Yet setbacks in organic certification, pharmaceuticals and agri-food exports point to a harder reality: India has built the machinery of quality, but is it sustainable? The building blocks alone may not by themselves make an architecture.
A quality ecosystem works only when every link in the chain is credible. Regulators set requirements, standards bodies define benchmarks, conformity assessment bodies verify compliance, accreditation establishes competence of these bodies, and market surveillance checks products in circulation. If any link is weak, the system can falter.
These weaknesses are visible across sectors. The National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) created an export-certification framework, but what if key foreign regulators do not trust it? In textiles, can an Indian standard help exporters unless global buyers recognise it against requirements such as the Global Organic Textile Standard or the Textile Exchange standards? In agri-food, ethylene oxide concerns across sesame seeds, spices and other products raise a basic governance question: Who connects the dots when risks cut across commodities and agencies?
India’s quality ecosystem still carries legacy overlaps between promotion and regulation, licensing and surveillance, and conformity assessment and enforcement. Some arose from necessity, but now need fixing.
The line ministries must own sectoral quality policy for both regulations and voluntary/private standards. A quality control order is not merely a notification exercise; it affects technology, supply chains, imports, laboratory capacity, transition periods, micro, small, and medium enterprises costs, export competitiveness and surveillance. Regulatory impact assessment should, therefore, precede such measures. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) can support standardisation and conformity assessment, but sectoral strategy must rest with the concerned ministry.
BIS is India’s national standards body, primarily meant for voluntary standardisation. Its certification and regulation-linked roles grew when specialised capacity was limited. But as technical regulation expands, should standard-setting, certification and enforcement-linked functions remain so closely bundled? Market surveillance is another design gap. A regulation has little value if non-compliant products continue to circulate. The Department of Consumer Affairs could coordinate more strongly with states equipped for dedicated surveillance. This would place consumer protection at the centre of technical regulation and reduce conflicts.
Export quality regulation presents a similar concern. Responsibilities are spread across the Export Inspection Council, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda), the Spices Board, the Indian Oilseeds and Produce Export Promotion Council (EIC), and other commodity bodies. Some also have export-promotion roles. India has seen the benefits of consolidation through the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Export quality regulation deserves a comparable review.
The real test is whether Indian certification is accepted abroad without yet another layer of compliance. The limited overseas acceptance of BIS hallmarking, despite harmonised gold purity standards, shows the gap between a domestic mark and international confidence. But recognition is possible. Apeda’s National Programme for Organic Production, EIC’s seafood certification, and the Network for Certification and Conservation of Forests certification benchmarked with Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, show that Indian schemes can gain credibility when designed for benchmarking and recognition. The aim should not be one Indian scheme for every foreign requirement, but credible schemes where recognition matters.
What, then, should be done? The reform agenda should now move towards improving quality governance. India needs a National Authority on Quality to provide a whole-of-government perspective — setting common principles, supporting line ministries, and ensuring that standards, technical regulations, conformity assessment, accreditation, and international recognition are not treated as silos.
Three shifts are essential. Line ministries must lead sectoral quality strategy. BIS should remain central to voluntary standardisation, while technical regulation moves towards clearer separation between rule-making, certification, and surveillance. Export quality regulation should be consolidated, with a sharper distinction between promotion and regulation.
The credibility of conformity assessment also needs closer supervision. As India increasingly relies on third parties, a stronger oversight framework is required. Where consumers and regulators rely on certificates, test reports and inspection findings, assurance providers also need credible supervision.
Global acceptance should be a policy objective. India must participate consistently in international standard-setting, build export-sector capacity on technical regulations in key markets, and encourage industry engagement with global scheme owners. Support for voluntary Indian certification schemes should rest on benchmarking and recognition, not exclusivity. The next phase of reform should not be judged only by the number of standards notified or products brought under compulsory certification, but on the scale of confidence and credibility that India’s quality ecosystem generates.
The authors are, respectively, former commerce secretary, GoI; former CEO of National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies and visiting senior fellow at RIS; and research assistant at RIS
 "quality, quality check")