7 replies to this topic

[wijit]

My "friend" works at a site where they had an audit earlier this year. He has concerns that the audit does not accurately reflect the site.
The auditor stated from the outset that he didn't want to give more than three minors and that he was keen to get away as quickly as possible as he had an exam coming up he needed to prepare for.
The aforementioned friend is acutely aware of several issues on site, but none of these were raised at all during, or after the audit.
Whilst we all want to pass BRC with flying colours, the friend is concerned that standards may fall badly and that his company may well be in for an almighty fall from grace due to what is seen as an incorrect "A".
Can anyone advise what he should do, or how best to approach the problem?

[Scotty]

IMO, it is the conduct of the auditor that can ' undermine' the principles of the Standard.

If there was serious concerns at the outset, this should have been raised immediately, either by halting the audit and/or contacting the certifcation body auditing on behalf of BRC to discuss these concerns.

If there are still ongoing concerns, I would suggest arranging a 'pre audit' style by third party - these can be more 'intense' and can be used to focus on particular points of concern.

These are only my view, and am sure there is a lot of other opinions around the industry.

Regards

[wijit]

Scotty. Thanks for the reply, there are indeed vongoing concerns but these are not shared further up the food chain where people are happy just to have passed so well. I don't think the seriousness is really hitting home that, although a good pass is normally great, such a pass can be extrememly harmful in the long term.

[George @ Safefood 360°]

Hi wijit

This is a dilema. On the one hand you want a good audit outcome. On the other you want the reassurance that your system is of a good standard and capable of controlling potential hazards and minimising the risk of a food safety recall. It is intriging that the auditor would be so up front about his priorites during the audit.

In any event, there is no easy way to address this other than to address it. If you engage the Certification company on your concerns it will open up a process that you may not wish to invest your time and energy in. I would suggest the following:

• Conduct an internal audit of your systems against the BRC and clearly identify any gaps that need to be addressed. You have already mentioned that you are aware of some of these areas.
• Undertake the work to close out as many of these as you can within the limits of your authority.
• Change you Certification Body - present this to the internal team as simply good practice which I feel strongly is the case. Using the same CB for protracted periods of time may not always be the best approach.
• Engage your new CB to undertake a pre-audit as suggest by Scotty. Present any critical or major issues to the management team for action.
• Next Certification Audit - use your new CB who will provide your with a professional level of service for the years to come.

George

[Charles.C]

Dear Wijit,

If true, the specific auditing procedure was clearly flawed. Friend's statement verifiable ? Any personal bias possible ? (Just asking).

You omitted any info on whether any additional case history with same company exists.

The dearth of data makes any opinion rather uncertain IMO. Some non-legalistic queries like this come to mind -

(1) are yr "friend's misgivings" actually correct?

(2) Has this created a potentially hazardous health situation ?

It may perhaps depend on where you are located but IMEX it is not uncommon for upper management to be more than willing to be satisfied by a good result. Of course QA may have some considerable forebodings for the next audit.

Rgds / Charles.C

[wijit]

George/Charles, thank you for your replies.
Charles, we haven't had any previous serious concerns with this CB, but they are clearly not quite as thorough as other CB's my friend and I have used in other roles. As this site is low risk there are no major "major" problems, just in the reliability of this particular audit.
I feel, personally, that the result of this audit has led us to believe we are considerably better than what we actually are and this in turn has led on to some complacency.
You are absolutely correct that upper management are happy to just carry on and also that QA have the more serious misgivings. The general feeling is that any concerns they have since raised are now met with "well, it passed BRC" and that is the end of the conversation.
George, i think the idea of changing CB's is a very good one, and one I have suggested to my friend, who is not that confident it will be taken up.

I'm thinking all that can be done now is to just let this one ride and hope for a better quality audit next time round, I'm told another audit is due before Christmas for some reason, with a new senior manager on site now this could be a very good time to guage reaction and see if proceeding with a new BC is a possibility.

Many thanks for your replies, as ever, they have given a bit more perspective to a situation.

[ajrfrank]

I have a question related to this topic, If you were not at the time of the certification audit and you don't know exactly how strict this was. You are working to keep everything in order and correct any flaw. What can you expect for a recertification audit? Is it performed as if it were for the first time again? or does the auditor focus on some items?

[George @ Safefood 360°]

In my experience - it depends... on the auditor, the previous nonconformances, what is a hot topic at the moment, and in some cases which way the wind is blowing.


Having said that you can expect the scope of the audit to cover that of the initial audit. You can expect all the Fundamentals to be covered if it is BRC and I would always check and double check these are fully in place and up to date first. Then check the rest of the clauses. An auditor will alway focus on the areas they are strongest in or have a particular liking for. It is impossible to account for this. Just make sure all clauses are addressed and there are no criticals in your system.

G