Article 43: Certification bodies

Article 43: certification bodies requirement matters if you issue, procure, or rely on GDPR certifications: you must ensure the certifying body is appropriately expert, accredited under the Member State’s scheme, and informs the competent supervisory authority as required before issuing or renewing certification (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43). Operationalize this by qualifying certification bodies like a high-risk third party and retaining auditable proof of accreditation, scope, and governance.

Key takeaways:

• Treat certification bodies as high-risk third parties: validate accreditation, expertise, and independence before you rely on a seal.
• Maintain a role-and-scope register so the certification’s coverage matches your controller/processor posture and actual processing.
• Keep an evidence packet: accreditation proof, certification scope, renewal dates, and governance decisions.

If your organization markets GDPR alignment, answers customer due diligence questionnaires, or plans to pursue a GDPR certification, Article 43 is the “gatekeeper” requirement for whether a certification can be issued and renewed by a legitimate certification body (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43). For most Compliance Officers and GRC leads, the practical problem is not the legal text. It’s execution: selecting the right certification path, preventing a “badge without substance,” and standing up a repeatable way to monitor the certification body’s accreditation status and your own certification scope over time.

This page translates Article 43 into operator actions you can run through procurement, third-party risk management, and your privacy program. Expect an implementation approach that looks like: define scope, vet the certification body, lock down governance (who can approve relying on a certification), and retain evidence that survives customer audits and supervisory authority questions. If you use Daydream or another GRC system, this requirement becomes a straightforward workflow: intake, qualification, approval, monitoring, and evidence retention.

Target keyword: article 43: certification bodies requirement.

Regulatory text

Excerpt (provided): Certification bodies with appropriate data protection expertise shall, after informing the supervisory authority so it can exercise its powers where necessary, issue and renew certification. Member States must ensure those certification bodies are accredited by one or both specified accreditation routes (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43).

What the operator must do with this text:

• If you are a certification body (or building that function), you need a governance model that (a) demonstrates expertise, (b) confirms the required accreditation is in place, and (c) ensures the supervisory authority is informed in the situations contemplated by the regulation before you issue/renew certifications (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43).
• If you are an organization seeking or relying on certification, your operational duty is indirect but real: you must run due diligence so you don’t represent or depend on a certification that was issued by a non-accredited or inappropriate body. This is a classic “defensibility” problem during audits, procurement reviews, and regulator inquiries.

Plain-English interpretation (what Article 43 is really asking)

Article 43 sets minimum legitimacy conditions for GDPR certifications: certifications should be issued and renewed by competent certification bodies, operating under recognized accreditation, with a supervision touchpoint built in (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43). In practice, that means:

• A certification is only as credible as the certifier’s accreditation and competence.
• Your internal teams must treat the certification body like a third party with compliance impact.
• You must prevent scope mismatch: a certification that doesn’t cover the processing you claim it covers becomes an advertising, contracting, and audit risk.

Who it applies to (entity + operational context)

Primary applicability: certification bodies

Applies directly to organizations acting as certification bodies that issue or renew GDPR certifications, including their assessors and governance functions (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43). Operational context includes:

• Developing certification criteria and assessment methods
• Running audits/assessments against GDPR-related criteria
• Issuing certificates and renewals
• Maintaining relationships with the competent supervisory authority and accreditation bodies

Secondary applicability: organizations that procure or rely on GDPR certifications

While Article 43 is written about certification bodies, controllers and processors feel the impact when they:

• Pursue GDPR certification as part of customer requirements or procurement gating
• Reference a certification in sales materials, RFPs, or security/privacy addenda
• Use certification to support trust claims with partners and customers

For these organizations, operational ownership usually sits with the CCO, DPO/privacy counsel, security assurance, and third-party risk management.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Define your role and the certification scope you need

Create or update a role-and-scope register that captures:

• Controller vs processor role per processing activity
• Systems and services in scope for certification claims
• Data categories and processing purposes covered by the certification effort

This prevents a common failure mode: teams obtain a certification for one service line and then broadly represent “we are GDPR certified” across the enterprise.

Practical output: a one-page “Certification Scope Statement” approved by Privacy + Security + Legal.

Step 2: Qualify the certification body as a high-impact third party

Run a focused due diligence workflow on the certification body:

• Accreditation validation: Obtain formal evidence of the certification body’s accreditation under the Member State approach referenced in Article 43 (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43).
• Expertise confirmation: Collect proof of data protection competence (assessor qualifications, methodology overview, experience relevant to your processing profile).
• Independence and conflicts: Document how conflicts are identified and managed (e.g., the certifier is not simultaneously designing your controls).

Operator tip: Treat this like a regulated assurance provider. If Procurement onboards them as a “standard consulting firm,” you will miss the evidence you need later.

Step 3: Establish governance for “certification reliance”

Write a short operating procedure that answers:

• Who can approve selecting a certification body?
• Who can approve the certification scope?
• Who can approve public claims (website, RFP language) that reference the certification?
• What triggers reassessment (scope change, new products, M&A, significant vendor changes)?

Your procedure should also define who tracks renewals and who owns remediation items from the certification assessment.

Step 4: Operationalize supervisory authority touchpoints (if you are the certifying body)

If you operate a certification body function, implement a documented step to inform the supervisory authority in the situations contemplated by Article 43 before issuing/renewing certification (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43). Make this a hard gate in your issuance workflow:

• “Stop-ship” control: certification cannot be issued/renewed until the supervisory authority notification step is completed and logged.
• Evidence capture: date, method, and content summary of the notification.

