards
Capacity building
Implementation/practice guidance
A follow up piece of work commissioned by the JSI in February 2013 identified 119 quality and
accountability initiatives in (or that affect) the humanitarian sector (John Cosgrave, ibid.). Perhaps we
should not be surprised at this: discussions with organisations working in other sectors revealed that
standards and codes proliferate in most sectors, and although there can be duplication, there is an
acceptance that most standards have been developed by different legitimate stakeholders in response to
specific issues, and a widely held view that rationalisation (or consolidation) is both unrealistic and unlikely.
Which standard?
The core of any certification system is the standard—a defined set of social, environmental, and/or
economic criteria. Standards systems determine who has a voice in setting the standard, how it evolves
over time, who audits and verifies or certifies compliance, who accredits the certifiers, and how compliance
is signalled—with corresponding effects on legitimacy and credibility, costs and benefits, and ability to
achieve goals. A continuous learning approach supports improved quality and effectiveness of the system
over time. (Toward Sustainability, Resolv.org June 2012).
Being clear about the standard to be used in certifying humanitarian organisations is one of the most
pressing issues and must be addressed before a sustainable model can be developed.
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 4 of 12
4. Identifying a standard
A standard acts as the basis for comparison or reference point against which something can be evaluated. It
can contain both quantitative and qualitative criteria or requirements. For a standard to become widely
recognised and acknowledged as a mark of excellence, it needs to be developed through a broad consensus
building process involving all relevant stakeholders. Thus, the standard is the core of any certification
system. But which standard (or standards) should be used for humanitarian organisations?
Whatever their line of business, many organisations face a bewildering choice of operating (quality)
standards, some of which are mandatory or legally required, and some of which are voluntary or good
practice. Where standards are mandated or legally required, then it is usual for the mechanism for
assessing conformity (or certification system) to be prescribed. Equally, where donors make funding
conditional on compliance with their own standards (eg AusAid through ACFID, the Disasters Emergency
Committee), then the ‘certification’ system is prescribed and INGOs seeking such funding choose to
comply. However, where there are a wide range of applicable standards, particularly voluntary standards,
codes and good practice guidelines, then many organisations will use a ‘reporting standard’ to demonstrate
‘compliance’ and to reassure stakeholders.
A ‘reporting’ standard?
Two of the most widely recognised reporting standards are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines
and the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability’s Assurance Standard AA1000AS. Both reporting
standards have been in existence since the mid/late 1990s and are used by thousands of organisations
around the world. Reporting standards enable an organisation to demonstrate it is ‘doing the right things’,
and not just ‘doing things right’.
More recently (2010) ISO launched ISO 26000, an International Standard on Social Responsibility. However,
ISO 26000 is a voluntary guidance standard that is not to be used for certification (unlike ISO 9001, quality
management and ISO 14001, environmental management), and as a standard it is still in its infancy.
The reality is that preparing a report in accordance with a reporting standard is little more than
comprehensive self-certification unless undertaken as part of a wider process, which may or may not be
part of a certification system. GRI themselves offer a form of ‘certification’ through the review and
publication of reports, AA1000AS reports are invariably prepared in conjunction with a credible assurance
provider (there are many), and within the humanitarian sector the INGO Accountability Charter offers a
form of ‘certification’.
A ‘quality’ standard?
For various reasons, some organisations choose to implement one or more quality standards and seek
standard specific certification and accreditation. This choice may be related to their sector specialism (for
example protection, or health, or shelter, or water and sanitation) or it may be related to their operating
model (for example they have a fleet of aircraft requiring routine maintenance, and conformity to a quality
standard such as ISO 9001 is required by their insurers). There is nothing preventing a humanitarian
organisation being certified and accredited to more than one specific quality standards (eg ISO 9001, HAP
and People In Aid) and demonstrating this additionally through the use of a reporting standard such as GRI
or AA1000AS, though in practice few appear to. More common is the inverse where humanitarian
organisations have chosen to report on how they ‘comply’ with a wide range of voluntary codes through a
‘sustainability report’ based on GRI or AA1000AS.
