Fun List of Ways ISO 9001 Doesn’t Comply with ISO’s Directives on Standards Development

• ISO 9001:2015 and the upcoming ISO 9001:2026 violate multiple rules laid out in ISO’s own standards development directives, particularly around clarity, consistency, and verifiability
  
• ISO’s failure to follow its directives has led to confusing, unenforceable, and poorly written requirements that complicate audits and undermine user confidence in the standard
  
• The writer calls for major structural reforms at ISO, including better editing, less consultant influence, and strict adherence to the ISO/IEC directives
  

One scathing and detailed critique of ISO 9001 shows how ISO 9001:2015 and the forthcoming 2026 revision, fails to comply with the very rules ISO sets for developing standards. These rules are laid out in the ISO/IEC Directives Parts 1 and 2, which govern everything from language clarity to requirement verifiability. According to Christopher Paris, ISO 9001 violates several of these directives outright, including those requiring standards to be clearly written, logically structured, and objectively verifiable. Examples include vague mandates such as “risk-based thinking” or “understanding context,” which auditors are expected to verify without any clear criteria.

This critique states that ISO 9001 breaks the rule that requirements should focus on performance, not design. It imposes specific wording for Quality Policies and prescribes single design processes, which limit organizational flexibility and violate the directive on promoting innovation. Other problems include confusing shifts in terminology, like inconsistent use of “monitoring and measurement,” “release,” and “process” that result in misinterpretation during audits. Auditors frequently misapply these vague or contradictory terms, forcing companies to comply with requirements that the standard doesn’t specify, simply because of poor editorial choices.

The writer also criticizes ISO for failing to maintain consistency and linguistic clarity, especially in a global context. The term “deal with,” for example, does not translate cleanly into other languages, yet it appears repeatedly in ISO 9001 in ways that sow confusion. More critically, ISO blurs the line between mandatory requirements and recommendations through phrases like “shall consider,” which technically imply that no action is required beyond contemplation. This ambiguity violates the directive that users must be able to distinguish clearly between required and optional provisions.

The writer recommends several sweeping reforms: eliminate consultant dominance on the drafting committee, restore qualified editorial oversight, slow down the rushed publication process, and enforce the ISO Directives with accountability. He argues that ISO 9001 was on a better path in its 2000 version and that subsequent versions have introduced unnecessary complexity to serve the financial interests of consultants and ISO leadership. Without meaningful changes, Paris warns, the 2026 revision may deepen the confusion and further erode ISO 9001’s credibility among quality professionals and certified organizations.

Read the full article