14 replies to this topic

[jaredkkrischel]

Some of our suppliers are BRC certified according to the BRC directory. If they are certified already, can we document that as our supplier approval, or shouild we inspect and approve them ourselves?

thanks,
jaredkkrischel

[Charles.C]

Dear jaredkkrischel,

It may depend on yr situation which you do not mention. Some thoughts -

I hv found at least 5 scenarios -

1. distrust of BRC auditors. > latter option.

2. distrust of all 2nd / 3rd party auditors > latter option.

3. vice-versa (rare) of 1. and 2. > former option.

4. IMEX many customers / receivers simply find that the BRC standard does not cover / emphasise all the items which they wish to know. So no choice. > latter option.

5. many QA personnel love to travel. > latter option.

It would be interesting to know the BRC official viewpoint to yr question (or, perhaps more precisely, their auditors' view).

Regardless, it will still be necessary to document (approve) any ongoing performance.

Rgds / Charles.C

[GMO]

I bet the official BRC view is that you should risk assess them, BRC love that!

Seriously, you should risk assess the raw materials and decide which are higher risk then assess your suppliers, having BRC might reduce that risk but if they're supplying you with cooked meat say which isn't going to be cooked again, I would say it's reasonable to expect you to audit them but if they have BRC/IOP and are supplying secondary packaging, I would say it's reasonable not to audit. Likewise you may have some very low risk suppliers who supply low risk foodstuffs who don't have BRC but might have ISO22000 and ISO9000 series and have responded adequately to a supplier questionnaire. You might decide they don't need to be audited at all or you might think you will do, just infrequently.

[Foodworker]

Ultimately Supplier Approval should be about satisfying your own needs and not just an exercise that you do because a Standard says that you have to do it. You may have specific requirements as a business that are outside the scope of a Standard, be it BRC, ISO9000 or any other one. An example may be the ability of a supplier to support you with developing new products.

The first step therefore is to define your own criteria for approval.

In most situations however, for a supplier to be approved you must be confident that they are operating adequate and consistant technical and product safety practices. Certification to BRC or another product safety standard may demonstrate this and is at least a starting point.In most food instances, ISO9000 certification would not go far enough.

Most BRC auditors should accept BRC certification as evidence of supplier approval. At times in the Standard it states things like "Contract Storage & Distribution companies shall meet all of the clauses in this section or be certified to the BRC Global Standard for Storage & Distribution". (I don't have the standard with me at the moment to give the exact wording) So if they accept it for S&D, they should accept it for the other Standards.

Things to watch:

The scope of the certificate includes the materials that you are buying.
The certificate is for the site that is supplying or manufacturing the materials.
The certificate has not expired
The certficate is genuine - there are rogue certificates in circulation, particularly for packaging. Your use of the BRC Directory should overcome this.
If you are applying this criterion for approval of packaging suppliers, make sure that it is the correct risk category for your needs (eg Cat 1 for food contact)

For your own due diligence, there may be a need to follow up any individual points highlighted as non conformities in their BRC audit. You can't get this information from the Directory, but you can get the grade which may give indication of a Major Non Conformity. You can ask the supplier what the problem was and what action did thay take.

[Charles.C]

Dear Foodworker,

So if they accept it for S&D, they should accept it for the other Standards

I admire yr faith in BRC being a logical organisation.

As far as I can see, no comparable text to which you refer exists in the Food standard. Previous discussions here on the packaging standard seemed to me to suggest that there is limited textual linkage with the food standard (guessing).

However I will be only too happy to see someone confirm yr opinion. Certainly offers an enticingly simple response to the Food requirement of "The company shall have a documented supplier approval procedure "

Of course, the original post may be referring to packaging and posted in the wrong forum.

Rgds / Charles.C

[cazyncymru]

Dear jaredkkrischel,

It may depend on yr situation which you do not mention. Some thoughts -

I hv found at least 5 scenarios -

1. distrust of BRC auditors. > latter option.

2. distrust of all 2nd / 3rd party auditors > latter option.

3. vice-versa (rare) of 1. and 2. > former option.

4. IMEX many customers / receivers simply find that the BRC standard does not cover / emphasise all the items which they wish to know. So no choice. > latter option.

5. many QA personnel love to travel. > latter option.

It would be interesting to know the BRC official viewpoint to yr question (or, perhaps more precisely, their auditors' view).

Regardless, it will still be necessary to document (approve) any ongoing performance.

Rgds / Charles.C

LOL Love it.....So very true

Caz xx

[Foodworker]

Evening Charles,

Perhaps I am just a mild mannered BRC auditor!

The clause that I am refering to is 4.12.6

" Where the company employs third party contractors, all the requirements specified in this section shall be clearly defined in the contract or the company shall be certified to the Global Standard for Storage and Distribution"

My main point was to design a system to satisfy your needs and not just to tick a box against the BRC Standard because this is bad business sense. The auditor should look at what you do and determine whether it met the requirements of the Standard.

Obviously I am am aware that BRC auditors vary with how they interpret the clauses and I have been on the receiving end of some particularly stupid auditor comments/non conformities (eg the papers on the noticeboard were not straight!!). Sometimes it is easier to just go along with it, but sometimes you should contest non conformities.

Unfortunately I am out of the UK at the moment and I don't have the BRC Interpretation Guidelines with me but there is a lot of information there which can enable you firstly get your system right, and secondly argue the toss with the auditor. You have the right to complain to the Certification Body and the BRC about an auditor.

