22 replies to this topic

[Deena185]

Hi

We are BRC Food certified site and would like to do a one-time deal of purchasing material in Europe ( due to problems with deliveries from China at the moment). Supplier is a trader , they are BRC traders and brokers certified. We have approved them as trader, also approved the material we want to purchase. There is one issue though. As I understand , in order to follow BRC requirements, we also need to be informed who is original manufacturer of the material . Trader says they can not do this for one time deals. What should we do in this case ? Any ideas or advice? Thank you in advance!

[pHruit]

Yes, you are correct - whilst clause 3.5.1.5 confirms that you don't have to assess the last manufacturer in the case that your direct supplier has BRC Agents & Brokers in place, you are still required to know who that manufacturer is. In case there is any ambiguity in the wording of the clause itself, this is reiterated by the Interpretation Guide, which notes that "the site will still be expected to know the identity of the processor, packer or consolidator".

 

To be honest it's a bit disappointing that your supplier has bought into the BRC thing enough to go for Agents & Brokers but doesn't want to support a BRC-certified customer in meeting a basic BRC requirement (I say that as someone who runs both BRC Food and BRC Agents & Brokers certification).

You could try approaching them with extract from the clause / IG and see if that helps change their mind, and potentially if needed also give a written agreement that you won't approach the supplier directly yourselves.

[Deena185]

Thank you! This the exact clause we approached the supplier with and explained that we don’t need to approve original manufacturer, but to have mapping of supply chain.
Also in this situation we are pressured from procurement if there is any way of work around when it come to case like this ( basically emergency purchase).

[pHruit]

This is where your concession process may be called upon - you're aiming (or rather, being coerced... ) to do something outside the requirements of your procedures/requirements, so that would generally be the appropriate mechanism by which to consider whether it is viable to go ahead or not.

 

As an alternative take, rather than focussing on your requirements (about which they don't appear to care) then you could help them remember their own - specifically I'd draw their attention to clause 3.4.3 of the Agents & Brokers standard:

Where required by the customer, the company shall provide information to enable the last manufacturer or processor of the product to be approved. This shall include the identity of this manufacturer or processor.

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, BRC has structured the two standards in a way that theoretically forces them to play nicely together in this area, so it is all the more disappointing that the trader is trying to avoid this (but not that uncommon - still find a lot of traders with a mentality stuck in the late 1990s...).

If you really want to wind things up then you could always try the Tell BRC thing, on the basis that they're not meeting the requirements of the standard: https://tellusbrcgs....k.net/frontpage

 

[TimG]

I don't understand how they are not meeting the requirements of the standard. BRC says they have to tell YOU who the supplier is? What you referenced above says that YOU have to know who the manufacturer is, the onus is on YOU, not them to tell you. It's a business decision.

I wouldn't give you my source for a one time purchase either. You want to sign a contract and agree to purchase from me for X amount, here's what I provide. You don't, here's what I provide. Take it or leave it.

[QAGB]

I don't understand how they are not meeting the requirements of the standard. BRC says they have to tell YOU who the supplier is? What you referenced above says that YOU have to know who the manufacturer is, the onus is on YOU, not them to tell you. It's a business decision.

I wouldn't give you my source for a one time purchase either. You want to sign a contract and agree to purchase from me for X amount, here's what I provide. You don't, here's what I provide. Take it or leave it.

 

 

With all due respect, I don't quite understand. How can the onus be on the customer to find out the name of a manufacturer used by an agent/broker/wholesaler? If the agent doesn't tell the customer who the supplier is - how is this possible to determine (unless labeled to specify manufacturer name)?

 

3.5.1.5 says the customer shall know the identity of the last manufacturer or packer, or consolidation of raw material.  My business decision would be to leave it. Supplier approval is a fundamental clause in BRC - and this would be ultra frustrating for me to be the reason for a non-conformance.

[TimG]

I am saying that if I felt for any reason that giving my supplier info could be harmful for my business, for instance that they could then take that and cut me out of the equation, I am not giving that information. I have seen customer, supplier, co-packer sniping. 

