Tag Archives: third party audits

Benefits of Proprietary Supplier Audits

By Nicole Keresztes James
No Comments

The food supply chain continues to face risks, including geopolitical impacts and climate change, which threaten food safety and quality from farm to fork. Proprietary supplier audits can be useful in evaluating how suppliers are establishing overarching safeguards for their products and processes, as well as promoting the development of a solid food safety culture across multiple links in the chain.

Proprietary supplier audits are typically seen as second- or third-party audits that are not officially benchmarked to Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) requirements. When used as second-party audits, auditors reference client-developed expectations to assess compliance of a supplier to that client. The expectations are often proprietary to a particular client and the auditors conducting those audits are doing so for the benefit of that client.

When used as third-party audits, auditors utilize a set of expectations that have been developed by audit firms or other organizations (i.e. not by a particular client). These expectations are proprietary to those firms, and the auditors conducting those audits are doing so for the benefit of the individual facility or company that has requested the audit.

Proprietary Supplier Audits in Practice

The purpose of proprietary supplier audits can vary in scope and be broad or specific in nature. For example, in the food manufacturing space, such audits could assess broad topics of food safety and quality across multiple categories of products and processing. Alternatively, proprietary supplier audits could focus very closely on specific concerns, like integrated pest management or environmental monitoring programs. Proprietary audits can also be used at different parts of the supply chain, from growers to product distribution.

Ideally, proprietary supplier audits are used to illustrate to a supplier and their customers where improvements are needed at a given facility to meet compliance to a set of expectations. Once these improvements are identified, the facility can proactively investigate the reasons for gaps in compliance and implement effective corrective actions to close the identified gaps. Proprietary supplier audits can also be used by clients interested in approving new suppliers to their network and/or for larger organizations to determine how closely facilities under their organization’s umbrella are adhering to food safety and quality expectations.

Proprietary supplier audits also can bring solid confidence into the supply chain as they are conducted by qualified, independent lead auditors with experience in the industry for which they are auditing (e.g., animal welfare audits are conducted by auditors with specific education, work and audit experience in animal handling and harvesting).

Key Benefits of Proprietary Supplier Audits

Proprietary supplier audits aid facilities in benchmarking competency against the expectations of the standard being audited. They can also assist larger clients and key customers in understanding their supplier base while building confidence in the suppliers that they have chosen to supply raw materials and finished products.

Proprietary audits can also be used as a lower-cost preparatory tool for an accredited benchmarked audit, such as one that is GFSI-benchmarked. The audits can also be hosted between certification visits to ensure that the facility’s systems are still working as required.

Speaking of options for lower-cost, proprietary audits also have the versatility and flexibility to meet clients’ and facilities’ needs in relation to modes of delivery. For example, in an increasingly digital world, calls for more options in virtual auditing are prevalent. Remotely conducted proprietary audit services are being embraced by the industry as both an introductory step for facilities new to food safety and quality audits, as well as an option for larger organizations to examine their suppliers in a more accessible virtual modality.

These supplier assurance remote desk audits can be delivered at a lower cost anywhere in the world where an internet connection is available. Key benefits to these types of audits include:

  • Understand expectations: Gain a clear understanding of what is required for a full on-site audit.
  • Save time and money: Reduce travel expenses and minimize downtime with remote audits.
  • Increase confidence: Build confidence when preparaing for a full on-site audit.
  • Affordability: Utilize an economical option to prepare for the next stage for a comprehensive audit.
  • Global reach: Audit suppliers anywhere in the world without the need for physical presence.

Audits of food safety expectations are typically developed with regulatory requirements at the most basic level. The auditors conducting these audits must be familiar with regulatory requirements such as the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

Additionally, proprietary supplier audits can support a variety of other topics beyond safety and quality in a further processing sense. For example, proprietary audits have a strong presence in the realm of animal welfare. For facilities that are further processors of protein materials, the proprietary audit expectations can look to ensure that these facilities are assessing their raw material suppliers (i.e., slaughter/harvest facilities and farms) for strong social accountability programs, such as ensuring the animals handled are able to enjoy the five freedoms of animal welfare. For facilities that do conduct slaughter/harvest processes and/or are the farms or feedlots in the supply chain leading up to harvest, the proprietary audits can directly assess those locations on the handling of the animals and ensure compliance with proper and humane practices.

