What GFSI standard to choose?

For version in Swedish

Sometimes, we get the question – What is the best GFSI standard for our site? For us, as a certification body, we are not allowed to have such an opinion. What we can do, is explain the similarities and differences between various GFSI-standards concerning the decision on what standard to select.

Differences and similarities between BRCGS, IFS, FSSC 22000 and GRMS

There are several factors to consider, such as current and potential customers’ demands or preferences. We have included some information on this, based on what we hear from our clients and other stakeholders. At the end of the document, there is a table, listing some of the special features of each of the standards. There are also links to the scheme owners’ websites. The comparison/summary focuses on the three main GFSI food processing schemes in Europe; BRCGS, IFS, and FSSC 22000, and the not (yet) so well-known Global Red Meat Standard (GRMS). The summary is quite technical, so to fully understand the requirements and differences, we recommend you review the standards yourself and consider what they mean to your organization and activities.

To start, FSSC 22000 is completely different from BRCGS, IFS, and GRMS in its’ construction. FSSC, like ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 are management systems standards, accredited under ISO 17021. BRCGS, IFS, and GRMS are ”product/process standards”, accredited under ISO 17065. Simplified, management systems standards provide more flexibility for the certified organizations in how to design their management system and their processes, while product/process-based schemes/standards, is more prescriptive, with detailed descriptions of what to do to be compliant.

Another important difference is that BRCGS, IFS, and GRMS have their scheme/standards compiled into one single document. On the contrary, FSSC for food processing consists of three normative documents ISO 22000:2018, ISO/TS 22002-1:2009 (for storage and transport as a service, it is ISO/TS 22002-5), and FSSC 22000 additional requirements. All of these parts must be considered and conformed with, in order to get certified.

The clarifications of the standards

During the validity of the schemes/standards, clarifications, interpretations, and changes are published. These are mandatory to implement. IFS has these clarifications, interpretations, and changes in one single document; the IFS Doctrine. BRCGS uses position statements, and FSSC has Board of Stakeholder Decisions and Interpretation articles. As a certified organization, you need to make sure that you are aware of these clarifications, and we recommend a subscription to the scheme owners’ newsletters, where new publications are normally announced.

How do the revisions of the GFSI standards differ?

BRCGS, IFS, and GRMS have an initial certification audit and then recertification audits every year; the complete standard is audited, and unless the scheme owners change their requirements, the audit duration is the same every year (minimum 2 days in most cases). FSSC has certification cycles spanning over 3 years. The initial certification is performed in two steps. During stage 1, the preparedness of the organization and the design of the management system is reviewed. The stage 2 audit which is normally performed 2 to a maximum of 6 months after the stage 1 audit covers the implementation and effectiveness of the management system of the organization Once certified, one surveillance audit per year will be performed in the next two calendar years. In the third year, a longer recertification audit is then carried out and a new certificate is issued if the audit is successful. The minimum audit duration onsite is 2 days in most cases, and the duration of the recertification audit is normally 3-4 days. All GFSI-recognised schemes/standards require that an unannounced audit is performed for a minimum of 1 out of 3 years.

When considering support to certified organizations, there are also differences. BRCGS has historically had more supporting documents, accessible for certified organizations, with IFS not far behind. However, the service fees of BRCGS and IFS are significantly higher than those of FSSC, resulting in more expensive certification fees charged by the certification bodies.

Which, and how many, non-conformities are accepted during audits?

The grading/scoring systems of the four schemes/standards are also different. IFS is probably the most strict, with some scheme requirements classified as “knock-outs” (KO). If there are non-conformances against any of these KO requirements, the certificate will be withdrawn immediately, and the same is true if major non-conformances are identified. To reach a “higher level” status, a total score of >95% is required. 75-95% gives foundation level, and a result of <75% means no certificate is issued Taken together, this means that it is quite common that certificates are withdrawn, an onsite follow-up audit or a new initial audit onsite is required after the annual audit. BRCGS also has limitations in the number of non-conformances issued before a certificate has to be suspended or a follow-up onsite is needed. In addition, if the site receives a C- or D grade, the audit interval will be amended to 6 months instead of 12 months. In GRMS, different requirements are weighted depending on their importance from a food safety and animal welfare perspective. Requirements considered of particular importance are classified as critical (K) and must be confirmed, but up to 5 major non-conformances are OK. In FSSC organisations can have several major and minor non-conformances and still be certified. However follow-up audits onsite may be necessary, and if a critical non-conformity is identified, the certificate will be suspended.

The BRCGS requirements are much more demanding for some types of products than FSSC, IFS, and GRMS. This occurs when manufacturing products that according to the BRCGS require a High Risk-zone (e.g. slicing of fully cooked meat products). In such cases, physical segregation must exist (separation in time is insufficient), including flows of products, personnel, raw materials, equipment, waste, air, and water. To comply with this, some sites may require significant reconstruction and investments, and under these circumstances, BRCGS may not be a feasible choice.

The availability of auditors and certification bodies

Another aspect to consider when choosing a scheme/standard is the availability of approved auditors and certification bodies’ scope of accreditation. From this point of view, IFS is the hardest standard to get qualified for as an auditor, meaning there are fewer auditors and certification bodies available. IFS requires that the audits are done in the working language of the site, otherwise, an interpreter and 20% extra audit duration are needed (NOTE: Interpretation is not allowed for English, Spanish, Italian, German, French, or Chinese).

Global Red Meat Standard (GRMS) includes animal welfare for slaughterhouses

For sites mainly involved in the slaughter or processing of red meat, GRMS is an interesting alternative. The standard has been specifically developed for these types of activities, and requirements irrelevant to meat are omitted. Instead, there are requirements for animal welfare for abattoirs, which makes GRMS unique among the most frequently used GFSI-recognised standards.

FSSC 22000 is more flexible but more challenging

At first glance, FSSC may seem like a simpler and more flexible standard. This scheme however calls for a higher level of knowledge and understanding for the group of people designing the management system and being responsible for the risk assessments. Furthermore, it is harder to read and understand the normative documents (the FSSC extra requirements are comparably few and easy to understand, while ISO 2000:2018 and ISO 22002-1:2009 are a bit more challenging). Due to the variation in interpretation of scheme requirements, and the lack of overall grading/scoring other than certificated/not certificated, some retailers are no longer accepting FSSC certification, although FSSC is recognized by the GFSI.

Export affects the choice of standard

For companies involved in export, the requirements of the destination countries must also be taken into account. For the UK and Ireland, BRCGS is by far the most well-known standard, as is IFS in Germany. As of today, acceptance of BRCGS/IFS exceeds that of FSSC, but for export to the USA, extra requirements may apply (FSMA). GRMS is still a ”small” standard, with most certified sites in Denmark and Belgium. Our analysis is that this standard is a good alternative for small and mid-sized organizations processing red meat, and needs a GFSI standard instead of e.g. IP Livsmedel or other national schemes.

If you would like to know more about these schemes/standards or how to obtain certification, please don’t hesitate to contact your local Kiwa office for a personal meeting.

Contact details
Phone: +46 (0)18 17 00 00
E-mail: se.kundsupport.certification@kiwa.com