"3.5.1.5 says the customer shall know the identity of the last manufacturer or packer, or consolidation of raw material." This is in the acceptance of material portion of the BRC code, correct? That would mean as a purchaser, yes, you would get the non-conformance. I was specifically addressing the phrase "If you really want to wind things up then you could always try the Tell BRC thing, on the basis that they're not meeting the requirements of the standard". I don't see where they aren't meeting the standard. "Supplier approval is a fundamental clause in BRC - and this would be ultra frustrating for me to be the reason for a non-conformance." Absolutely, you would get the non-conformance. Not the person who sold you the product. That all means the onus is on the purchaser. As a supplier, if I feel it would harm my business to give it to you, I'm sorry take it or leave it.'

 

Sorry I'm not trying to be snippy. I have to deal with quite a bit of this for certain things we consider proprietary info and have got the "you have to tell me!" No..no I don't. You also don't have to buy from me.

[mgourley]

The Standard is clear on this point. If you are an agent/broker and do not supply the customer with the required information, then I do not buy your product.

 

Marshall

[Deena185]

I don't understand how they are not meeting the requirements of the standard. BRC says they have to tell YOU who the supplier is? What you referenced above says that YOU have to know who the manufacturer is, the onus is on YOU, not them to tell you. It's a business decision.

I wouldn't give you my source for a one time purchase either. You want to sign a contract and agree to purchase from me for X amount, here's what I provide. You don't, here's what I provide. Take it or leave it.

 i see Your point as well. We are acting as a trader sometimes as well (not just as producer) and our Procurement not so eager to disclose manufacturer as afraid that customer start to purchase directly.  But would some statement about confidentiality would be ok to provide?

Edited by Deena185, 06 March 2020 - 06:33 AM.

[Charles.C]

 i see Your point as well. We are acting as a trader sometimes as well (not just as producer) and our Procurement not so eager to disclose manufacturer as afraid that customer start to purchase directly.  But would some statement about confidentiality would be ok to provide?

 

This whole issue created an absolute furore when the BRC Brokers Standard was launched. As a result BRC  "delayed" the disclosure requirement clause for ca. 1-year to allow "stabilisation" however it is afaik now fully implemented. (A BRC Position Statement was issued)

[pHruit]

I am saying that if I felt for any reason that giving my supplier info could be harmful for my business, for instance that they could then take that and cut me out of the equation, I am not giving that information. I have seen customer, supplier, co-packer sniping. 

"3.5.1.5 says the customer shall know the identity of the last manufacturer or packer, or consolidation of raw material." This is in the acceptance of material portion of the BRC code, correct? That would mean as a purchaser, yes, you would get the non-conformance. I was specifically addressing the phrase "If you really want to wind things up then you could always try the Tell BRC thing, on the basis that they're not meeting the requirements of the standard". I don't see where they aren't meeting the standard. "Supplier approval is a fundamental clause in BRC - and this would be ultra frustrating for me to be the reason for a non-conformance." Absolutely, you would get the non-conformance. Not the person who sold you the product. That all means the onus is on the purchaser. As a supplier, if I feel it would harm my business to give it to you, I'm sorry take it or leave it.'

 

Sorry I'm not trying to be snippy. I have to deal with quite a bit of this for certain things we consider proprietary info and have got the "you have to tell me!" No..no I don't. You also don't have to buy from me.

 

The supplier is BRC Agents & Brokers certified, and that standard definitely does say that the supplier (trader) has to provide precisely this information if the customer requires it, irrespective of the customer's own certification requirements (where they exist). Whilst I can understand that this may seem odd to a lot of businesses, this supplier has "bought in" to the BRC approach by opting to go for this particular certification. I say this having implemented BRC Agents & Brokers pretty much the moment that the original Issue 1 became available and been continuously certified ever since, but also running the Food standard for well over a decade and having to deal with many intransigent traders over the years

 

This whole issue created an absolute furore when the BRC Brokers Standard was launched. As a result BRC  "delayed" the disclosure requirement clause for ca. 1-year to allow "stabilisation" however it is afaik now fully implemented. (A BRC Position Statement was issued)

This particular clause came in with Issue 2, so not quite back in the mists of time when the standard first launched, but still a good few years ago.