Currently the Joint Standards Initiative (JSI) is seeking to consolidate the core aspects of the Sphere
Standards, the HAP standard and the People In Aid Code into a humanitarian Common Core Standard.
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 5 of 12
In addition, the International Standards organisation (ISO) has a Technical Committee (TC223) dedicated to
Societal Security and charged with developing a new standard (norm) for Disaster Relief. Given what we
know about ISO, the eventual publication of such a standard is inevitable, and will no doubt be appealing to
institutional stakeholders such as local and national governments and some donors or suppliers.
In recent years and reflecting the growing importance of technology in facilitating transparency, a number
of initiatives geared towards social investors have gained credibility and profile, for example Guidestar and
Charity Navigator. Such initiatives typically report on organisational performance against a number of
standard metrics which are available in the public domain, for example Inland Revenue Service data. As the
popularity of such services grows, they are adding to their data sets and reporting on impact and
accountability metrics. Whilst not standards per se, nor established certification systems, their importance
is growing. A key characteristic of such initiatives is their general reluctance to accept funding or payment
from governments or humanitarian organisations themselves, and this has implications for their
sustainability, leaving them reliant on private donations and grants.
And in the humanitarian sector initiatives such as the Listening Project and Ground Truth have sought to
articulate and codify good practice with regard to engagement with and accountability towards disaster
affected populations. Such initiatives are neither fully fledged standards nor established certification
systems, though they clearly have a significant role to play in terms of quality and accountability.
Choosing a way forward?
Reporting standards and quality standards are certainly not mutually exclusive. However, as we have
noted, humanitarian organisations face a proliferation of standards and while the Joint Standards Initiative
(JSI) will undoubtedly go some way towards achieving consolidation in the next few years through the
creation of a humanitarian Common Core Standard, it will be a challenge to reach a consensus, and even at
the end of the JSI process, many of the existing quality standards will still remain and still be very relevant.
As part of the JSI’s work to create a Common Core Standard, it is reasonable to assume that an
accompanying certification and accreditation system could be developed. This accompanying system may
be sufficient to satisfy the expectation and objectives of the certification project. However, given the
diverse operating contexts, size and ethos of humanitarian organisations, and the unanimous desire to see
accountability to users/affected populations/beneficiaries at the heart of any standard and certification
system, using a reporting standard as the basis for certification and accreditation of humanitarian
organisations remains the most feasible and cost-effective option at this stage.
The ISO standard being developed by TC223 is inevitable. Whether governments or donors require
compliance is unknown.
The most viable way forward at this stage (and one that would accommodate a future JSI standard would
seem to be that of a reporting standard (such as AA100AS) with external verification by a credible
(accredited) assurance provider.
Critical questions
1. Could we work with an existing reporting standard such as GRI, (and influence the further
development of the NGO Sector Specific Guidelines from a humanitarian perspective) or
AA1000AS, both of which are used by thousands of organisations around the world?
2. Should we use a new quality standard such as the JSI’s (yet to be developed) humanitarian
Common Core Standard as the basis for organisational certification and accreditation?
3. Should the new Common Core Standard being developed by the JSI have levels, for example:
‘fail/no compliance’ or ‘working towards’, ‘minimum’, through to ‘excellence’?
4. How can we engage with ISO TC 223 as a matter of urgency to influence the development of a new
standard for Disaster Relief?
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 6 of 12
5. Developing a sustainable certification model
What do we mean by certification?
For this project, certification means a systematic and regular independent (normally external) assessment of
some key criteria around the organisation’s capacity, experience and performance in supporting high quality aid
and how well it fulfils its accountability obligations to affected populations and other stakeholders. The main
focus of certification is around assuring more consistent use and application of quality standards and best
practices, and not the regulation of humanitarian actors.
Certification is the process through which an organisation gets certified, registered or approved to a certain
standard. It is performed by a just and independent third party ‘certification body’ which issues papers to
guarantee personnel, products, procedures or services conform to the stated certification requirements.
Who certifies?
There are three basic ways in which authority to certify is determined:
1. Where standards are voluntary, then the adopters themselves or credible third parties can assume
the responsibility for certifying and set themselves up as a certification body. In essence this is what
HAP, People In Aid and the INGO Accountability Charter have done.
