CPD Perspectives: Choices

This piece is part of CPD Perspectives — a new series of articles exploring professional recognition from every angle. Not just training providers, but also recruiters, HR managers, learners, and whole sectors across different countries.

It’s a fast-changing space, and we want to be at the forefront of it. Because lifelong learning doesn’t just change careers – it changes lives.

When it comes to CPD accreditation, most training providers end up in one of three camps. I’ve been in each of them myself. For years, I watched how this played out — from in-house NHS training to wanting to have CPD accreditation to our own school nursing technology training – and also, on the receiving end watching various family members trying to get a course they attended recognised for their CPD. Been there, done that.

It’s not just about paperwork. The path you choose for certificates shapes how learners see you, how employers value your training, and how sustainable your business model is. And in a world where skills need to be updated constantly, that matters more than ever.

Plenty of evidence suggests that when learning receive recongition for their achievements, they actually retain the learnt material better. (source:PubMed)

The Juggler

It’s not that you don’t want to do it, of course you do. But this is just one of so many things. We’ll get around to this soon enough. Training is running, clients are being served, new content is being developed — accreditation just keeps slipping down the to-do list. The training may be good — even excellent — but once it’s over, learners are left with nothing tangible.

This can feel pragmatic at first. Of course they are left with something: we send the slides, and surely they have the invoice. Less admin, less worry about compliance. But the consequences are serious:

• Learners cannot just turn up to a recruiter with a set of slides.
• Employers don’t see value compared to other providers who do offer recognition.
• Regulators and auditors, in sectors like health and finance, increasingly expect structured records.

In other words, it’s a short-term escape that usually catches up with you. Without recognition, your training risks becoming invisible.

The Canva Trap (with or without Excel)

Of course you can find a nice design (Powerpoint, Canva)/ Just pop the names into the template, filled, PDF’d and emailed out. It works when you’re small, and it feels cost-free. You can even keep an list in Excel. Beautiful, yes, meaningful?

But problems emerge quickly:

• Lost certificates and endless requests for replacements.
• Learners editing PDFs themselves and misusing your logo.
• Does anyone even remember if this was a one day workshop on basics of communication or a whole series of online lectures? What does it even mean?

A DIY system has no defensibility. It creates work, undermines trust, and leaves both you and your learners exposed.

Walking with Dinosaurs: the illusion of authority

At the other end of the spectrum are the long-established accreditation bodies. They’ve been around for decades. They carry weight with logos and familiar processes.

To many, they appear to be the gold standard — authority, regulator, and arbiter of quality, all rolled into one. But hold on. Did you say bodies? As in more than one? Which of them is the real one? Which has actual authority?

It is true, in highly regulated sectors — medicine, law, finance, accountancy — there are indeed statutory and professional regulators who set standards and mandate training requirements. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about the many self-appointed CPD providers — the likes of CPD Standards, CPD UK, and others — who operate commercially. They present themselves as if they were regulators, but they are not. Their authority isn’t statutory. It’s a brand they’ve built and a perception they sell.

And it comes at a cost:

• High up-front fees, regardless of how successful your courses are.
• Bureaucratic approvals every time you adapt or update.
• A model that made sense in the 1990s, but doesn’t match the pace of today’s training markets.

They are not regulators. They are service providers. And clinging to them as if they were the only route to recognition is like walking with dinosaurs — familiar, but fading into irrelevance.

Your own path: control, technology, and credibility

There is an alternative. Keep control of your courses. Adapt them when the market demands. Issue certificates that are secure, verifiable, and outcomes-based.

Modern technology makes this possible:

• Certificates tied to defined aims, skills, and outcomes.
• Records that learners can access and share easily — not buried in your admin files.
• Systems that are tamper-proof, auditable, and defensible under regulatory scrutiny.

This isn’t about emailing out certificates. It’s about building recognition that works for learners, employers, and providers — without red tape.

Why this matters now

Accreditation is not a side issue. It sits at the intersection of skills, employability, and trust. Employers are under pressure to demonstrate competence. Regulators are raising expectations. Learners want recognition that travels with them — across jobs, countries, even industries.

Do nothing, and your learners lose out. Do it badly, and you lose credibility. Stick with the dinosaurs, and you risk being priced out or locked down.

The providers who thrive will be those who carve their own path — embracing recognition that is flexible, verifiable, and future-focused.

About CPD Perspectives

This article is the first in CPD Perspectives, a new series looking at accreditation and recognition from many angles: providers, recruiters, HR managers, trainees, and across different sectors and countries.

It’s a fast-changing space. Lifelong learning doesn’t just change careers — it changes lives. Our aim is to be at the forefront of that change, starting with the choices we make today.

So here’s the question:

• Which path are you on?
• And how long will you stay on it?