It seems the trader wants to hide behind the badge of respectability that the certification confers, whilst not actually committing to meeting the requirements of the standard. Honestly I find it quite frustrating - as a trader our life is made harder because traders don't have the greatest reputation over here, in no small part due to this sort of obfuscation.

[QAGB]

All said and done, if I can't get the documents I need to satisfy BRC requirements, the decision is to leave it. Not only that, but should we ever decide to switch away from current supplier/broker and look for another, I know where I won't look. 

 

In a past life when I was under BRC, we had the hardest time with the supplier approval clause. Usually due to brokers or suppliers of product being slow or unwilling to give us documentation. It got to the point where we started having to make business decisions to find other suppliers because we couldn't put our BRC Certificate in jeopardy. 

 

I totally understand not wanting to name a supplier, because a sneaky customer can just cut out the middleman and go directly to the manufacturer at that point (if they so choose). As Deena pointed out, it would probably be worth having the customer sign an agreement that they will not source directly with the actual manufacturer (if it's allowable by legal teams). 

[TimG]

"But would some statement about confidentiality would be ok to provide?" This would be a much better approach, in my opinion. You could also try to find out if this policy is one where they have allowed exceptions in the past, or what the threshold on purchasing is to get the information you need (it could be a simple contract that says they're your secondary supplier). Try to convey to them that you are willing to work with them to make sure both sides come away satisfied while making sure they maintain the intent of their policy.

[BostonCream]

My understanding of TimG's opinion on "Where required by the customer, the company shall provide information to enable the last manufacturer or processor of the product to be approved. This shall include the identity of this manufacturer or processor.", is that, the BRC certified broker can choose their own customers. If you ARE my customer, I shall provide such information that you need. But if I decide NOT to take you as my customer (might be because of the one-time purchase), I don't have to be responsible to you from any point. Am I misunderstanding it?

 

Then the thing becomes, if the broker and Deena185 made the deal, Deena paid and the broker shipped, the broker has to provide such info as Deena required. Because Deena now IS the customer of this BRC certified broker.

[pHruit]

My understanding of TimG's opinion on "Where required by the customer, the company shall provide information to enable the last manufacturer or processor of the product to be approved. This shall include the identity of this manufacturer or processor.", is that, the BRC certified broker can choose their own customers. If you ARE my customer, I shall provide such information that you need. But if I decide NOT to take you as my customer (might be because of the one-time purchase), I don't have to be responsible to you from any point. Am I misunderstanding it?

 

Then the thing becomes, if the broker and Deena185 made the deal, Deena paid and the broker shipped, the broker has to provide such info as Deena required. Because Deena now IS the customer of this BRC certified broker.

 

Strictly speaking, yes, this is correct - the tense in the glossary definition of customer is "has been" provided, thus at the point of offer Deena's business wouldn't yet be a customer. Nonetheless it's pretty weird to make an offer of sale and signify at least a (presumably genuine) intent to make a party into a customer, whilst apparently fully intending to not comply with the requirements of the standard. For a trader to hide behind the semantics of when a customer becomes a customer does seem a touch disingenuous to me.

 

I totally understand not wanting to name a supplier, because a sneaky customer can just cut out the middleman and go directly to the manufacturer at that point (if they so choose). As Deena pointed out, it would probably be worth having the customer sign an agreement that they will not source directly with the actual manufacturer (if it's allowable by legal teams). 

I'm still rather sceptical about this to be honest. It's an excuse that got wheeled out a lot when we first looked at the Agents & Brokers standard, ahead of the final publication of Issue 1, but in my experience having been a trader for well over a decade now it rarely works out that way in practice. The significant factors in this seem to be:

Scale/volume - if the customer needed that much product then they'd probably already have relationships with appropriate factories. In practice if they're working via brokers it often seems to be the case that they don't want to buy FCLs / can't hit the MOQs.