2. Where standards may be a condition of access, then the authority may be conferred upon a trade
or business association, or a ‘market gatekeeper’. In essence, standards imposed by institutional
donors such as AusAid through ACFID
3. Where the standard is mandatory, then the authority usually resides with a regulatory agency.
Standards in this category may include financial regulations that govern non-profits, and standards
that apply to employment, premises, trading or fundraising.
Establishing a certification body?
While it is true that any entity can - with the support of its stakeholders – set itself up as a certification
body to certify any organisation, process, system or product that meets certain prescribed (voluntary)
quality criteria, such entities should not be confused with ‘accredited’ certification bodies.
‘Accredited’ certification bodies have international credibility accorded as a result of their adherence to
rigorous criteria laid out by their (national) accreditation body (including conformity to ISO 17021) and the
national accreditation body itself is governed by the International Accreditation Federation (the IAF is the
world association of Conformity Assessment Accreditation Bodies and other bodies interested in
conformity assessment in the fields of management systems, products, services, personnel and other
similar programmes of conformity assessment). This ensures that certification to a quality standard such as
ISO 9001 by an accredited certification body such as the BSI in the UK has the same credibility and
consistency as certification to ISO 9001 by SGS in India or DNV in Vietnam. It is likely that when an ISO
standard for Disaster Relief is launched, conformity assessment and certification will only be possible when
undertaken by an accredited certification body.
Certification bodies do exist in the humanitarian sector, though they are few, and, as far as I have been able
to ascertain, none of them are currently accredited by a national accreditation body. That is not to say the
certification systems are weak or ineffective – far from it. HAP, People In Aid and the INGO Accountability
Charter each have robust, transparent processes, independent review panel/s and rely on reporting
publicly. But as there is no ‘supra-body’ or accredited certification body, ultimately the certification systems
themselves are vulnerable to criticism that they are unaccountable.
In other sectors, for example, Marine Stewardship Certification, Forestry Stewardship Certification and
Fairtrade Certification, conformity assessments are undertaken by accredited certification bodies and the
method is typically closely related to that of an ISO conformity assessment. This works where products are
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 7 of 12
relatively consistent, and supply chains predictable. But the model is ill-suited to challenging, diverse and
unpredictable humanitarian context and the lack of ‘consumer choice’ for aid recipients.
How much can certification cost?
The audit and certification fee depends absolutely on the certification model chosen.
 The audit and certification fees applied by an accredited certification body such as SGS for an ISO
9001 audit can typically be €5-10,000 per year (paid by the organisation), and excluding out of
pocket audit expenses (flights/accommodation) and staff time.
 The typical cost of becoming certified and accredited by HAP or People In Aid (for a typical INGO) is
at least €5,000 and often upwards of €15,000 (paid for by the INGO) and excluding out of pocket
audit expenses (flights/accommodation) and staff time.
 The typical cost of membership of the INGO Accountability Charter is upwards of €5,000 excluding
the staff time required to prepare the report in accordance with GRI guidelines.
 The cost of a social auditor to undertake an assurance process can be typically €1-2,000 per day,
with the process taking 10-15 days. Excluding out of pocket expenses (flights/accommodation) and
staff time. However rates and assignment duration varies greatly and more research is required
should this route need to be explored further.
Relatively speaking, the cost of certification is a very small percentage of an INGO’s operating budget and
can be on par with the cost of a programme evaluation.
Levels of certification?
Conformity assessments that relate to a specific standard are usually ‘pass or fail’, although depending on
the nature and quantity of minor non-compliances, certification may still be awarded. In an ISO audit, a
major non-conformity or a certain number of non-compliances will usually result in certification being
withheld or even revoked if corrective action is not timely.
Organisations such as Fairtrade which assess conformity through FLOCert or through its own standard and
process typically have a core set of criteria which must be met before certification is awarded.
