3 replies to this topic

[gcse-fhp]

If you would like some changes to the way product safety management and auditing is done today in your company, state/province, country, or worldwide, what are the things you would want to see changed? This could be nothing if you are pleased with the way things are.

Edited by gcse-fhp, 03 August 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[Simon]

I voted yes as I own and run this forum and as such I feel I (we) have a strong voice.
I know what is said and discussed (typed) on the forums is watched widely by many of the key stakeholders in the food safety management systems certification industry.

In general I believe FSMS standards have been a positive force and I also believe what GFSI is attempting to do is a worthy goal. My one complaint is the lack of consistency of auditing and auditors from certification body to certification body and I guess this variability is even more apparent country to country. I would welcome a very tough stance on unscrupulous CB's and auditors.

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

I voted yes as I own and run this forum and as such I feel I (we) have a strong voice.
I know what is said and discussed (typed) on the forums is watched widely by many of the key stakeholders in the food safety management systems certification industry.

In general I believe FSMS standards have been a positive force and I also believe what GFSI is attempting to do is a worthy goal. My one complaint is the lack of consistency of auditing and auditors from certification body to certification body and I guess this variability is even more apparent country to country. I would welcome a very tough stance on unscrupulous CB's and auditors.

Regards,
Simon

HiSimon,

Your comments are very much appreciated. From what you have said, it appears that the accreditation bodies that govern the CBs need to step up the scrutiny of the CBs and their auditors. Also, as far as I know, the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) governs the accreditation bodies but I am not sure how much controlling influence it has on them. If it has sufficient controlling influence, my suggestion would be that the IAF should step up its scrutiny of the accreditation bodies. Who should step up the scrutiny of the IAF? I am not sure at this point.

Here is a comment that was made in a GCSE-FHP group discussion in another forum: “My message concisely is this: The GFSI scheme is an excellent initiative. The GFSI-benchmarked audit standards are excellent assessment tools. The auditors used are among the best. What is needed is a paradigm shift in the implementation and adoption practices. ”

gcse-fhp

Edited by gcse-fhp, 01 October 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Simon]

The Accreditation Bodies are the ones who audit Certification Bodies, but also the standards owners themselves have the power to suspend to kick out rogue certification bodies from their scheme.

All BRC audit results now have to be uploaded to the BRC database which allows the BRC to monitor the quality and depth of individual audits and conduct statistical analysis of results etc. They have been known to kick out a Certification Body for not operating to the rules.

All those involved with Certification Standards (for the right reasons) want their integrity maintained and improved. I see it as a multi-faceted approach between Accreditation Bodies, Standards owners, Certification Bodies, Auditors and Users.

Download: The BRC Global Standards Complaint Investigation Process

I am sure the other standards owners have similar complaints protocols.

It’s up to us as users to give them the ‘word on the street’ if we have a concern.

Regards,
Simon