On this page
No single ISO/IEC standard sets out one training pathway carrying someone from entry level to fully authorized auditor, inspector, examiner or assessor status across all six ASCB-accredited schemes. As Auditor competence requirements sets out, each base standard requires the accredited body to determine its own competence criteria and run its own evaluation and authorization process; the pathway's stages, timeframes and milestones sit inside that body's management system, not the standard. The base standards describe a common shape most pathways follow, set out below as a reference point rather than a substitute for a body's own pathway.
Pathway stages from entry-level to fully approved
Determining competence criteria for the role Before training begins, the accredited body determines what competence the function requires. ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 7.1.2 requires this to produce documented criteria of the knowledge and skills needed to perform audit and certification tasks; Auditor competence requirements sets out the equivalent clause for each of the other five schemes. Everything that follows is measured against these criteria.
Initial training and induction Personnel new to a function typically complete a defined induction covering the knowledge areas identified as required. ISO/IEC 17020:2026, Clause 6.1.4 requires initial training to include an induction period for the relevant inspection activity, one directly citable example; equivalent training activity appears, in less prescriptive terms, across the other five schemes.
Supervised or mentored practice Induction is typically followed by a period working under an authorized and competent person before working independently. ISO/IEC 17020:2026, Clause 6.1.4 requires this mentored working period explicitly, alongside the induction period above. This is where classroom or self-study knowledge is tested against real work, with an experienced practitioner able to correct and guide before any output carries independent authorization.
Competence evaluation before authorization Before an individual takes responsibility for a function independently, the accredited body evaluates them against its criteria. ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 7.1.3 requires competence to be demonstrated prior to taking that responsibility, and requires the body to demonstrate its evaluation methods are themselves effective. This step separates a trainee from an authorized practitioner; it does not follow automatically from completing training.
Formal authorization Once competence is demonstrated, the accredited body formally authorizes the individual to perform the function and records that authorization and its scope. Specific roles, such as making a certification decision, carrying signatory status, or conducting technical review, can carry their own added criteria beyond general authorization: see Signatory eligibility criteria and Technical reviewer requirements.
Ongoing monitoring and maintenance Authorization is not indefinite by default. ISO/IEC 17020:2026, Clause 6.1.5 requires personnel to be monitored at a defined frequency, and Clause 6.1.7 requires each inspector to be observed unless there is sufficient evidence of continuing competent performance; ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, Clause 7.1.3 requires the same ongoing monitoring for certification body personnel. A monitoring gap is treated as a training need. CPD guidance for CB auditors covers what this looks like for an auditor maintaining status.
Where ASCB-accredited training fits
ASCB accredits training under two separate schemes that feed the initial training stage above. TP:2025 accredits the training provider itself, across three Types (Type 1 Training Function, Type 2 Training Department, Type 3 Training Organisation/Institute) reflecting the delivering organization's scale and governance maturity. TC:2025 accredits an individual training course, across its own three Types plus an Individual course module for a course accredited outside a provider relationship, with Virtual and eLearning add-ons at each Type. These are two separate schemes, not mirrored versions of each other: a course accredited under TC:2025 does not imply the provider delivering it holds TP:2025 accreditation, and the reverse.
Training accredited under TC:2025, or delivered by a TP:2025-accredited provider, gives a body building its own pathway an independently verified basis for the induction and initial training stage above, rather than requiring it to evaluate a supplier's claims from scratch. It is an input to that one stage: mentored practice, evaluation, formal authorization and ongoing monitoring remain the accredited body's own responsibility under its base standard, whatever training its personnel completed beforehand.
Common questions
Is there one required training pathway?
No single ISO/IEC standard sets one; each accredited body determines its own competence criteria and runs its own evaluation and authorization process.
What shape do most pathways follow?
Determine the competence criteria for the role, initial training and induction, supervised practice, evaluation and authorization, then ongoing monitoring.
Where does ASCB-accredited training fit?
As one input to that process; the body's own pathway and criteria govern.