Reporting standards and a social audit methodology lends itself to a levelled or graded approach, where a
certification or accreditation body can use its judgement to determine the level of ‘compliance’. For
example GRI 3 currently use a number of levels (A,B,C, with a + to indicate whether independent external
assurance has been provided) although it is understood GRI will move away from this in the fourth iteration
of the guidelines due in 2013.
Where a separate process for ‘certification’ or ‘accreditation’ exists, for example a separate body is
responsible for awarding a badge or ‘quality mark’, then there is additional scope for the accreditation to
have levels: for example People In Aid outsources the assurance process to an independent external
assurance provider before awarding second level certification (Verified Compliant), but retains
responsibility for approving membership applications and awarding first level certification (Committed);
HAP audits and awards certification itself, Fairtrade typically outsources inspection and conformity
assessments and retains responsibility for ‘certifying’ and awarding the Fairtrade label.
Critical questions
1. Is there a logical (existing) certification body?
2. Should the certification body / bodies be accredited?
3. Can we work with existing national (accredited) certification bodies?
4. Could we work with an existing certification system such as that provided by GRI themselves, or the
INGO Accountability Charter?
5. Could we encourage organisations to report in accordance with AA1000AS (either as an alternative
to GRI or in addition to GRI) and seek external verification of their reports?
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 8 of 12
6. Developing a sustainable accreditation model
Accreditation is often integrated with the certification process, particularly when the certification process is
run by an ‘accredited’ certification body, and there are plenty of examples where the certification body
awards a badge, or ‘sustainability label’ or ‘quality mark’ as a symbol of verification. In the humanitarian
sector, HAP and the INGO Accountability Charter do this and more widely, accredited certification bodies
auditing to ISO standards such as ISO 9001 both audit and verify compliance through the award of an
external ‘badge’.
Where an organisation has prepared a sustainability report (in accordance with a reporting standard such
as GRI or AA1000AS) to demonstrate its compliance or conformity with various code or voluntary
standards, then many accredited certification bodies (such as SGS, DNV or KPMG and Ernst & Young) offer
external verification. In the case of the INGO Accountability Charter an independent review panel
thoroughly reviews reports before approval.
Many use the words certification and accreditation inter-changeably. However, for the purposes of this
certification review project, there is value in separating the recognition aspect from the certification model
and assessment / reporting process. The reason being is that it is conceivable that a number of
stakeholders who are not involved in assessing conformity or compliance would seek a role in accrediting
humanitarian organisations, and this includes the UN and potentially institutional donors.
Where accreditation is integrated with the certification process, then the accreditation model can be
decentralised and run nationally. However, where there is a separate accreditation body or process, ie
those that award a ‘badge’ based on a report or assurance statement provided by another entity, then the
model tends to be centralised and run from a single international entity.
Critical questions
1. Who currently has the authority to accredit?
2. Is there a logical (existing) accreditation body?
3. Could the responsibility for accrediting be given to the certification body or integrated with the
‘certification process’?
4. Which stakeholders should be included a part of this discussion?
5. What is the role of the UN?
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 9 of 12
7. A way forward?
There are a number of critical questions to address as part of the development of a sustainable
accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector, as identified in the report. However,
based on this initial research, the views of those interviewed and the appropriateness of the approach, the
most viable way forward would seem to be basing the model on a ‘reporting standard’ i.e. a social audit
process which places aid recipients (disaster affected populations) at the centre as a core stakeholder.
The accreditation and certification model could be based on an existing reporting standard such as
AA1000AS, and combined with external verification and accreditation provided through an existing (or
new) certification body. Or it could be based on the existing GRI reporting standard, but with the proviso
that the reporting guidelines be adapted to give a humanitarian focus, and combined with a strengthened
verification and accreditation mechanism through a certification body such as the INGO Accountability
Charter. The advantage of a reporting standard is that while it does not prescribe which voluntary
humanitarian standards should be implemented, there is a clear expectation that a reporting organisation
will implement and comply with all relevant and appropriate standards, and be publicly accountable for
doing so. It also permits a de-centralised approach based on a global framework, with external verification
and accreditation being possible at a national level through existing accredited certification bodies.
