21 replies to this topic

[Puzzle]

We are a plastic injection moulding company, and have been asked to quote for an existing contract the current suppliers are accredited to the 'Retail Supplier Certification - non- food approval issue 3'. Is there any worth to this?

We are 9001:2000 , on the way to 14001, soon to embark on TS16949:2002, we do have many markets!!

[Simon]

Thank's for the puzzle, puzzle!

'Retail Supplier Certification - non- food approval issue 3'

I think this finally proves that I've been spending too much time talking about food packaging safety - I've never heard of the standard!

If certification to the standard is required by the customer to enable you to become their supplier then your company will have to make a tough decision, which will obviously take into account the potential value of the account and the effort required to get the badge.

If you don't believe the standard will add any value to your business or the management systems you already have in place are sufficient then it would be lunacy to go for it and perhaps you could try to convince the customer with some common-sense.

It's very difficult to offer decent advice when I don't know what I'm talikng about.

You will be pleased to know that the boffins are considering extending the scope of The BRC/IoP Packaging Standard to encompass "non-food." See this thread

Hopefully somebody else on the forum is able to provide you with more technical advice. I'd be grateful if you could tell us a little bit about the standard.

By the way welcome to the forum.

Regards,
Simon

[Edwina Chicken Currie]

The Standard is from the Geneva-based 'Societe Generale de Surveillance' (SGS), (quote) "A world leader in inspection, testing and verification".
See link:
http://www.sgs.co.uk.../inspection.htm
I don't have knowledge of the contents of the standard, however as SGS are UKAS accredited to audit against the BRC/IOP standard. I beleive their Retail Supply Certification is an all-encompassing standard, combining BRC/IOP and ISO 9001:2000. One audit, one certificate!
Their site references the BRC/IOP standard:
http://www.sgs.co.uk...c/packaging.htm

Many customers are pushing for packaging suppliers to achieve certification against the BRC/IOP standard as it removes the need for routine auditing for due dilligence purposes.
It's also worth noting the BRC/IOP standard incorporates areas of quality system management and food safety, not just the quality system management covered by ISO 9001:2000.

Hope this is of use. :D

[Simon]

Thanks for that Fiona,

It's very interesting that SGS are offering combined audits for BRC/IoP Packaging Standard and ISO 9001:2000, cost savings and all that. Just think if the structure of The BRC/IoP Packaging Standard were aligned with ISO 9000 it would be a doddle.

More than that when ISO 22000 comes along in 2004/5 you would be able to bag a hat-trick of certificates in one audit :D or maybe lose them all

Simon

[Puzzle]

Many thanks,

It appears to me that the world of packaging quality/safety is potentially another universe.

None of what I have read and researched has indicated any potential problems for my organisation in meeting any of the requirements.

If we do go ahead with an entry into this market you may well find more questions from me that you may consider rather trivial !!

I may be handling a large clutch of accreditations by this time next year !!

Chris aka Puzzle

[mikelond]

Following on from Fiona's comments, I think that the Retail Supplier Certification is actually referring to the BRC/IOP (berkyop, remember? was he the 70's american lawyer that lived in the motorhome and was forever building his own house?) standard, which SGS among about a dozen other certification companies are accredited with UKAS to audit against.
We currently have both ISO9001:2000 and BRC/IOP level A (direct food contact packaging manufacture), but not both with SGS yet. I have however, received a quote from SGS to combine the two standards into one audit visit, which saves, as you rightly point out, a fair amount of money. It also allows the two standards to effectively become one, mainly at the internal auditing stage, where all aspects can be looked at with regard to product safety, traceability and procedural compliance.
As I'm in control of both systems for our site, this is a major benefit (nearly as big as moving all the ISO and hygiene documentation onto the company intranet, thus saving my legs walking round a 15 acre site to update manuals every time a procedure change is identified on an internal audit!)

However, if it turns out that I'm ludicrously wide of the mark with regard to the Retail Supplier Certification, I would be very interested to find out more. It wouldn't be my first time for being wrong - but that's another forum.

