hi Anika,
Btw they changed the orientation in I7 so as to make GFSI recognized scheme above questionnaires
Interesting, "questionnaire" is the last option in my copies of both BRC6 and 7. Canadian version maybe.
Hi Charles, Is it BRC interpretation or company interpretation to what is high/low risk based on risk assessment and HACCP? I assumed the latter.
I presume you are referring to the raw material.
I'm not sure how you are differentiating between risk assessment and HACCP ?
BRC presumably intend the raw material to be risk assessed as per menu in clause 3.5.1.1.
The result of the RA then becomes a (one) input to the overall procedure for determining Supplier Approval as ultimately quantifiable via the 3 options listed in 3.5.1.2.
It seems to me that a Supplier could conceivably be approved for Low Risk raw materials but not for High. It also seems to me that the Suppplier audit frequency should theoretically be related to a Low/High Risk status of raw material rather than a casual "Annual for all " but perhaps then adjusted as per subsequent ongoing monitoring feedback. Or perhaps BRC are happy with a blanket "Annual" frequency ( similar to the Raw material minimum RA) since there is no specific mention of frequency in 3.5.1.1, 3.5.1.2 other than for Questionnaires.
It is perhaps preferable to interpret a "Low Risk supplier" as simply an (approved) Supplier of Low-Risk raw material.
i find the concept of compositing a FS-based score with a Quality based score to achieve one Risk Rating rather illogical. And similarly the VA "status/score". Ideally, if one uses such methodologies, a weighting factor is included. Then it can really get subjective.
Practically it seems that the style of layouts as discussed in thread linked below are "BRC-acceptable" from a Supplier Approval POV. And probably many other layouts also. The aspect of ongoing monitoring frequency is presumably then separable out (despite it's implied direct linkage in 3.5.1.2.)
http://www.ifsqn.com...val/#entry98818
The BRC Guidance may have the intended BRC interpretation of high/low risk (Raw Material, Supplier respectively). And the Rest. Maybe......?
(The Glossary has a definition of "High Risk Product but the text implies [to me] that this is aimed at Finished Product. There is also a definition of "High Care Product", the distinction between the two defs. seemed feeble to me)
PS - with respect to the OP and based on above comments the BRC overall risk is a (subjective) cumulative result based on the various "risk assessments" mentioned in 3.5.1.1 so i would predict the former rather than the latter.
The Company viewpoint might focus solely on HACCP of course as is done in many textbooks.
One might claim that UK's Due Diligence has successfully, Globally, expanded the BRC auditee's requirements. 