The purpose of the survey was to obtain valuable feedback concerning the level of satisfaction with ASI’s current performance aimed at improving the way that the accreditation body conducts its services, both with FSC and also certification bodies accredited for FSC. This article presents the results from certification bodies that are accredited to provide audits for FSC Forest Management and Chain of Custody certification.

Two underlying questions guided the exercise: one referring to how ASI can improve its services and the other, whether it is on the right track when providing them. The results show consistent improvement across most areas since 2014. 

Significant progress has been obtained in areas that refer to ASI’s thoroughness when conducting assessments where respondents here indicated to be mostly in agreement. Progress is also seen in ASI’s capacity to conduct assessments where and when they are needed.  Other high marks were related to ASI representing a high standard of assurance and the way its staff interacts with clients and stakeholders.

On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being extremely poor and 5 excellent, certification bodies accredited for FSC were asked to evaluate their level of overall satisfaction with ASI on three distinct parameters: performance, cost effectiveness and level of interactions.

Answers from participating CBs indicated an overall level of approval with ASI, with between average to above average results in the area pertaining to the general satisfaction with the services provided by the accreditation body. Specifically, on performance, results indicated a slightly higher than average level of satisfaction. Cost effectiveness shed slightly lower results with an almost average level of satisfaction and on interactions between ASI and certification bodies, the result was again slightly over the average level. (See figure 1)

Figure 1: CBs general satisfaction with ASI 


Concerning the degree of satisfaction with specific aspects of how ASI conducts its business, answers again offered satisfactory responses. Questions here related, among others, to the standard of assurance provided by ASI, competency of ASI assessors, timeliness, fairness and thoroughness of assessments and promptness and transparency (see Figure 2). 

Results have been shared with the ASI Board of Directors and provided valuable feedback for the accreditation body to determine which areas it needs to concentrate on in order to improve on and establish future priorities.  

More information is provided on the ASI website:

 Figure 2: CBs satisfaction rating to aspects of ASI’ performance 


  1. ASI stands for a high standard of assurance.
  2. ASI’s assessors are well trained to conduct competent assessments.
  3. Interactions with ASI staff are friendly and productive.
  4. ASI conducts assessments where and when they are needed.
  5. ASI responds to complaints and appeals promptly and in a transparent manner.
  6. ASI responds to feedback and improves its services in line with our (and the market’s) needs.
  7. ASI lives by its values of impartiality and independence.
  8. ASI’s governance structure strengthens the organization.
  9. I am well-informed by ASI about developments that concern me.
  10. ASI’s assessment reports are informative and add value.
  11. ASI’s assessments are fair.
  12. ASI’s assessments are thorough.
  13. ASI’s assessors demonstrate professional attitude and behavior.
  14. ASI’s planning of assessments is well and timely communicated.
  15. ASI’s CAB portal supports efficient assessment scheduling and follow-up activities
FSC report CABs

Scale: Strongly disagree (1), Mostly disagree (2), Slightly disagree (3), Slightly agree (4), Mostly agree (5), Strongly agree (6)