Mike

[Simon]

The original post by Puzzle asked about 'Retail Supplier Certification - non - food approval issue 3'. I was unable to find any reference to it anywhere and although it doesnt sound like BERKYOP I think we have all assumed that it must be the BRC/IoP Packaging Standard.

The interesting point is the combined audit, how much of a % cost saving is the combined audit to you Mike?

We currently have both ISO9001:2000 and BRC/IOP level A (direct food contact packaging manufacture)

Do you mean category B?

As I'm in control of both systems for our site, this is a major benefit (nearly as big as moving all the ISO and hygiene documentation onto the company intranet, thus saving my legs walking round a 15 acre site to update manuals every time a procedure change is identified on an internal audit!)

You know it makes sense! Thus allowing you more time to spend on useful and interesting things like Saferpak!


Simon

[Puzzle]

Hello again,

You can find reference to the 'standard' I mentioned on the SGS website.

It does exist as I have a copy.

As circumstance has it we will not be progressing this avenue now due to technical problems (not to do with handling/safety etc the tooling will not physically fit our machines !!)

The 'standard' is aimed primarily at operators WITHOUT a formal quality system accreditation and is in three levels. A state intent is to continually improve to the highest level.

I must say the contents are more common sense rather than aything extraordinary.

Hope that helps

Puzzle

[Simon]

Hi Puzzle,

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I may have gotten myself a little confused earlier. Hey what's new!

There is actually a link to the SGS Retail Inspection Scheme - Non Food Standard on Fiona's post, and now it is all coming back to me...

Amnesiacally Yours
Simon

[mikelond]

Hi Simon
From the figures I've been quoted, along with the previous 12 months certification/audit charges, it looks like an approximate saving of 25% by having both ISO and BRC under the same assessor. Plus the benefits of not having to walk round the site four times a year....it just gets better. It also gives me a very knowledgeable and consistent sounding board to help combine the two systems into one, without coming into constant conflict between two different auditors.
Well spotted, incidentally, we are category B, not A! I knew you'd spot it!

Mike B)

[rheath]

Mike,

I too am responsible for a multitude of areas, as such the combined audit route is appealing

With BRC we are down to 1 audit per year as we have had no major non conformances. BSI are against the theory that better performance means less surveillance, what is SGS position on this with respect to quality?

Regards

Richard

[Simon]

Richard,

Good point like you we are already at 1 audit a year for BRC/IoP, yet we have had ISO 9000 for 10 years and always had 2 audits a year (BSI).

Simon

[mikelond]

Hi Richard
Pretty much as Simon has already stated - we have always been audited twice per year by SGS for our ISO9001:2000, and as we have had one major non-conformance in May (lack of scheduled programme for hygiene refresher training), we are still at twice per annum for BRC as well. Our most recent ISO audit last week was actually the first visit where we had no major or minor non-conformances (I certainly got a bit p*ssed that night, I can tell you!), but we still get six-monthly audits. How this is going to fit in as a dual audit plan, I'm not sure but if a system is efficient and effective, it can stand being audited to any frequency.
BSI's opinion seems to be financially rooted, or am I being a bit cynical?

I would gladly welcome twice-yearly audits for both accreditations, as they prove to be as much of a point of focus for the site with regard to procedures, practices and conformity in general. It also gives me a bit of clout when I come to chair the six-monthly Management Review meetings, which, funnily enough, always seem to be planned for straight afetr the two audits have taken place............ :D

Mike (must get round to getting my photo on the website...........)

[rheath]

BSI's opinion seems to be financially rooted, or am I being a bit cynical?

BSI auditing schedule, financially routed surely not...

3 audits ago I was shown a schedule, supposedly being forced through by UKAS stating that my audit frequency was insufficient to get through the required content for my business size.

The fact that we have held 5750, 9001 since 1989 and never had any problems previously did not seem to change this stance. Add to this I know of 5 similar sized businesses which only required 2 days per year - this still did not detract from the stance that we had to go to three days per year.

Funnily enough, when I sent a letter stating that we were considering moving certification bodies, 2 days suddenly became sufficient.