A number of humanitarian organisations are already familiar with this type of process and some already
budget for the cost of this level of self-reporting, (for example, members of the INGO Accountability
Charter), although the additional cost of external verification and accreditation must be acknowledged. In
addition, the INGO Accountability Charter currently has a further 24 INGO members of various sizes
including a number that deliver humanitarian assistance. 11 of People In Aid’s 200+ members are fully
People In Aid certified having undergone a social audit, including Save the Children and the British Red
Cross, with a further 40 ‘first level’ certified, including Islamic Relief Worldwide, and therefore familiar with
what is involved in a social audit. 18 of HAP International’s 87 members are HAP certified on the basis of an
independent audit with a further 12 having undertaken a baseline analysis relating to the HAP standard. A
number of INGOs are both People In Aid and HAP certified.
The widely used term for this ‘reporting standard’ approach is a ‘sustainability report’ – humanitarian
organisations may need to offer their own interpretation of this, i.e. what they understand the term to
mean, possibly drawing on the criteria laid out in the DAC principles for evaluating development assistance,
which define sustainability as being ‘concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are
likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn’ and requiring projects ‘to be environmentally as
well as financially sustainable’. And, referring to the other criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
and impact.
Alternatively the JSI humanitarian Common Core Standard could potentially provide a sound basis on which
to certify and accredit, though a certification mechanism has yet to be discussed. Given the complexity and
diversity of the humanitarian sector, it is possible that it will remain a voluntary standard but with
endorsement from institutional donors, umbrella groups and national governments, it could be standard
that became a ‘condition of access’. If a social audit based certification model were to be developed (for
example with reference to AA1000AS) then it would open the way for the current practice of using a
reporting standard to be integrated, and with careful planning, it could permit a designated accreditation
body to accredit (or ‘badge’) on the basis of a verified assurance statement.
The costs of developing the standard and a certification and accreditation model are unknown at this stage,
and will vary greatly depending on whether a centralised audit and certification model are adopted or not.
At this stage, working with an existing credible (accredited) assurance provider would enable accurate
costings for a certification model to be developed.
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 10 of 12
Regarding accreditation, consultation in this regard should be accelerated in order to identify the core
stakeholders and clarify the role of the UN and donors in an accreditation model. It should also include
within its scope the nature and extent of any levels of accreditation.
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 11 of 12
Annex
The options contained within this report have been identified following work carried out by Ben Emmens
between March and May 2013, which included desk-based research and 18 semi-structured interviews.
Sincere thanks is extended to those who made themselves available to be interviewed, generously
investing their time in this process through the sharing of their experience and insight.
References
A number of relevant informing documents were consulted as part of this work including:












SCHR Paper 3 – Background paper: moving forward with certification January 2012 SCHR Technical
Group
One World Trust – Mapping national level self-regulation initiatives against the INGO Accountability
Charter, May 2012
JSI -Mapping exercise of Quality & Accountability initiatives in the humanitarian sector; prepared
for the Joint Standards Initiative, December 2012
Towards Sustainability; the roles and limits of certification, June 2012, published by Resolv.Inc
JSI Global stakeholder consultation report final, April 2013, from jointstandards.org
Reporting on Corporate Sustainability Performance — The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate
Governance and Financial Regulation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/12/06/reportingon-corporate-sustainability-performance/
Harvard Business School – Sustainability reporting
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-100_35684ae7-fcdc-4aae-9626de4b2acb1748.pdf
EU Report on sustainability reporting
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6728&langId=en
Ernst & Young – State of sustainability reporting
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ACM_BC/$File/13041061668_ACM_BC_Corporate_Center.pdf
Global Reporting Initiative: a new framework? http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainablebusiness/global-reporting-initiative-updates
Accountability - Guidance for Reporting Organisations Seeking Assurance to AA1000AS
http://www.accountability.org/images/content/1/9/194/Guidance%20for%20Reporting%20Organi
sations%20Seeking%20Assurance%20to%20AA1000.pdf
Towards sustainability – June 2012 http://www.resolv.org/site-assessment/towardsustainability/
Developing a sustainable accreditation and certification model for the humanitarian sector
22 May 2013
Page 12 of 12