Auditing Best Practices

Outside of working on a day-to-day basis to develop and continuously improve the programs at a facility that are the backbone of safe and quality products, a key preparation step for a proprietary supplier audit is to ensure that the audit standard is made available. Additionally, the standard must be understood by facility team members and cross-compared to facility programs. The cross-comparison can be done through internal and management audits. Internal audits are valuable tools in determining where compliance gaps exist prior to any audit. One of the common reasons for audit failures is a lack of awareness and understanding amongst facility team members about what the audit will cover and how compliance is determined.

Most importantly, a failed audit (and truthfully, all audits) can be seen as an opportunity to improve the systems at the facility. Unless it is a requirement of the standard being audited and/or there is a need to stop the processes happening during an audit to address a critical observation that jeopardizes health and safety, try not to prevent an audit visit from coming to its full conclusion. Ending an audit early may mean that other issues are not recognized; these other issues may continue to remain unrecognized until they become nonconformities at the next audit.

In the closing meeting of any audit, it is important to ensure that there is an understanding of the nonconformities that were found. This is key to the development of the most appropriate corrective actions. After the audit, collaboration of the team at the facility is imperative to discuss the results, create and implement the corrective actions, and monitor their effectiveness. Do not jump to scheduling a new audit until there is strong objective evidence to show that the corrective actions are working. If the team is uncertain about how to close the gaps identified during the failed audit, consider reaching out to external subject matter experts for assistance.

The Value of Proprietary Supplier Audits

Proprietary supplier audits can be incredibly valuable in bolstering food safety and preparing for future benchmarked audits. Working with an independent, third-party auditing organization such as NSF can help you to utilize a wide range of proprietary audit standards. Such standards can also be used and adapted by companies looking for a ready-made solution to conduct audits within their supplier partners.

Aaron Biros, Melanie Neumann, Food Safety Consortium

In Today’s Risky World, Verifying Suppliers a Must

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Aaron Biros, Melanie Neumann, Food Safety Consortium

In today’s risk-based world, companies can’t just trust a third-party auditor based on a handshake, according to Melanie Neumann of Neumann Risk Services and Matrix Sciences. It is also a manufacturer’s responsibility to verify the auditor. Watch the following video, shot at this year’s Food Safety Consortium, to hear Neumann’s take on “trust but verify” and the importance of inspection and audit readiness both today and in the future.

FDA Proposed Rule, Draft Guidance to Ensure Safe Imported Foods

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

The agency wants to establish a user fee program to facilitate audits.

About 15% of the U.S. food supply is imported. And within that figure nearly 80% of seafood, 50% of fresh fruit, and 20% of vegetables come from outside the United States, according to FDA. Under FSMA, the commitment to ensuring the safety of imported foods is a high priority. FDA is releasing a proposed rule, and a companion draft guidance document, to aid foreign entities in proving that they are meeting food safety import requirements.

The proposed rule, “User Fee Program to Provide for Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits and to Issue Certifications”, is scheduled for publication Friday, July 24. FDA has named the following key groups that would be charged fees:

  • Accreditation bodies (ABs) submitting applications or renewal applications for recognition in the third-party accreditation program
  • Recognized ABs and accredited CBs that are participating in the third-party accreditation program and subject to FDA monitoring
  • Certification bodies (CBs) submitting applications or renewal applications for direct accreditation

In addition to naming those subject to the user fee, the proposed rule defines how the fees would be computed and collected, the agency’s public notification process, and what happens if those subject to the fee do not pay it (i.e., suspension of recognition).

In the draft guidance, “Third-Party Auditor/Certification Body Accreditation for Food Safety Audits: Model Accreditation Standards”, FDA makes recommendations on third-party auditor/certification body qualifications.  If finalized, the document will remain a companion guidance to the final rule.