Global product certification has a remarkable talent for turning a relatively straightforward question into an administrative almanac.  

Manufacturers hear “global” and immediately picture a map covered in testing labs, certification marks, regulatory agencies, and invoices multiplying like rabbits. And while international compliance can certainly involve some moving parts, it doesn't necessarily require starting from scratch in every country. 

Over the years, we've seen the same misconceptions come up again and again. Some are leftovers from older certification practices, while others started with one particularly complicated market and somehow evolved into a universal rule. 

Here are five global product certification misconceptions we encounter most often, debunked.  

1. “Every Country Requires Its Own Separate Testing.” 

This is probably the grand champion of international certification misconceptions. 

A test report from a laboratory accredited under ANAB and recognized through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement can often be used to support compliance in multiple international markets without repeating the same testing in each country. The exact acceptance criteria still depend on the product, applicable regulations, and destination market, but the whole point of international recognition is to avoid needlessly duplicating competent laboratory work. 

There are exceptions. Some countries have additional national requirements, specific regulatory pathways, or limitations on foreign test data. Russia and Israel, for example, can require additional considerations depending on the product and applicable requirements. 

2. “A CB Certificate Is Always the Right Path.” 

The CB Scheme is well established, widely recognized, and genuinely useful. Which is precisely why it sometimes becomes the compliance equivalent of a factory setting. 

A manufacturer knows CB. A certification consultant knows CB. Everyone has seen a CB Certificate before. Hence, why CB gets added to the plan, sometimes before anyone has stopped to ask whether the target markets require it. 

For many products and markets, an ANAB/ILAC-accredited test report can provide the internationally recognized test evidence needed to support market access without adding a CB Certificate to the process. However, there remain situations where it is the appropriate or specifically requested route. 

The important distinction is between “This is a recognized certification path” and “This is the certification path we actually need.” 

3. “Certification Is a One-Time Event.” 

Certification is generally tied to the product configuration documented during the evaluation. If you subsequently change a critical component, modify the power input, alter the construction, substitute materials, or otherwise make a meaningful design change, the affected areas may need to be re-evaluated. 

That doesn't necessarily mean the entire certification process starts over. Often, the change can be reviewed and the evaluation can be limited to the portions affected by the modification. Think of certification less like a permanent tattoo and more like a very detailed snapshot. Change what's in the picture, and someone may need to take another look. 

4. “An NRTL Mark and an ANAB/ILAC Report Do the Same Thing.” 

They don't, and confusing the two can create a particularly expensive game of regulatory musical chairs. 

An NRTL mark addresses product certification. In the United States, NRTL certification is commonly used to demonstrate that certain electrical products meet applicable safety standards for workplace use, including where OSHA requirements call for NRTL approval. ANAB accreditation, on the other hand, is about the competence of the laboratory. Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement, accreditation can support broader international recognition of laboratory test results. 

In other words, one is about certifying the product. The other is about demonstrating the competence of the laboratory that tested it. For manufacturers selling products both in the United States and internationally, that distinction matters. Depending on the product and markets involved, the practical answer may involve both an NRTL certification and internationally recognized test data. 

5. “If Testing Finds a Problem, You Start Over From Scratch.” 

Fortunately, a failed test does not automatically mean the entire project has been sentenced to regulatory purgatory. When testing identifies a compliance issue, the usual process is to determine what went wrong, identify the appropriate corrective action, make the necessary engineering change, and continue the evaluation on the corrected product. 

Sometimes the problem is isolated to one component or one particular test requirement. Sometimes it requires a more substantial design change. The scope of the re-evaluation depends on the issue. The important point is that finding a problem is part of the process. 

In fact, finding it during testing is considerably more useful than finding it after thousands of products have been manufactured, packaged, shipped, installed, and introduced to the general public. Remember, testing is supposed to find problems. 

Why These Misconceptions Cost Manufacturers Money 

Any one of these assumptions might seem harmless. Collectively, they can amount to an astronomical miscalculation. 

A manufacturer may commission testing that isn't actually necessary, choose a certification path simply because it is familiar, repeat work that could have been leveraged across markets, or build months of unnecessary buffer into a product launch because everyone is planning for the regulatory equivalent of the apocalypse. 

The better approach is to start with the actual requirements for the specific product and target markets. Determine which testing is required, which reports can be recognized internationally, where certification is actually necessary, and what changes could trigger additional evaluation.  

Frequently Asked Questions 

Where do most of these misconceptions come from? 

Often, they come from older certification practices that predate today's broader international recognition of laboratory competence and test data. They can also come from a single difficult experience with a particular country, standard, or product that gradually gets generalized into a rule for everything. One complicated certification experience has a way of becoming industry lore. 

How can I find out which of these actually apply to my product? 

Have the specific product and target markets reviewed against their current requirements. That review should consider the applicable standards, regulatory requirements, accepted test data, certification schemes, and any country-specific requirements that could affect the path to market. In other words, find out what you actually need before ordering everything that sounds like it might be useful. 

Do these misconceptions apply equally across product categories? 

The underlying misconceptions can show up across many product categories because they concern how certification and international recognition work. The actual requirements, however, can vary significantly depending on the product, applicable standard, regulatory framework, and target market. A kitchen appliance, medical device, piece of industrial equipment, and IT product may all have very different compliance paths. 

Want a clearer picture of what your product actually needs? 

Contact John Allen and the Product Safety Consulting team for a consultation. 

Visit productsafetyinc.com or call 877-804-3066.