On Clause 5.1.1 leadership responsibilities that cannot be delegated, I have received different opinions on acceptable evidences to demonstrate compliant, from different consultants. May I know if these actions are acceptable as evidences to demonstrate leadership commitment as required in clause 5.1.1: 1. Issue letter of appointment to a MR so that all these required activities be carried out by the MR. 2. Get the personal secretaries to issue and respond e-mails to all staff to communicate the important of QMS effectiveness and conformance. This is the reality when top management do not communicate directly to the staff but through secretaries; the MR needs to make appointment with the respective secretaries in order to meet or talk to the top management staff. 3. Risks, threats, quality objectives, contexts of organization are only discussed and established during the Quality Review Meetings with business unit heads and MR. In another words is it okay a group of people mostly non-top-management staff meet to discuss and establish those required activities which are imposed on the top management? In another scenario, is it okay for MR just list out all risks, threats, objectives, contexts then let the top management pick and choose? 4. In real life, top management will not want to be involved in doing these works but will assign to someone else to do. Is it okay that top management can simply issue a directive to say that all these requirements of commitment are assigned to the MR and auditors just need to look at the evidence of assignment? 5. In former version of ISO9001, the MR must be from the organization's management. In 2015 version no MR required, however if company must have an MR does it mean that it also doesn't need to be a member of the organization's management? 6. When looking at evidence of leadership committment, do we have to establish that the committment is effective, only then consider compliant? For example, there are evidences that top-managemnet are taking measures to reduce the work stress of workers but evidences are also showing that the measures are not effective - workers are still under stress, do we consider this committment as compliant or non-compliant? It will be very easy to demonstrate committment if there is no need to show ineffectiveness (as we can always claim it to be effectiveness with evidences, if no need to show evidences of ineffectiveness). Appreciate any help in clearing my doubts.