[Charles.C]

Dear Foodworker,

Thks yr para. ref. and you are absolutely correct of course. I should probably have replaced “logical” with “extrapolation-friendly”. I scanned the Food document for “Global” but didn’t get any other similar textual hits.

I agree yr main point. Adequate “compatibility” between the BRC approved/required characteristics of the 2 parties involved is presumably (risk) decisive.

I guess (never seen) the Storage&Distribution standard is relatively generic compared to Food. I also anticipate that the 10 segments of Food / section 4.12 are mirrored ++ in the Storage Standard.

Returning to original post, any other viewers made use of a BRC-Food-oriented option of this kind ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[Charles Chew]

The auditor should look at what you do and determine whether it met the requirements of the Standard.

Understandably, this is the expected task of a compliant auditor. It does not matter whether the reference standard is BRC, ISO 22000, etc since conformity to meeting the requirements of the standard is paramount for certification or its continuation. However, most auditors fail to understand the importance of performances as key to meeting business targets when conformances of the system is dependent in its continuation as a viable business enterprise. No food safety system can stand on its own if not supported by the business objectives. Yes, I have met many silly and ridiculous auditors in my life.

[jaredkkrischel]

Thanks all.. I am thinking about using the grades of the BRC certified companies as a starting point for accepting BRC as supplier approval. A and B grades might constiute approved suppliers and C's or lower will have to be audited.

Does anyone have any feedback on this idea or other ideas?

I am trying to avoid auditing every supplier because we have a lot of different suppliers because we are a contract baker and have many customers who all want different suppliers.

[GMO]

Thanks all.. I am thinking about using the grades of the BRC certified companies as a starting point for accepting BRC as supplier approval. A and B grades might constiute approved suppliers and C's or lower will have to be audited.

Does anyone have any feedback on this idea or other ideas?

I am trying to avoid auditing every supplier because we have a lot of different suppliers because we are a contract baker and have many customers who all want different suppliers.

I'd use the risks of the ingredient as well. It might be ok for example to use a grade 'C' supplier who supplies a low risk ingredient but you might be very concerned if they were supplying something higher risk or key to your process. I know you're a baker and I'm not sure what you bake, however, anything you're buying in that's RTE for example, I would audit irrespective of their score, but if they had a lower score and supply secondary packaging, it's less of a worry.

Perhaps you could set up some kind of matrix. Not going to work on here unless I spent some time drawing one on another programme (and it's bedtime) but it could give the results of:

High risk ingredient grade A, B or C - audit
Medium risk grade A - self assessment and audit if felt necessary as a result of SA and reading report
Medium risk grade B or C - audit
Low risk grade A or B - self assessment and audit if felt necessary as a result of SA and reading report
Low risk grade C - audit
Packaging grade A, B or C - self assessment and audit if felt necessary as a result of SA and reading report

Perhaps it's a good idea to have a guideline in your supplier assurance manual but also leave yourself some freedom of movement as I've indicated above to ask for their audit report, and if they're happy to share it, look at the non conformities (and type of non cons) and see if you're concerned. For your product a minor issue for one customer might be something that causes 90% of your complaints for example (e.g. pest control in vegetables). Or alternatively if they have a B or C and aren't willing to share their report I'd be on their doorstep the next day, but perhaps that's just me...

[Eva]

Hi everyone

I would like to extend the scope of the initial question. Our company is a bakery and buys more that150 raw materials from 60 different suppliers and the suppliers have never been physically audited. Our supplier approval process is based on completion of a self-audit questionnaire by the potential supplier and providing the 3-rd audit report if applicable. CoA for each raw materials lot is mandatory.
The company has just decided to go for BRC certification and I am wondering if this will satisfy the BRC standard. Thank you!

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

Thanks all.. I am thinking about using the grades of the BRC certified companies as a starting point for accepting BRC as supplier approval. A and B grades might constiute approved suppliers and C's or lower will have to be audited.

I don't wish to be a wet-blanket and of course some people may simply loove intricacies but i suspect the ideas in this thread may be heading towards major over-kill.

IMEX, BRC do not demand superlatives, in fact prefer diminuitives (including risk assessments)(boxing analogy - less brain-bashing?). On the other hand, perhaps someone has evidence to prove the reverse for current, supplier approval, issue.?
My 6-page supplier approval program received a distinctly sardonic "very detailed" comment as approx. every 4th paragraph was looked at, i subsequently saw someone else's 1 page condensation which i would hv sniffed at, -> equally acceptable. Time can be valuable, especially when you start to implement.

@Eva - my suggestion, stick with yr current set-up and maybe implement a rotating audit program of max. 2 suppliers / year if no existing problems. This worked ok for me for packaging suppliers (a relatively problem free category .) Of course, if you like auditing, travel .....

Rgds / Charles.C

[GMO]

Hi everyone

I would like to extend the scope of the initial question. Our company is a bakery and buys more that150 raw materials from 60 different suppliers and the suppliers have never been physically audited. Our supplier approval process is based on completion of a self-audit questionnaire by the potential supplier and providing the 3-rd audit report if applicable. CoA for each raw materials lot is mandatory.
The company has just decided to go for BRC certification and I am wondering if this will satisfy the BRC standard. Thank you!

I think it probably will but you might decide therefore to look at auditing in the future but importantly with that many suppliers there will be some you will never audit as you will never get there with 60 suppliers unless you have about two FTE. Assuming you buy in nothing that's RTE, just look into what's key to your process and who has failed BRC or got a grade 'C' and look at your supplier ratings (performance etc) and who comes up poorly on that then, that should be your starting point for audits IMO.

[GMO]

Sorry about all the TLAs BTW!