The EU AI Act: The biggest shift in scope

The EU AI Act is the most consequential development for CBs operating in or with European markets. It classifies AI systems by risk level and imposes conformity assessment obligations on high-risk applications—many of which fall squarely within sectors CBs already serve: medical devices, critical infrastructure, employment, and education. CBs accredited to conduct those assessments need to understand whether AI tools used in their audit processes could themselves be subject to Act requirements, and what that means for their own accreditation obligations. 

EU Rules
AI Standards

ISO/IEC 42001 and 23894: The standards layer

ISO/IEC 42001 (AI management systems) and 23894 (AI risk management guidance) are fast becoming the reference framework for organizations wanting to demonstrate responsible AI governance. For CBs, these standards do two things: they create a new certification opportunity, and they set expectations for how AI used internally should be managed. Bodies that want to offer 42001 certification need to understand how it interacts with existing ISO and sector-specific schemes, among other things. 

TIC Council guidance: The industry view

The Testing, Inspection and Certification industry’s representative body has been active on AI quality infrastructure. The TIC Council’s Quality Infrastructure Framework for the Digitalized World frames AI as both a tool for CABs and a subject of conformity assessment, and calls for consistent, trustworthy frameworks across borders. It’s worth reading for CBs that want to understand where the industry expects norms to land, independent of any single regulatory jurisdiction.

TIC Council publication

National accreditation body positions

Accreditation bodies are beginning to articulate expectations around AI use by conformity assessment bodies. While positions vary, the direction of travel is consistent: AI use in audit and certification processes will need to be disclosed, managed, and auditable. UKAS has signaled that AI use by CABs will be scrutinized through existing technical competence requirements, while DAkkS has emphasized traceability and human oversight as baseline expectations. CBs should be actively monitoring their accreditation body’s published guidance and, where none exists, proactively engaging. 

Sector-specific schemes: AI clauses are arriving

Scheme-level AI guidance is still catching up with the regulatory environment, but the direction is clear. Across food safety, product certification, and sustainability schemes, questions about data integrity, algorithmic transparency, and decision accountability are increasingly on the table. CBs operating across multiple schemes should be tracking developments proactively—requirements that are informal expectations today are likely to become explicit clause-level obligations.

Sector Specific

What this means in practice

CBs don’t need to become AI policy experts. But they do need a clear internal position on three questions: 

  1. Which AI tools are we using, and in which processes? 
  1. What do our accreditation body and applicable schemes currently require or expect of us? 
  1. What’s our process for staying current as requirements evolve? 

Organizations that can answer those questions confidently are well-positioned. For those still working through it, now is a practical moment to start — the landscape is clearer than it was a year ago, and the path forward is navigable with the right information.  

The Intact Platform helps certification bodies manage the complexity of evolving standards and regulatory requirements. Book a demo to learn more.

Book a demo.

We promise to amaze you.

Our experts are ready to discuss your challenges and demonstrate how you can master them with ease with Intact software solutions.

Fill out the form, and we will take care of the rest.

*Required

Our experts are ready to discuss your challenges and demonstrate how you can master them with ease with Intact software solutions.

Fill out the form, and we will take care of the rest.