Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

What are the primary differences between BRC and SQF?

Share this

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

Montana Milling Inc

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 01 August 2019 - 08:37 PM

Greetings.  I understand that there are some discussions on this in the forums but wanted to get an updated answer.

 

We are a BRC certificated company (Grain, Flour, Milled grains) for about 9 years now.  I realize that customer preference can be a primary factor in GFSI auditing standards. But what are the primary differences between BRC and SQF?

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Ben


Benjamin Wild

Quality & Safety Manger, Montana Milling, Inc.


SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,632 posts
  • 1135 thanks
1,126
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Just when I thought I was out - They pulled me back in!!!

Posted 01 August 2019 - 08:54 PM

HI Ben,

 

We've always seen BRC as being slightly "harder" or I should say more time needed to administer than SQF. There are some anomolies - but frankly few.

 

While the selection of a GFSI Scheme is most times based on customers we have found 100% of the time that a customer that wants BRC will gladly accept SQF and thus we stopped offering BRC consulting a while back.

 

We just had this come up with two new clients for developments, the customers wanted BRC and they decided to go with SQF and that was  100% fine with their respective customers.

 

Most times customers don't really know why they want one over another - all they really care about is their supplier gets GFSI certified.


All the Best,

 

All Rights Reserved,

Without Prejudice,

Glenn Oster.

Glenn Oster Consulting, LLC -

SQF System Development | Internal Auditor Training | eConsultant

Martha's Vineyard Island, MA - Restored Republic

http://www.GCEMVI.XYZ

http://www.GlennOster.com

 


Thanked by 1 Member:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 02 August 2019 - 05:48 AM

Evaluation system is different. Seems (IMO) to favour SQF auditees.

 

Both Standards have their own quirks/nonsensicals, eg BRC for addiction to risk assessments, verbal complexities;, SQF for Validation, failures to update some errors after a decade. All elaborated in many previous threads.

 

Practical audit consequences maybe also related to risk status of audited Facility.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Montana Milling Inc

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 21 posts
  • 1 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 02 August 2019 - 02:26 PM

Thanks much Glenn!


Benjamin Wild

Quality & Safety Manger, Montana Milling, Inc.


Marshenko

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 284 posts
  • 107 thanks
46
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 August 2019 - 03:01 PM

Evaluation system is different. Seems (IMO) to favour SQF auditees.

 

Both Standards have their own quirks/nonsensicals, eg BRC for addiction to risk assessments, verbal complexities;, SQF for Validation, failures to update some errors after a decade. All elaborated in many previous threads.

 

Practical audit consequences maybe also related to risk status of audited Facility.

 

BRC definitely loves risk assessments; there are over 30 required RAs if I recall correctly.





Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users