How has GFSI certification impacted your company’s business?

In my experience, GFSI certification is only achieved/maintained because many customers require it. 

I feel like there is a shift from "food safety" toward "audit-readiness",  which just encourages the bad actors to clean up just enough to "pass the audit." I'm not sure if the unannounced audit scheme helps alleviate that a bit. But I believe that customers who refuse to do business with sites that don't maintain a certain audit score contribute to that attitude. I also believe it's against a CB's best interest to 100% truthfully dig in during an audit, because they don't want to lose the certified site as a customer, so how much trust should we put in GFSI certifications?

From my perspective on the supplier approval end as well, GFSI certificates have become a substitute for on-site supplier audits. I don't think it's a good trend. When we review a supplier's GFSI audit report, we are receiving secondhand observations from whom we assume is a qualified auditor. Instead of going on-site to get firsthand observations ourselves, we are relying on the hope that the auditor is identifying problems of concern. 

For example: I've had an auditor make a big stink about a candy wrapper found deep under a lunchroom vending machine after totally ignoring the huge discrepancies in our traceability exercise. If I were my customer, I wouldn't give a heck about a candy wrapper in a lunchroom--I'd be worried about the poor traceability.

I guess my point is that GFSI has made us a bit complacent, which is not something we should be in the food industry.

In my experience, GFSI certification is only achieved/maintained because many customers require it. 

I feel like there is a shift from "food safety" toward "audit-readiness",  which just encourages the bad actors to clean up just enough to "pass the audit." I'm not sure if the unannounced audit scheme helps alleviate that a bit. But I believe that customers who refuse to do business with sites that don't maintain a certain audit score contribute to that attitude. I also believe it's against a CB's best interest to 100% truthfully dig in during an audit, because they don't want to lose the certified site as a customer, so how much trust should we put in GFSI certifications?

 

From my perspective on the supplier approval end as well, GFSI certificates have become a substitute for on-site supplier audits. I don't think it's a good trend. When we review a supplier's GFSI audit report, we are receiving secondhand observations from whom we assume is a qualified auditor. Instead of going on-site to get firsthand observations ourselves, we are relying on the hope that the auditor is identifying problems of concern. 

For example: I've had an auditor make a big stink about a candy wrapper found deep under a lunchroom vending machine after totally ignoring the huge discrepancies in our traceability exercise. If I were my customer, I wouldn't give a heck about a candy wrapper in a lunchroom--I'd be worried about the poor traceability.

 

I guess my point is that GFSI has made us a bit complacent, which is not something we should be in the food industry.

EXACLY...

plus GFSI unannounced 4 months widow is a ridiculous. They expecting that technical team always have someone on site who knows EVERYTHING, which is impossible, and we all know that we don`t have enough staff to keep up on let`s say internal audits (that stupid idea that the auditor must be independent - in reality people has no clue what they auditing - not helpful at all !!! ). Brokers and agents certification is a massive ISSUE. Simply they don`t care, they do ignore regulations sourcing items from China, Turkey etc I had a massive case with pistachios (mycotoxins) and ginger from China. In such cases technical is pushed by buyers because of price and this never ending story... 

Rude, picky, unqualified and mean to the point that you want to turn the table over and leave the room. 

I wholeheartedly agree with the 2 PP

The system is highly flawed, but above all my issues with the actual audits and schemes, is the fact that in it's roots, was push back from retailers to save them money (let's be honest, it's always about the money)

Regulations are always written with legalese, very little room for interpretation, not so much with GFSI  too much room for an auditor to force their opinion (even when it's wrong) onto companies.  Until/unless there is a regulated party that audits the auditors, nothing will change.  And if you look really closely at the requirements for becoming an auditor, it's certainly not going to pull in the most experienced, rational and pragmatic individuals.

The research has shown ZERO reductions in recalls (which they were totted to accomplish) and a massive financial burden on manufacturers

Alas, none of us has any power to change any of this (which is why I'm participating in SQF v10 technical working group-to be a voice of reason) 

 

We're exploring the impact of GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative) certification on businesses and want to hear from you! How has this certification influenced your company's operations? Has it led to increased business opportunities, improved product quality, or enhanced customer trust? Or perhaps you've seen no significant impact or even faced challenges? Your insights are crucial for understanding the broader effects of GFSI certification and can help others in the industry. Share your experiences with us and join the conversation!

 

We've had a positive experience with GFSI certification. It's increased customer trust and opened up new business opportunities. The certification process helped us streamline our operations and improve our food safety management system.

