Accredited certification vs private label: understanding the structural difference

1. Accredited certification: an independent, institutional assessment

Accredited certification falls within the regulated field of conformity assessment. It meets five fundamental requirements:

1.1. An independent third-party body

The assessor is neither designer, trainer, project manager nor project advisor.

1.2. A public, stable standard

The assessment rules are documented, transparent and open to external scrutiny.

1.3. An impartial decision process

Review, assessment, decision: each step is separated.

1.4. Traceability and evidence

The decision rests on verifiable, audited elements.

1.5. Accreditability to ISO/IEC 17065

The certification body can be monitored by a national accreditation body. This is the institutional guarantee of:

• competence,
• impartiality,
• management of conflicts of interest,
• independence of the process.

Result: accredited certification produces a stable decision, admissible by authorities, financiers, local authorities and public actors.

2. Private or voluntary label: an internal, non-accreditable scheme

A private (or voluntary) label is a scheme defined by its holder. It may be serious and useful, but it does not have the same nature or the same guarantees as a certification.

2.1. Internal rules set by the holder

The same organisation may design the method, train the assessors, support the projects and issue the decisions.

2.2. Internal governance

No mandatory independent third party in the assessment or the decision.

2.3. No possible accreditation

Labels are generally not aligned with ISO/IEC 17065. They therefore cannot be accredited.

2.4. No institutional oversight

There is no external body responsible for guaranteeing the impartiality of the decision.

2.5. Communication value, not conformity value

A label highlights a commitment or an intention, but does not produce an institutionally enforceable decision.

Result: the label is a private enhancement tool; accredited certification is a public conformity tool.

3. Why they are never equivalent

Even if a label and a certification cover a similar field (biodiversity, sustainable construction, environmental performance), they can never be considered equivalent, because:

• Different status — certification: an accreditable assessment; label: an internal voluntary scheme.
• Different independence — certification: strict separation of design / assessment / decision; label: functions often combined.
• Different recognition — certification: enforceable and usable by sustainable finance, local authorities and public bodies; label: a sector communication tool.
• Different traceability — certification: verifiable, auditable evidence; label: justification proper to the holder.
• Different oversight — certification: external surveillance; label: internal control or self-validation.

4. IRICE's position

IRICE operates strictly within the scope of accreditable certification, applying:

• full independence,
• impartiality,
• traceability of evidence,
• separation of roles,
• compliance with international standards,
• accreditability to ISO/IEC 17065.

The certifications issued under Effinature and the assessments of the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) fall within this institutional framework.

5. Conclusion

Confusing a private label with an accredited certification weakens environmental assessment. Only certification:

• guarantees independence,
• ensures accreditability,
• rests on evidence,
• can be recognised by authorities,
• meets the expectations of sustainable finance.

A label cannot replace an accredited certification. The two approaches are not equivalent.

See the IRICE doctrine: Independence, accreditation, evidence.