Simplicity - a lot of food businesses at the end of the chain are dealing with ingredients across a range of categories, and it's much easier to deal with brokers who specialise in those areas than have to buy direct from multiple different sources (and again the practicalities of MOQs have a bearing on this).

Relationships - if you want to be successful as a trader then you ideally need strong relationships with your sources, so utilise those to help protect yourself. Talk to your suppliers and tell them who you're working with (they'll potentially know anyway, when they get the barrage of paperwork and/or delivery addresses for direct shipments). On the rare occasion that a customer may try to cut you out, they'll already be aware of who is contacting them, and can simply say: "please contact (trader), who is our representative in your country/region". The same simplicity argument above applies this way around too - it's easier for the manufacturer to deal with a small number of traders than a mass of smaller clients, particularly on an international scale.

 

To be honest by the time the formal requirement came in with Issue 2 of the standard, it made absolutely no difference to the way we do business. The UK seems to very much expect complete transparency so it's one of the costs of doing business here, which is possibly why my view on this seems to be somewhat at odds with some of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic .

Nonetheless I can say with absolute certainty that embracing this early has only been a good thing for us - rather than losing business we gained significantly at the expense of less forward-looking competitors.  

[QAGB]

 

 

I'm still rather sceptical about this to be honest. It's an excuse that got wheeled out a lot when we first looked at the Agents & Brokers standard, ahead of the final publication of Issue 1, but in my experience having been a trader for well over a decade now it rarely works out that way in practice. The significant factors in this seem to be:

Scale/volume - if the customer needed that much product then they'd probably already have relationships with appropriate factories. In practice if they're working via brokers it often seems to be the case that they don't want to buy FCLs / can't hit the MOQs.

Simplicity - a lot of food businesses at the end of the chain are dealing with ingredients across a range of categories, and it's much easier to deal with brokers who specialise in those areas than have to buy direct from multiple different sources (and again the practicalities of MOQs have a bearing on this).

 

 

 

 

I agree with you 100%. Volume and simplicity were the #1 and #2 reasons why we dealt with brokers for some of our ingredients in my past life. We probably could have sourced directly from the factory on items with lengthy shelf life periods, but the simplicity of using a broker always controlled that.

 

Those of us on the other side of the Atlantic tend to keep things closely guarded (and in many cases for good reason). I wish we were more open. Being under BRC (or presumably any GFSI standard), you're expected to be a bit more transparent in relations. I work in distribution these days, and we're definitely a lot more transparent with our customers because we don't anticipate our customers to cut us out. Also, it is soooo much easier just to offer up the info than spending time making a billion documents saying information is proprietary and running the risk of losing current and potential customers.

[Charles.C]

Just for context with respect to my fallible memory here is the Position Statement I was thinking of in Post 10. Seems to have been with reference to BRC Food Issue 7 (ca 2015) -

 

 BRC Position statement (2015) - F081 - Phased introduction of Clause 3.5.1.3.pdf   91.69KB   31 downloads

[BostonCream]

I'm still rather sceptical about this to be honest. It's an excuse that got wheeled out a lot when we first looked at the Agents & Brokers standard, ahead of the final publication of Issue 1, but in my experience having been a trader for well over a decade now it rarely works out that way in practice. The significant factors in this seem to be:

Scale/volume - if the customer needed that much product then they'd probably already have relationships with appropriate factories. In practice if they're working via brokers it often seems to be the case that they don't want to buy FCLs / can't hit the MOQs.

Simplicity - a lot of food businesses at the end of the chain are dealing with ingredients across a range of categories, and it's much easier to deal with brokers who specialise in those areas than have to buy direct from multiple different sources (and again the practicalities of MOQs have a bearing on this).

Relationships - if you want to be successful as a trader then you ideally need strong relationships with your sources, so utilise those to help protect yourself. Talk to your suppliers and tell them who you're working with (they'll potentially know anyway, when they get the barrage of paperwork and/or delivery addresses for direct shipments). On the rare occasion that a customer may try to cut you out, they'll already be aware of who is contacting them, and can simply say: "please contact (trader), who is our representative in your country/region". The same simplicity argument above applies this way around too - it's easier for the manufacturer to deal with a small number of traders than a mass of smaller clients, particularly on an international scale.