In my experience, GFSI certification is only achieved/maintained because many customers require it. 

I feel like there is a shift from "food safety" toward "audit-readiness",  which just encourages the bad actors to clean up just enough to "pass the audit." I'm not sure if the unannounced audit scheme helps alleviate that a bit. But I believe that customers who refuse to do business with sites that don't maintain a certain audit score contribute to that attitude. I also believe it's against a CB's best interest to 100% truthfully dig in during an audit, because they don't want to lose the certified site as a customer, so how much trust should we put in GFSI certifications?

 

From my perspective on the supplier approval end as well, GFSI certificates have become a substitute for on-site supplier audits. I don't think it's a good trend. When we review a supplier's GFSI audit report, we are receiving secondhand observations from whom we assume is a qualified auditor. Instead of going on-site to get firsthand observations ourselves, we are relying on the hope that the auditor is identifying problems of concern. 

For example: I've had an auditor make a big stink about a candy wrapper found deep under a lunchroom vending machine after totally ignoring the huge discrepancies in our traceability exercise. If I were my customer, I wouldn't give a heck about a candy wrapper in a lunchroom--I'd be worried about the poor traceability.

 

I guess my point is that GFSI has made us a bit complacent, which is not something we should be in the food industry.

The reason that companies get certificated to a GFSI scheme is exactly because many customers require it.

If you do the things that the particular standard requires on a daily basis, you are by default "audit ready".

I'm sure it would better to actually audit a suppliers manufacturing facility, but that supposes you are qualified to audit manufacturers of various materials, I don't think your average food manufacturing facility has that knowledge base, nor the budget for travel to possibly multiple countries around the world.

GFSI standards are fine. It's the obvious stuff you should be doing.
Certain customer standards are certainly more proscritive, but they are not even going to talk to you unless you are certificated to a GFSI Standard.

I get the whole "subjective auditor" thing.

I get the whole "game" that is played with audits of this type. We always take the auditors out to dinner and we talk about the observations of the day and whatever other talk. It does not change the score of an audit, because the finding is what it was. But because auditors are not allowed to "consult", this is an off the record relaying of best practices observed that if implemented at your facility, might solve the problem.

This is  good thing.

All that being said, It's better to have some standard when it comes to (in my case) food manufacturing than none.

If you are a food manufacturer and are just doing what the "standard" requires, then you probably should not be manufacturing food.

Marshall

Thanks all for your thoughtful feedback on GFSI certification.

It’s clear that while there are significant challenges and frustrations, it’s encouraging to hear that for some, GFSI certification has increased customer trust, streamlined operations, and opened new business opportunities. 

Thank you again for contributing!

Regards,

Simon

I go back and forth depending on the day as to whether I feel like GFSI is a wonderful tool or a cursed scheme.  I do enjoy that there are fewer customer audits these days.  Customers would show up at my spice plant and audit us to standards we had never seen.  One gal came from a small organic place and told us she was auditing us to Campbell's standard (which had items we were not aware of and didn't seem to apply well to our organization).  

At the very least, GFSI levels the playing field and takes surprises out of what to expect.  Instead of merely cleaning up the plant and catching up on paperwork before a customer shows up, it does give us a system that keeps us ready almost 365 days a year (so long as everyone does their part).  It becomes a pain when a customer auditor decides to interpret GFSI codes their way and say they think your out of compliance.  I got really good at replying with, "We'll consider your opinion, but this has been reviewed by a certified SQF auditor and found to be in compliance."  And more than once we've declined to change a practice a customer wanted us to change, citing that the practice was acceptable to GFSI standards, so in a way it lets you defend what you're doing if a customer wants you to do something else just for them.

I don't think any company I've worked for would do it if it wasn't being forced by the major retailers or producers who require it, so in that regard it has kept open the doors that would've otherwise closed.

Like a lot have mentioned, there's a lot of conflicts of interest in third-party auditing systems. I don't think that can be avoided though, there's a certain "state of nature" that applies to competitive business that requires them to make these less-than-ideal decisions related to safety to be successful. Companies will gravitate towards standards that open doors to the most customers, no the ones that ensure the best food safety per se. Auditing systems strive to become the most adopted in the business, not the most rigorous in terms of maintaining compliance. 

I agree with the perspective though that jfrey123 has, that GFSI is useful in leveling the playing field and motivating companies to make positive changes in the face of losing a certification that is required by the customer base. It has a benefit. It's not the perfect utopia of food safety it may sell itself on, but it's an improvement from purely relying on federal oversight.