In Singapore, there is an increasing demand for calibration of Industrial Radiation Thermometers (IRTs), and the number of calibration laboratories providing calibration services from -20 °C to 900 °C has surged in recent years, especially for the calibration laboratories providing calibration when the emissivity setting of the thermometer is less than 1. Nevertheless, the spectral response of these IRTs are usually from 8 to 14 µm and they are not adapted properly for the wider temperature range especially at emissivity setting of 0.95. A typical IRT was chosen, studied and investigated for this purpose, while circulating among 7 participating laboratories. The IRT was calibrated and characterized by evaluation of repeatability, reproducibility, stability and possible drift, before and after each measurement at each of the laboratory. The reference temperature, Tref, was obtained by using reference thermometer such as Platinum Resistance Thermometer (PRT), thermocouple or radiation thermometer at the corresponding blackbody source temperatures. The measurements were performed with IRT emissivity settings equal to 0.95 and 1.0, respectively. The reference temperature for emissivity setting equal to 0.95, T0.95, was determined by using a software developed by NMC. The final reference values for both emissivity setting of 0.95 and 1.0 were calculated based on the average of the calibration results before sending to and after receiving from each participating laboratory. From analysis of the reference values and drift study, it is found that this IRT is more suitable for applications up to 200 °C due to small variance of the repeatability and reproducibility. On the other hand, even though a wider temperature range (- 30 °C to 900 °C) can be found from the instrument specification, larger variance of the repeatability, reproducibility and drift are observed in the temperature range above 200 °C from this study. Among the 7 participating laboratories, only one laboratory shows inconsistency result with the reference value at one test point and all the other laboratories have demonstrated consistent differences with the comparison reference values in association with their measurement uncertainties. Some of the laboratories need to improve their measurement uncertainties in the near future.