 

To be honest by the time the formal requirement came in with Issue 2 of the standard, it made absolutely no difference to the way we do business. The UK seems to very much expect complete transparency so it's one of the costs of doing business here, which is possibly why my view on this seems to be somewhat at odds with some of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic .

Nonetheless I can say with absolute certainty that embracing this early has only been a good thing for us - rather than losing business we gained significantly at the expense of less forward-looking competitors.  

 

Love your comments! I'll make a note of it  - scale, simplicity and relationship.

 

I am on "the other side of the Atlantic" but relatively new to the food industry. My previous work place processes 10+ different kinds of meat and animal organs, many of them are from brokers. We were under SQF, but I don't recall seeing a requirement from SQF clause or the auditor during the two years when I was there, that we have to identify the root manufacturer of each ingredient before purchasing. We identify the manufacturers only after the ingredient was received, by checking the box label or Health Certificate (import document). But it turns out not functioning sometimes. During a CFIA inspection, the inspector asked me "why does your paperwork say this ingredient is from broker A and manufacturer B? As far as I know B is a distributor in New Zealand, not a meat manufacturer." It was a single pallet of organ product that we bought 3 years ago for R&D trial. It took me a month to figure out that it was shipped from a local warehouse E by our broker A, who ordered from a New Zealand broker B, who shipped from a NZ warehouse C, which the meat was made in a NZ (or Australian, I don't recall) manufacturer D.

 

Of course we failed that CFIA inspeciton

Edited by BostonCream, 06 March 2020 - 07:08 PM.

[QAGB]

Love your comments! I'll make a note of it  - scale, simplicity and relationship.

 

I am on "the other side of the Atlantic" but relatively new to the food industry. My previous work place processes 10+ different kinds of meat and animal organs, many of them are from brokers. We were under SQF, but I don't recall seeing a requirement from SQF clause or the auditor during the two years when I was there, that we have to identify the root manufacturer of each ingredient before purchasing. We identify the manufacturers only after the ingredient was received, by checking the box label or Health Certificate (import document). But it turns out not functioning sometimes. During a CFIA inspection, the inspector asked me "why does your paperwork say this ingredient is from broker A and manufacturer B? As far as I know B is a distributor in New Zealand, not a meat manufacturer." It was a single pallet of organ product that we bought 3 years ago for R&D trial. It took me a month to figure out that it was shipped from a local warehouse E by our broker A, who ordered from a New Zealand broker B, who shipped from a NZ warehouse C, which the meat was made in a NZ (or Australian, I don't recall) manufacturer D.

 

Of course we failed that CFIA inspeciton

 

Oh my. When I was in BRC we had an auditor that had been literally EVERYWHERE and knew relationships about our suppliers' ingredients that we didn't even know. We'd nod and smile. 

 

I can say for bulk ingredients - there apparently are a lot of repacking operations out there (alas we were guilty of this too), and we'd never be the wiser because products would come in with our suppliers' labels on them. 

[pHruit]

Love your comments! I'll make a note of it  - scale, simplicity and relationship.

 

I am on "the other side of the Atlantic" but relatively new to the food industry. My previous work place processes 10+ different kinds of meat and animal organs, many of them are from brokers. We were under SQF, but I don't recall seeing a requirement from SQF clause or the auditor during the two years when I was there, that we have to identify the root manufacturer of each ingredient before purchasing. We identify the manufacturers only after the ingredient was received, by checking the box label or Health Certificate (import document). But it turns out not functioning sometimes. During a CFIA inspection, the inspector asked me "why does your paperwork say this ingredient is from broker A and manufacturer B? As far as I know B is a distributor in New Zealand, not a meat manufacturer." It was a single pallet of organ product that we bought 3 years ago for R&D trial. It took me a month to figure out that it was shipped from a local warehouse E by our broker A, who ordered from a New Zealand broker B, who shipped from a NZ warehouse C, which the meat was made in a NZ (or Australian, I don't recall) manufacturer D.

