6 replies to this topic

[Simon]

I heard this week that PepsiCo have employed SAI Global to approve and monitor their supply base.

It works something like this:

- If you do not have BRC Certification you must go through an approval and audit process with SAI Global

- If you have BRC Certification you must still be approved by SAI Global by supplying various documents, specifications, BRC Certificate and BRC Report for desk review

- Once approved you will be subject to annual re approval

Obviously the supplier makes an initial payment and an annual fee for the privilege. I can see benefits for PepsiCo as they have complete control of their supply base, improving consistency and due diligence and for none of the cost.

From a suppliers point of view it means that you are on the approval list of a major global customer and the potential for further business opportunities.

However, if you look at this in a negative way it is another cost on top of the high costs associated with BRC Certification. What happens when Coca Cola employ Exova and Kellogs employ SGS etc.

I have to question why they are choosing to go down this route. I think we all know the application of the requirements of the standard and the rigour and quality of audits and auditors are subject to a lot of variance.

With food safety in question obviously some of the big brands are deciding they cannot live with this degree of variability and uncertainty?

What do you think?

Regards,
Simon

[tsmith7858]

I heard this week that PepsiCo have employed SAI Global to approve and monitor their supply base.

It works something like this:

- If you do not have BRC Certification you must go through an approval and audit process with SAI Global

- If you have BRC Certification you must still be approved by SAI Global by supplying various documents, specifications, BRC Certificate and BRC Report for desk review

- Once approved you will be subject to annual re approval

Obviously the supplier makes an initial payment and an annual fee for the privilege. I can see benefits for PepsiCo as they have complete control of their supply base, improving consistency and due diligence and for none of the cost.

From a suppliers point of view it means that you are on the approval list of a major global customer and the potential for further business opportunities.

However, if you look at this in a negative way it is another cost on top of the high costs associated with BRC Certification. What happens when Coca Cola employ Exova and Kellogs employ SGS etc.

I have to question why they are choosing to go down this route. I think we all know the application of the requirements of the standard and the rigour and quality of audits and auditors are subject to a lot of variance.

With food safety in question obviously some of the big brands are deciding they cannot live with this degree of variability and uncertainty?

What do you think?

Regards,
Simon

First I would say I have "heard the same thing" and I would add that I "heard" even if you used SAI Global for your BRC audit you still had to submit paperwork for review and pay another fee to have someone else in SAI Global approve their approval. And, yes after that, even if you continue to use SAI Global for your surveilance audits you still have to pay them again for your annual review.

It does seem like an extra step and extra costs to say that you need to be GFSI certified (which I hear is the ultimate goal and they will accept something like say, FSSC 22000). It is basically saying that they don't trust the auditing process that is controlled and monitored by ANAB/UKAS/etc. and feel that even if you pass an audit through a certified registrar (and even if it is the one of their preference) you need to hand that audit to someone else to approve.

I also think there is a conflict of interest. If you get your audit conducted by a different registrar and then have to submit it to SAI Global for approval, what is to keep SAI Global from picking it apart and trying to make other registrars look bad?

Oh, yeah, and I "heard" that this is currently just a UK Pepsico and other divisions have not adopted it.

Edited by tsmith7858, 02 November 2010 - 07:25 PM.

[Simon]

First I would say I have "heard the same thing" and I would add that I "heard" even if you used SAI Global for your BRC audit you still had to submit paperwork for review and pay another fee to have someone else in SAI Global approve their approval. And, yes after that, even if you continue to use SAI Global for your surveilance audits you still have to pay them again for your annual review.

It does seem like an extra step and extra costs to say that you need to be GFSI certified (which I hear is the ultimate goal and they will accept something like say, FSSC 22000). It is basically saying that they don't trust the auditing process that is controlled and monitored by ANAB/UKAS/etc. and feel that even if you pass an audit through a certified registrar (and even if it is the one of their preference) you need to hand that audit to someone else to approve.

I also think there is a conflict of interest. If you get your audit conducted by a different registrar and then have to submit it to SAI Global for approval, what is to keep SAI Global from picking it apart and trying to make other registrars look bad?

Oh, yeah, and I "heard" that this is currently just a UK Pepsico and other divisions have not adopted it.

To be honest I thought it was a global initiative from PepsiCo, anyway if not now it may be soon. I agree with your points TS and the buck stops squarely with the Accreditation Bodies and the standards owners such as the BRC. They need to kick butt qucik and hard or the sheep will be all over the field again - if you get what I mean.

[Biss]

Hi,

I belive its a pepsico global initiative. we have received similar details from PepsiCo Egypt

[tsmith7858]

Hi,

I belive its a pepsico global initiative. we have received similar details from PepsiCo Egypt

I don't believe US was on board with it yet, but that may change.

[nitac]

The NHS have been doing this for years with what was "EFSIS" even though we had BRC grade A had to have a NHS audit. Mcdonalds also do it but have their own standards bolted on to BRC. Brakes used STS for an indipendant audit even though you have BRC and lots of retailers also charge you to have your BRC audit "checked" by their approved moderators. Makes you wonder why we have BRC?

[Simon]

In some ways it was simpler in the old days, at least back then you knew you were having a weekly customer audit to a lucky dip standard.