BG bhai..... ISO does not refer to anything great in excellence in standards......just that if somebody performs upto a specified level as directed by the ISO then its given that certification.
.
an extract from wikipedia
A common criticism of ISO 9000 and 9001 is the amount of money, time, and paperwork required for registration.[6] Dalgleish cites the "inordinate and often unnecessary paperwork burden"...
more...

of ISO, and says that "quality managers feel that ISO's overhead and paperwork are excessive and extremely inefficient."[31]
According to Barnes, "Opponents claim that it is only for documentation. Proponents believe that if a company has documented its quality systems, then most of the paperwork has already been completed."[32] Wilson suggests that ISO standards "... elevate inspection of the correct procedures over broader aspects of quality," and therefore, "the workplace becomes oppressive and quality is not improved."[7]
One study showing reasons for not adopting this standard include the risks and uncertainty of not knowing if here are direct relationships to improved quality, and what kind and how many resources will be needed. Additional risks include how much certification will cost, increased bureaucratic processes and risk of poor company image if the certification process fails.[30]According to John Seddon, ISO 9001 promotes specification, control, and procedures rather than understanding and improvement.[8] Wade argues that ISO 9000 is effective as a guideline, but that promoting it as a standard "helps to mislead companies into thinking that certification means better quality, ... [undermining] the need for an organization to set its own quality standards." [33] Paraphrased, Wade's argument is that reliance on the specifications of ISO 9001 does not guarantee a successful quality system.
The standard is seen as especially prone to failure when a company is interested in certification before quality.[8] Certifications are in fact often based on customer contractual requirements rather than a desire to actually improve quality.[32][34] "If you just want the certificate on the wall, chances are you will create a paper system that doesn't have much to do with the way you actually run your business," said ISO's Roger Frost.[34] Certification by an independent auditor is often seen as the problem area, and according to Barnes, "has become a vehicle to increase consulting services." [32]
Dalglesh argues that while "quality has a positive effect on return on investment, market share, sales growth, better sales margins and competitive advantage," that "taking a quality approach is unrelated to ISO 9000 registration."[35] In fact, ISO itself advises that ISO 9001 can be implemented without certification, simply for the quality benefits that can be achieved.[36]
Abrahamson argues that fashionable management discourse such as Quality Circles tends to follow a lifecycle in the form of a bell curve, possibly indicating a management fad.[37]
Pickrell argues that ISO systems merely gauge whether the processes are being followed. It does not gauge how good the processes are or whether the correct parameters are being measured and controlled to ensure quality. Furthermore, when unique technical solutions are involved in the creation of a new part, ISO does not validate the robustness of the technical solution which is a key part of advanced quality planning. It is not unheard of for an ISO certified plant to display poor quality performance due to poor process selection and/or poor technical solutions.
.
source: click here