Who we are, and what we disclose
Björn Haglund is Founder and Director of AI Certification Standards, the organisation that publishes this framework, and holds no interest in any organisation that awards credentials or delivers training against it.
This page states what the organisation is, what its founder and directors declare, and what remains unresolved. It also states what could go wrong in a body of this kind, and what we have done about it.
We publish it in full because the alternative is that a reader finds it elsewhere. A relationship discovered is a relationship concealed, whatever the intention.
Last reviewed 30.08.2026 · reviewed at least annually and on any change of relationship
What we are, and what we are not
| AI Certification Standards | Registered organisations | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Standards body | Independent third parties: awarding bodies, training providers, employers |
| Legal form | AI Certification Standards AB | Their own; no ownership link to this organisation |
| What it does | Publishes the framework | Awards credentials, delivers courses or hires against it |
| Relationship to the framework | Owns and maintains it | Uses it, under a licence available to anyone |
| Founder's role | Founder and Director | None. The founder holds no interest in any listed organisation. |
The founder’s interests, stated in full
Björn Haglund founded this organisation and holds no economic interest in it. He provided the founding grant to AI Certification Standards, described at Funding.
Founder and Director. No economic interest: the organisation has no shareholders and distributes no surplus.
No interest of any kind: no shareholding, no directorship, no paid engagement, no advisory position.
Directors who hold a position with a body that uses the framework
1 of the 5 directors of AI Certification Standards hold a position with an organisation that awards credentials or delivers training against the framework: Johan Sellgren, Head of Assessment at Lund Yrkeshögskola, and a director of this organisation.
Directors holding such a position may not constitute more than one third of this board, and may never be numerous enough to carry or block a resolution alone.
Where a decision concerns that organisation, they are recused and the recusal is published. Conflict of interest policy
What could go wrong
The structure creates four risks. We state them because we think they are real.
The framework could be written to suit one body's credentials
Statements could be shaped around what one awarding body intends to examine, rather than around competence as practitioners hold it.
An applicant close to a director could receive favourable treatment
A decision taken by a body connected to the applicant is not, on its face, an independent decision.
A related party could gain advantage from early sight of changes
Any organisation close to the founder could receive earlier notice of framework changes and convert that into commercial advantage.
Changes could be timed to suit related parties
Release schedules and deprecation dates could be set around one provider's course cycle.
What we have done about each
Against framework capture
The framework is developed under a published methodology with public consultation on every substantive change. Proposals are published with their author and their outcome, including proposals that were rejected.
Against favourable conformance treatment
Conformance decisions involving a related party are made by a panel from which conflicted directors are recused. The recusal and the decision are published as dated records.
Against advance sight of changes
Against timing manipulation
The release calendar is published in advance and consultation periods have published minimum durations.
Where each open question stands
Four positions a reader is entitled to check, with their current state.
The board is appointed and independently nominated
SETTLEDFive directors were appointed on 30.08.2026 by resolution of the board on the recommendation of a nominations committee with an independent majority, on which the founder does not sit. Three of the five hold no position with any organisation that uses the framework.
The register holds one entry
OPENOne organisation is listed, at Tier III, decided 30.08.2026 with no recusal required. Any application involving a party connected to a director will be decided under the recusal arrangements above.
Tier III is open, with one listing
SETTLEDTier III opened on 30.08.2026. Decisions are taken by a panel of three from the Office of the Registrar, with conflicted directors recused and the recusal published.
An independent governance review has been carried out
SETTLEDAn independent governance review of the constitution and the conflict policy was completed on 28.08.2026; the next review is due August 2028.