More or Less Accreditation: Where does the path lead?

The US leads the world in the number of accreditors – over 150 in total and growing. The UK is a distant second with less than 20. This may be the result of the American entrepreneurial culture and our desire for maintaining control. While the number of accreditors is increasing, so is the complexity of accreditation – more is being asked of accreditors and the bar is steadily rising. At the same time, there is a debate if accreditation should serve additional purposes, for example, to replace ratings.

Do we need that much accreditation? Is accreditation the most effective mechanism for enforcing standards and stimulating institutional advancement?

Accreditors are, by design, represented by a self-governing body of peers who agree to regulate themselves. Do we trust this self-oversight or it is inherently flawed? By definition, we have to trust accreditors. They are the gatekeepers and the clearinghouse of approvals and standards. But who do we place this blind trust?

Accreditation is about maintaining certain minimum standards of service. Does accreditation stifle innovation and encourage the status quo? Is accreditation the most effective oversight mechanism for highly dynamic industries with an ever-increasing velocity of change?

Could accreditation in the financial industry benefit from being more precise without unnecessarily restricting all the market participants in their actions?

Some accreditation specialties lag behind in their industries and are viewed as restrictive, hence, limiting progress and commercial freedom. Is there a compelling reason to abandon accreditation for these fields altogether?

The decision of how much accreditation is necessary should be based on careful consideration of the costs and benefits and should be tailored to the specific needs of each industry or sector. While some industries, such as healthcare and finance, may benefit from more accreditation to ensure quality and safety measures, other industries, such as hospitality and technology, may benefit from less accreditation to promote flexibility and innovation.

This post is not designed to provide clear answers but rather encourage debate. We would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Do you believe that certain industries or professions should have more or less oversight requirements? Will less accreditation lead to greater flexibility and innovation? Or will it lead to a corrupt system of distrust?

We look forward to having your comments and hope that a healthy debate should enrich us all.