Step 5: Build an evidence packet and cadence

Create a recurring evidence packet that can be produced on demand for customers, auditors, or regulators:

• Accreditation evidence for the certification body
• Certificate and scope statement (what’s in scope, what’s excluded)
• Renewal dates and surveillance/monitoring requirements
• Assessment report summary and remediation tracker
• Internal approvals for selection, scope, and external representations

This is where many teams fail: the certification is real, but they cannot show the chain of legitimacy and governance.

Step 6: Monitor drift: scope, processing, and third parties

Certifications become stale when your environment changes. Put monitoring triggers into change management:

• New product launch affecting personal data flows
• New subprocessors or material third-party changes
• Architecture change that moves data to new regions or systems
• Policy/control changes that weaken the certified control set

Daydream fit: map the certification scope to your system inventory and third-party register, then prompt re-validation tasks when those records change.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain (audit-ready)

Use this checklist as your minimum “Article 43 evidence pack”:

1. Role-and-scope register (controller/processor role, systems, data categories).
2. Certification body due diligence file: accreditation proof, competence indicators, conflicts process.
3. Decision record approving the certification body and certification scope (named owner, date, approvers).
4. Certificate and scope statement (including exclusions and service boundaries).
5. Renewal and surveillance plan with accountable owner and calendar entry.
6. Representation control: approved language for sales/RFP/website, plus review/expiry logic.
7. Exceptions and remediation log from assessment findings, with closure evidence.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these questions from customers, internal audit, or regulators assessing defensibility:

• “Show the certification body’s accreditation and confirm it was valid at issuance and renewal.” (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43)
• “What exactly is certified: which services, which systems, which legal entity?”
• “Who approved using the certification in external materials?”
• “What changed since certification, and how did you assess impact to the certified scope?”
• “If you’re a processor, how does certification align to your processor obligations and subprocessor chain?”

Hangup: teams produce the certificate PDF but cannot show the accreditation basis or scope boundary decisions.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

Mistake 1: Treating the certificate as marketing collateral, not a controlled compliance asset

Avoidance: Put external use of certification language behind a formal approval step owned by Compliance/Legal.

Mistake 2: Scope creep (“We’re certified” becomes “Everything is certified”)

Avoidance: Maintain a scope statement and force product/legal entity mapping before any representation.

Mistake 3: No proof the certification body was accredited

Avoidance: Require accreditation evidence in procurement intake, and store it with the contract and certificate.

Mistake 4: Renewal is calendar-based but not change-based

Avoidance: Add change triggers tied to system inventory and third-party onboarding so you reassess scope drift.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the supplied sources for this page, so this guidance avoids case-specific claims. Practically, the risk from weak Article 43 execution shows up as:

• Misrepresentation risk: overstating certification scope in customer contracts or marketing.
• Third-party risk: relying on assurance from a certifier that cannot demonstrate proper accreditation or competence.
• Program fragility: inability to defend certification legitimacy during supervisory authority scrutiny (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43).

Practical execution plan (30/60/90-day style, without fixed day claims)

Immediate phase: establish control points

• Assign a single owner for certification governance (often Privacy/GRC) and define approvers.
• Stand up the role-and-scope register for the certification effort.
• Create a certification body due diligence checklist and intake form (accreditation, competence, conflicts).

Near-term phase: run due diligence + lock scope

• Complete certification body qualification and store accreditation evidence.
• Approve the certification scope statement and representation language.
• Implement a renewal and surveillance tracking mechanism (ticketing or GRC workflow).

Ongoing phase: monitoring and evidence refresh

• Tie certification scope to change management triggers (systems, subprocessors, new products).
• Maintain an evidence packet on a recurring cadence: decisions, updates, remediation closures.
• Periodically test retrieval: can you produce the full evidence pack quickly for a customer diligence request?

Daydream can reduce friction by linking: third-party records (certification body), system inventory (scope), control testing outputs (remediation), and a standing evidence packet for audits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we have to get GDPR certified under Article 43?

No. Article 43 governs how certification bodies issue and renew GDPR certifications; it does not require every controller or processor to obtain one (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43).

If we already have a certificate, what is the fastest way to reduce Article 43 risk?

Build an evidence packet that proves the certification body’s accreditation, your certified scope, and internal approval for external claims (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43). Most gaps are documentation and scope control, not the certificate itself.

Who should own this requirement internally?

Put operational ownership with GRC/Compliance or Privacy, with Procurement supporting third-party onboarding and Legal controlling external representations. The key is a single accountable owner for scope and evidence.

What evidence do auditors usually ask for beyond the certificate PDF?

Accreditation proof for the certification body, a scope statement mapping to systems/legal entities, renewal tracking, and change-impact assessments when your environment changes (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 43).

Can we say “GDPR certified” on our website if only one product is in scope?

You can, but only if the statement is precise about scope and does not imply enterprise-wide coverage. Write approved language that names the certified service or boundary and keep the approval record.

How does this tie into third-party risk management?

Treat the certification body as a third party that provides compliance-relevant assurance. Your TPDD workflow should capture accreditation evidence, conflicts controls, contract terms, and ongoing monitoring triggers.