[gcse-fhp]

Would you say it is ethically right or wrong for a company to deliberately choose an auditing company, audit type or auditor to ensure that the audit reports remain consistently favourable?

On another front, is it ethically right or wrong for a company to simply stay away from having audits until this is mandated by customers?

Please share your thoughts, thanks.

This post has been edited by gcse-fhp: 30 January 2012 - 01:14 PM

[GMO]

Ethically, as long as the company isn't deliberately breaking the law, I see no issue with a company chosing the audit body they like nor avoiding audit until they are forced to do so. It's not ideal but if there are lenient audit bodies or lenient customers it's frankly the certification organisation to sort out the former and the duty of the latter to vote with their feet.

Even the smallest of companies are being forced into the 21st century nowadays, I don't think many companies will be able to approach accreditation in this way for long.

[gcse-fhp]

GMO,
Thanks for your input. With consideration given to a company’s obligation to ensure consumer safety, does that change your view on the ethical question about a company deliberately choosing the best audit arrangements to make it look good?

gcse-fhp

This post has been edited by gcse-fhp: 30 January 2012 - 03:37 PM

[GMO]

gcse-fhp, on 30 January 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

GMO,
Thanks for your input. With consideration given to a company’s obligation to ensure consumer safety, does that change your view on the ethical question about a company deliberately choosing the best audit arrangements to make it look good?

gcse-fhp

No. I'm of the opinion that no auditing company will maintain their accreditation if they're that rubbish. I think as technical people we have to be pragmatic. At least they're not trying to avoid being audited at all. It could be worse. It's not ideal but why shoot yourself in the foot by choosing a company who will be more strict? You can be as tough and strict as you like internally.

[gcse-fhp]

I agree with you for most part

GMO, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

At least they're not trying to avoid being audited at all.

Many companies do in fact want to avoid being audited by third parties if there is no customers' pressure for them to do so.

GMO, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

It's not ideal but why shoot yourself in the foot by choosing a company who will be more strict?

I partly agree. Strict for strictness sake is not good but strict for the sake of ensuring the completeness, validity, and effectiveness of implemented food safety measures is what every company must strive for.

GMO, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

You can be as tough and strict as you like internally.

Many companies do not have the internal expertise (or even the free time from their "fire-fighting" routines) to do a proper job of being tough and strict internally. This is more so with those companies that are inclined to choose the most lenient audit arrangements.

This post has been edited by gcse-fhp: 31 January 2012 - 10:52 AM

[Tessa Bissonnet]

gcse-fhp, on 31 January 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

I agree with you for most part


Many companies do in fact want to avoid being audited by third parties if there is no customers' pressure for them to do so.


I partly agree. Strict for strictness sake is not good but strict for the sake of ensuring the completeness, validity, and effectiveness of implemented food safety measures is what every company must strive for.


Many companies do not have the internal expertise (or even the free time from their "fire-fighting" routines) to do a proper job of being tough and strict internally. This is more so with those companies that are inclined to choose the most lenient audit arrangements.

Firstly I have to say that there are many good audit companies out there whos auditors have the higest ethical standards. It has been said many times in the industry that certain accreditations are easier to achieve than others and are not worth the paper they are written on but I feel this is largely due to the misinterpretation of the standards being audited.

Secondly I support fully with

Quote

Many companies do not have the internal expertise (or even the free time from their "fire-fighting" routines) to do a proper job of being tough and strict internally. This is more so with those companies that are inclined to choose the most lenient audit arrangements.

. It is becaused of this I am most frequently asked to provide support with preaudits!

[Tessa Bissonnet]

sorry my quoting went horribly wrong then!! only the sencond part of the post is applicable!

[Katja]

Hello,
I understand where you are coming from we are currently audited by one auditing body in particular who is known to be more difficult. When we chose to go towards GFSI certification we used the same auditing body and the same difficult auditor. He was very particular and difficult but we passed. We were told by our GSFI consultants that this auditor and this auditing body in particular was the most exhaustive and difficult that they have encountered. They have seen companies pass who where much less advanced than us and pass because of the auditing body chosen. Beware if you choose an auditing body that may not be as difficult as others, others in the industry will know, maybe you want to get one that is average. If you go for the easiest auditing body, others in the industry will think you don't care for food safety. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the most strict auditing body either, but it was a good learning experience and now i feel prepared to go against the worst of the worst. The satisfaction of a job well done is that much greater ...
Good luck