7 replies to this topic

[Jerome]

Dear All, 

 

I have been an IFSQN member since I was a student and now that I have finished my MSc in food sciences, I am preparing an interview for a quality manager position for a company that manufactures cooked poultry meat. The company is certified HACCP and BRC systems and I would like to ask for your assistance in identifying crucial information that I should focus on in a such interview.

 

- I want also to ask what motivates companies to choose for example the BRC Global standard, and not IFS or ISO 22000? What about GFSI?

- Can someone provide me a document that illustrates main points related to the BRC Global standard implementation in a company?

 

Kind regards

 

J.

Edited by Jerome, 18 July 2018 - 03:35 PM.

[Scampi]

But here are my observations

 

BRC---highly prescriptive and rigid---works ok in really well established locations with firmly rooted finished goods.......hard to adapt to due to lack of flexibility....some would argue because of the rigidity that it's the Gold Standard (i disagree) very euro centric (it's the British Retail Consortium after all)  "the go-to trade association for all UK retailers"

 

SQF -less prescriptive and written to a much more USA view that current BRC version (although some changes are afoot) but can still be challenging (particularly in slaughterhouses where rules are very very different) 

 

FSSC--even more room to make the program fit your establishment, but with a couple of quirks (like you have to specifically mention "no pens behind ears" to be compliant. The simplest to make work in a very complex locations like slaughter to RTE under 1 roof

 

All of above are GFSI- global food safety initiative

[Jerome]

Thank you Scampi, 

 

And what is the difference between Grade AA and Grade A in BRC Global Standards certification?

[Charles.C]

Thank you Scampi, 

 

And what is the difference between Grade AA and Grade A in BRC Global Standards certification?

 

 AA vs A.png   43.08KB   4 downloads

[Jerome]

Thanks.

[pHruit]

Just to add to Scampi's comments, all of which I broadly agree with - the other reason to choose BRC in the UK is to satisfy customer preference. Many of our clients like having our audit report shared directly with them via the BRC directory at the same time we receive it.

Understandably it's set up to in part reflect the specific (and at times eccentric, bordering on lunatic) requirements of the British retailers, so you may find that some food businesses in the UK don't fully recognise GFSI equivalence as FSSC/IFS/SQF don't include quite the same things in the same ways.

I'm definitely not saying BRC is "better", as the best system is about the implementation rather than the standard, but certainly it can make it easier to do business within the UK.

 

And the real difference between A and AA grade is in part the auditor's mood on the day, their own particular interpretation of the standard, and how comfortable they feel with your business - I've never seen a food factory in which it is not possible to find at least a few minor non-conformances if you look hard, so to some extent the actual number you receive is a reflection of the auditor's overall impression of the site and systems. If they've picked up five minors then it's almost certainly possible to find a sixth to push the grade down from AA to A if they want to

[Charles.C]

I would be somewhat  less generous than the previous posts.

 

IMO all of BRC/SQF/FSSC22000 Codes have serious (FS) quirks which for different reasons will probably never be changed. Based on various threads on this Forum, a few (IMO)  of the quirks/reasons are -

 

BRC - UK retailer centric, due diligence driven. Non-safety related Chapters. Riddled with requests for risk assessment. Cryptic English sentence construction.

SQF - Resistant to correction of longstanding textual errors. Ambiguous clausal requirements. Conflicts between website statements and Guidance. Seemingly non-uniform auditing interpretations. Reasons are unknown.

FSSC22000 - Encyclopedic Prerequisite documents, typical ISO generic (~ vague) requirements, inventor of the abominable OPRP.

 

All the above do have some good points / content but it is unfortunately the negatives which are responsible for so much wasted time.

[pHruit]

I don't think the description "eccentric, bordering on lunatic" has ever been described as generous before   

But I understand what you're saying Charles and yes, the blunt reality is probably pretty much exactly as you've summarised.

 

I don't have as much direct experience of the non-BRC standards, and am wary of turning this into a "gripes about GFSI schemes" thread (could make a good topic in its own right ), but for BRC it's also worth noting that as well as the standard itself with its peculiar style of English, the auditors also audit against guidance/interpretation notes that aren't always available to the business being audited. It's still highly prescriptive, but it makes life interesting when you are building your system and going into audits not necessarily knowing exactly what it is that has been prescribed...