Back to the original ish subject - I agree that external audits are an effective tool for influencing senior management decisions but I personally do not get as much out of the quality audits as I do from the Hygiene Audits. This is perhaps because the vast majority of our systems are computerised.

Have you ever considered taking the leap and running with just the BRC/IOP standard - it does after all incorporate quality standards..

[Simon]

This thread has an orange envelope, which means it's a "hot topic"!

Although the thread has meandered a little from the original post I believe we are onto a very interesting subject and I have a couple of points to throw in the pot.

Have you ever considered taking the leap and running with just the BRC/IOP standard - it does after all incorporate quality standards.

I have considered ditching ISO as the majority of our customers are food manufacturers and this group really haven't embraced ISO 9000 at all, mainly because it doesn't cover food safety issues.

The problem is if you supply to a variety of different markets both food and non food, the non fooders are not going to be interested in The BRC/IoP Packaging Standard and as you know it only takes one or two big customers and YOU MUST keep ISO!

The other issue or question is do you think ISO 9001:2000 adds any value? I believe the requirement for Top Management involvement, customer focus, continuous improvement and preventive action are extremely important and they are sadly lacking from the current BRC/IoP Packaging Standard.

I think that anyone considering ditching ISO would be wise to canvass customer opinion first. What we are really looking for though is for the BRC/IoP Packaging Standard to evolve 'quickly' into a business management standard that will satisfy customer requirements and force us to improve as a business.

BSI auditing schedule, financially routed surely not...

Definitely...but don't call me Shirley.

Simon

[rheath]

Simon,

Pretty much the same conclusion I came to..

Interestingly enough I have been getting non food customers asking for the standard as well which is encouraging.

A certain prophylactic manufacturer requires the standard although I suppose there is a strenuous link to oral ingestion!

Regards

Richard

[Puzzle]

It seems an innocent question can provoke a discussion very close to my heart.

As you may have guessed my company is not into the 'food industry' as a direct market.

We are a trade moulder and therefore service any customer who we feel meets our business ethics.

Because of this we are nearly at the end of the ISO 14001 certification route. As our certification body is not UKAS accredited for this standard and we are one of the first for them, the process has been overseen by UKAS representatives.

I actually commented to the UKAS rep that I felt many accreditation bodies were now commercial bodies first and auditors last. He agreed !!

His presence has allowed me to have a very streamlined system, much 'slimmer' than that recommended by many other certification bodies.

Oddly enough the automotive sector, with the incursion of TS 16949:2002 have taken the control and approval of certification bodies away from UKAS and are dealing with it themselves. Comments akin to 'many certification bodies auditors do not understand the needs of the standard and are not trained to allow for th eindividual business operation' was one.

The certification body auditor training is by the SMMT only. If thety have not trained you for TS forget it.

The required audit days are very specific for TS, and depend on the business size and number of employees.

One very interesting item is if they find a major non-conformance the de-registration process is started immediately and if the resolution is not agreed within the proscribed 90 days, you wave good bye to the accreditation.

I have (in the past) retained 9001 certification even with a number of majors not fully closed. It may help to be a fast talker!!

Puzzle

[Simon]

I have (in the past) retained 9001 certification even with a number of majors not fully closed.

Do you really expect they'll take away your ISO badge and lose a valuable cus£omer? It's just cowboys and indians...

Does anyone know anyone who has lost their ISO certification? I don't.


Simon

[Puzzle]

Simon,

No, and perhaps that is the real problem for those organisations that want the certificate on the wall not the accreditation to confirm their performance.

Continual improvement is at all levels, but I have a bit of a problem validating the requirement to auditors when the easy options of scrap and FTP are easily measured, but what about the review and update of forms and documents to meet a new problem that has appeared?

We do this as a normal action, and these details are not noticed. (until I point it out!!!)

The cynic in the midlands

[Puzzle]

Just had a scan at my certification bodies website and notice they have a section for 'suspensions' with a number of companies details and a section for 'withdrawls' again with companies detailed.

Almost restores a bit of faith.

[Simon]

Well I'll be...........

[Puzzle]

Stunned, gobsmacked, speechless, confused..........

I have booked some therapy