Tesla Lacks Major Automotive Quality Certifications in the IATF 16949 and ISO 9001

Apart from IATF 16949, there is another international quality certification called ISO 9001. As far as our research can tell, Tesla also does not follow it or any other quality control certification that is independently audited. We’d confirm that with the company, but it does not talk to the press.

That could explain why Tesla is as notorious for being an electric carmaker as it is for its quality defects. Thin paint, suspension fractures, uneven panel gaps, motor failures… There’s a long list of issues that the EV maker either claims to be “within specs” or tries to fix with an over-the-air (OTA) update.

IATF means International Automotive Task Force. Another translation for that is that a group of automakers joined efforts to establish a standard of quality system requirements that would guide automotive manufacturing. Both automakers and their national automotive associations are part of the task force.

Currently, IATF congregates the BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, Geely Group, General Motors, IVECO Group, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) Limited, Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Renault Group, Stellantis, and Volkswagen AG. Apart from Geely, Asian automakers adopt other quality control standards. Toyota follows the Toyota Production System (TPS). Hyundai uses ISO 9001:2015. Honda’s Global Honda Quality Standard (G-HQS) is based on ISO 9001.

We have contacted IATF and spoke to Russ Hopkins, the scheme effectiveness manager of International Automotive Oversight Bureau (IAOB). He confirmed that there is “no evidence that the Tesla assembly plants are certified to IATF 16949. However, some suppliers to Tesla appear to be certified.”

For Hopkins, “the difference that Tesla is not third-party audited to IATF 16949 is that there is no independent validation that Tesla is meeting the automotive requirements and principles embodied in IATF.” Despite that, Tesla has “to meet all the same requirements that every automotive OEM must meet, including end customer satisfaction, all of which are contained in IATF 16949.”

Hopkins showed us a document that states IATF 16949 certification presents better quality results than ISO 9001. It analyzed 9,300 companies connected to three carmakers that follow IATF 16949 and 1,500 that preferred ISO 9001. In the first group, 8,400 IATF-certified companies met quality requirements, while 1,100 of the 1,500 companies working with ISO 9001 did the same. The proportion of enterprises meeting quality requirements is 90% with IATF 16949 and 73% with ISO 9001.

“While there are certainly advantages and benefits to IATF certification, Tesla has chosen a more self-regulated path to ensure that it meets all automotive requirements. The market and regulatory agencies will determine that level of compliance and success.”

Here’s the crucial question Tesla imposed on American regulatory agencies. With the U.S. following a self-certification model, Tesla is the only one stating it complies with all federal standards. Regulatory agencies trust that instead of verifying if that is true. A type-approval model would ensure they really do. Even if that is true, what if federal standards do not cover some quality aspects?

Tesla has applied a Silicon Valley motto to the automotive industry: “Move fast and break stuff.” As bad as that sounds when you are talking about a vehicle, that is why it has delivered cars without properly testing them before deliveries, which generated another Tesla slogan: “Deliver now, fix later.” Independent quality inspections could have helped. Too bad Tesla does not follow any of the most important ones in the market.