 

Of course we failed that CFIA inspeciton

 

This is exactly why BRC has the transparency requirement on manufacturers - the potential for that sort of confusion to occur was one of the elements that the food industry here very much took notice of following the Elliot Review into the horsemeat issues we had: https://assets.publi...rt-july2014.pdf

As you found, these complex networks of trader, brokers, repackers etc make it difficult to follow product from original source through to destination even when no nefarious activity has occurred.

It's also arguably one the significant factors in the BRC Agents & Brokers standard coming into existence, and similarly the VACCP and supplier identification elements of the BRC Issue 7 standard. Still something of a UK-centric thing though, possibly due to the historical basis of BRC (from the British Retail Consortium, i.e. the trade body for the retailers). Whilst it's now independently owned I'd still assume it will largely mirror the retailers' wishes in order to keep the stranglehold it has on the market here. (But as it's BRC, I'm sure they'll do a risk assessment about it first  )

 

Oh my. When I was in BRC we had an auditor that had been literally EVERYWHERE and knew relationships about our suppliers' ingredients that we didn't even know. We'd nod and smile. 

 

I can say for bulk ingredients - there apparently are a lot of repacking operations out there (alas we were guilty of this too), and we'd never be the wiser because products would come in with our suppliers' labels on them. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets banned for BRC Agents & Brokers in the not too distant future - a lot of our ingredients customers supplying the retailers here already specifically prohibit it. Again it's about know where product actually comes from and who really made/processed it. It's a more complex question though, as "repacking" potentially covers a range of activities, some of which are more significant than others, to the extent teat it could actually change the legal country of origin for labelling purposes in the EU. I'm really looking forward to trying to make sense of that clause in whichever future version of the standard it appears in

[QAGB]

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets banned for BRC Agents & Brokers in the not too distant future - a lot of our ingredients customers supplying the retailers here already specifically prohibit it. Again it's about know where product actually comes from and who really made/processed it. It's a more complex question though, as "repacking" potentially covers a range of activities, some of which are more significant than others, to the extent teat it could actually change the legal country of origin for labelling purposes in the EU. I'm really looking forward to trying to make sense of that clause in whichever future version of the standard it appears in

 

 

In my past life, repacking drove me nuts. In most cases we basically took a large load of raw material and repacked into smaller vessels. Then we'd throw our label on the product. In other cases, we took a raw material from a supplier, repacked into smaller vessels, and then threw our customer's label on it. No one would ever even know our part in the process.

[Hoosiersmoker]

3.5.1.5 clearly states that you must have the suppliers information UNLESS the broker is certified to a BRC standard or a standard bench-marked by GFSI. Then I would think all you would need to do is verify they are an approved supplier of your broker.

 

Or you could ask them to sign a sole liability agreement that they hold all liability for the quality, performance and potential health effects of your product(s) as a result of the product they are brokering in lieu of divulging the source.

[pHruit]

3.5.1.5 clearly states that you must have the suppliers information UNLESS the broker is certified to a BRC standard or a standard bench-marked by GFSI. Then I would think all you would need to do is verify they are an approved supplier of your broker.

 

Or you could ask them to sign a sole liability agreement that they hold all liability for the quality, performance and potential health effects of your product(s) as a result of the product they are brokering in lieu of divulging the source.

You're largely correct about 3.5.1.5, but the requirement to at least know the identity of the last processor/packer is within a separate subparagraph in that clause and does still apply irrespective of the broker's own certification - and as confirmed by the IG, in cases where approval is based on the supplying agent having BRC A&B (or the Traded Goods module under the Food Standard / Wholesale module for S&D): However, the site will still be expected to know the identity of the processor, packer or consolidator.

 

As I intimated in an earlier post, this is very much a reflection of the UK-centric origins of the BRC standard, as the retailers here expect absolute transparency - if they felt they could force an even greater level into the standard then I'm sure they would, and indeed they routinely put such demands on their supply chains. I've genuinely been asked for a list of the names/addresses of the farmers multiple steps back along the chain from us, for products where the grower base exceeds 1000 farms/smallholders...