RJC has updated how Critical Breaches are defined and managed under the Code of Practice (COP) and Laboratory Grown Material Standard (LGMS), effective 5th March 2026. This change reflects evolving certification rules and strengthens the integrity of our assurance process.
1. What was the OLD definition?
Previously, a COP/LGMS Critical Breach meant: A major nonconformity against a specific list of COP/LGMS ‘critical provisions’ in Appendix 2.
This list was created in 2009 as a safeguard when the RJC did not require addressing major findings before certification. The 2025 certification rules no longer allow certification with any major findings.
2. What is the NEW definition?
The updated definition is broader, clearer, and applies across all COP/LGMS provisions:
A Critical Breach is an event – or group of unacceptable or zero-tolerance events – that materially compromises the integrity of the RJC’s mission and its principles.
A COP/LGMS critical breach, supported by objective evidence, is raised against any of the COP/LGMS provisions in the case of:
• Deliberate falsification of information presented to support a conformity grading, a claim or public reporting; or
• Deliberate breach of an obligation (regulatory compliance matter or a commitment such as an RJC requirement) that results in an actual impact, or risk of immediate negative impact for the RJC member, the reputation of the RJC or the industry as a whole. This may fall into the following COP/LGMS areas: Labour/Social conditions/Health & Safety, Environment, Legislation, Management/Grievance systems, Responsible supply chains, Human rights, Due diligence, Mining.
Please review the latest version of Appendix 2 – Critical Breach to learn about the changes to the COP/LGMS critical breach definition and access a list of non-exhaustive examples provided under this new definition.
3. What has actually changed?
There are three major changes:
a) No more fixed list of “critical provisions” Critical Breaches can now be identified under any COP/LGMS provision where the finding meets the threshold of the new definition.
b) Auditors can confidently raise major findings without triggering automatic escalation to critical breach and associated member suspension from the RJC. This improves transparency and consistency.
c) Critical Breaches now focus on the most serious integrity risks The updated definition captures only the most severe findings — those that undermine the credibility of the RJC system or create immediate, serious harm.
4. Why have we made these changes?
This update improves the audit experience and increases fairness:
a. Clearer expectations: Members and auditors now have a clearer understanding of what qualifies as a Critical Breach and what does not.
b. Fairer and more consistent audits: Auditors will be more confident raising major findings, reducing the risk of underreporting and increasing audit integrity. At the same time, only the most serious, deliberate, or harmful findings will escalate to a Critical Breach while the rest will be subject to the definitions of major & minor findings.
c. International alignment: The updated definition reflects global expectations on human rights, labour rights, supply chain due diligence, and integrity.