How to Tell If Your Accrediting Body Is Rigorous--Not Just a "Pay-to-Play" Scheme
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard some version of this question: “We’re thinking about getting accredited—but how do we know which accreditation actually means something?”
That question usually comes from organizations that care deeply about quality. They’re not looking for a logo or a shortcut. They’re looking for an external signal of trust; something they can stand behind when learners, regulators, or partners ask, “How do we know your training is effective?”
As accreditation has become more visible and valuable, it has also become increasingly competitive. Alongside long-standing accreditors with decades of continuity, governance, and standards evolution, newer entrants have emerged that look official, sound credible, and promise fast results for less money, but don’t always offer the independence, oversight, or integrity that accreditation is meant to represent.
So how do you distinguish between rigorous accreditation and a pay-to-play scheme that sells the appearance of credibility?
Core Indicators of Rigorous Accreditation
Clear Standards and Evidence-Based Evaluation
A legitimate accreditor uses clear, published standards that define what quality looks like. While many recognized standards developing organizations charge a nominal fee for their standards, the real test is whether expectations are transparent, stable, and consistently applied.
Rigor also requires evidence. Authentic accreditation demands policies, procedures, samples, and proof of implementation, not just self-attestation. An independent review ensures that what’s written on paper is actually practiced.
Peer Review and Independence
True accreditation relies on trained, independent peer reviewers who understand how high-quality adult learning systems are designed, implemented, and managed, rather than anonymous staff, algorithms, or sales teams evaluating content in isolation.
Financial independence matters here as well. Fees should support operations, not drive outcomes. “Guaranteed approval” or “instant accreditation” are red flags. Real accreditation takes time because it involves judgment, review, and sometimes corrective action.
Recognition, Oversight, and Continuous Compliance
Credible accreditation does not exist in a vacuum. It is recognized by regulators, licensing bodies, employers, and institutions that depend on defensible quality assurance.
Equally important, accreditation is not a one-time event; rigorous accreditors require renewal, ongoing compliance, and periodic review. If the relationship ends once a certificate is issued, you may be buying a logo.
A Checklist for Authenticity
If you want to pressure-test an accrediting body, these questions matter:
Is the accreditor accountable to a recognized authority?
Authentic accreditors are accountable to external oversight that evaluates how standards are developed and maintained.
IACET, for example, is an ANSI-accredited standards developing organization. This means its standard development process must meet requirements for balance, due process, transparency, and consensus—safeguards that protect the integrity of the standard itself.
Is the accreditation widely adopted and relied upon?
Over 600 organizations worldwide have chosen to pursue and maintain IACET accreditation, spanning government agencies, universities, healthcare systems, professional associations, and global corporations. These include organizations such as the American Heart Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Disney Institute, UPS, NASA, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service, American Welding Society, and ZERO TO THREE.
To view the full list of IACET Accredited Providers, click here.
Beyond provider adoption, IACET accreditation is recognized, accepted, required, or recommended by hundreds of regulators and licensing bodies at the federal, state, and international levels. Organizations include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), and numerous state boards governing engineering, nursing, education, and occupational licensing.
To view the full list of regulatory recognitions, click here.
Does the accreditor demonstrate meaningful history and continuity?
There is nothing inherently wrong with being new, but developing credibility takes time. For example, IACET’s roots trace back to the late 1960s, emerging from the work that established the Continuing Education Unit (CEU) and the national need for consistent, credible stewardship of its application across continuing education and training.
While longevity alone isn’t enough, sustained rigor and trust are difficult to replicate without it.
Is the organization structured for public accountability?
Providers should understand whether an accrediting body is legally registered and how it is governed and held accountable.
IACET is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, subject to public disclosure requirements and governed by an independent, volunteer Board of Directors with fiduciary responsibility. These structures exist to ensure mission alignment, financial transparency, and independence from individual or commercial interests, not simply to satisfy filing requirements.
Providers should approach with caution any accreditation entity whose status is limited to a legal filing, and whose operations are effectively controlled by a single owner, founder, or closely held group. The absence of meaningful board oversight, publicly available governance documents, or a clear separation between leadership and revenue generation is a signal to dig deeper.
Accreditation credibility depends on paperwork and who holds decision-making authority, how conflicts of interest are managed, and whether governance structures are designed to protect the public interest rather than private gain.
Does the accreditor defend and enforce its standard?
Rigor requires enforcement. Authentic accreditors audit providers, address misuse of accreditation marks, and take corrective action when standards are not upheld. These activities are inconvenient and costly, but essential.
Pay-to-play schemes often avoid enforcement because enforcement risks losing paying customers.
A Final Thought
Accreditation is not meant to be easy; it’s meant to be meaningful.
A rigorous accreditor safeguards credibility, rather than selling it. If accreditation challenges you to reflect, document, and improve, it’s not a flaw in the process; it’s the point.
That’s the difference between paying for approval and partnering for excellence.
About the Author
Randy is a seasoned executive leader currently serving as the President and CEO of IACET, a non-profit accrediting body in the continuing education and training sector. With a focus on strategic vision and operational excellence, he effectively leads the organization to achieve its mission and goals.
With over two decades of experience in various leadership roles, Randy has a proven track record of driving organizational success. His expertise lies in aligning technological solutions with strategic objectives, ensuring operational efficiency and sustainable growth.