5 replies to this topic

[CBH]

We are considering a multi site certification (ISO9001) instead of individual certifications for each site. Would you like to share the pros and cons?

[jfrey123]

Multi-site is nice from the paperwork standpoint, but I'd point out that ISO9001 is not GFSI recognized and could prove to be a waste of money if your customers require GFSI.  I know SQF allows for multi-site certifications, our auditors have been pushing my company to go down that rabbit hole for our sites.

[SQFconsultant]

I always liked multi-sites both as a consultant and as an SQF Auditor but will one reservation - it works well when each facility is VERY similar, it does not work well when they are all different in all the ways they can be.

[TimG]

I always liked multi-sites both as a consultant and as an SQF Auditor but will one reservation - it works well when each facility is VERY similar, it does not work well when they are all different in all the ways they can be.

 

Can failure of one site cause all sites to lose or delay certification? If so, I can see that as being a con.

[jfrey123]

Can failure of one site cause all sites to lose or delay certification? If so, I can see that as being a con.

 

My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected) is that a multi-site cert typically calls for a corporatized or master FSQMS documentation that all sites follow, allowing for one major audit of the SOP's the sites operate under.  This allows for shorter on-site audits as the on-site audits turn into GMP monitoring with some limited record review.  

 

That said, a major finding in the top level audit could affect all plants recertified under the scheme.  But a localized finding at an individual facility won't affect other facilities unless it leads to a major finding related to the SOP itself.

[GMO]

Having worked in sites where there were group level documents but little group level accountability for processes being followed, I'd have welcomed an approach like this where the group teams feel the same pressure as sites. Generally I've found these kinds of very group led processes tend to occur in UK plants when it's a big multinational and they don't see the potential risks of the group team removal from the day to day. A group level audit might focus minds.

I'm too long in the tooth to care much about audit results, especially where someone else's actions impacted mine but the situation as it was resulted in frequent non cons or close calls for group documents or processes I had no control over. I'd much rather that sat on their audit even if it impacted my score still. I'd anticipate audit scores would fall though in the short term without the site support from people used to being audited. Fact is there is often more than one way to satisfy a clause and once you've been through the wringer a few times, you get wise for looking for compliant ways of putting things. Not right or wrong just "is".

 

Agree with previous comments cautioning that it's not a GFSI standard.