What leads to the actual safety of products?
If your current external certification system goes beyond a superficial show to get more business and actually leads to safer products, by all means continue. If not, why not try an approach that works with your actual situations on the ground to assure product safety and quality? Keep in mind that business growth also means an inevitable increase in the opportunities for failure. This is at the same time that the pressure mounts for products to be actually safe and maintain good quality. Also keep in mind that externally imposed audit requirements will continue to grow increasingly complex. They will absorb much of your time in learning to first understand every new twist with which you must "comply". They will lead to fanciful paperwork but produce little to no effect on the actual safety of your product beyond what you have already achieved in previous years. By the way, many external systems also come with the disclaimer of providing no guarantees with the "certificates". Does yours?
The present enchantment by superficial “certificates” will fade away as more and more operations suffer the pains of costly recalls in spite of having “top-level certifications”. At the time this post was first written, there was a recall of about 50,000 pounds of ground beef products by a Kansas company over fears of E. coli contamination.
Here is another example:
Other examples of recalls may be viewed here: List of other recalls and public alerts
Several of the affected companies have one form of outside certification or another. For example, the Kansas company’s website lists its Certified Locations and the BRC Site Listing identifies this company as certified to “Grade A” BRC (at the time of this posting): http://www.brcdirectory.com/Site.aspx?BrcSiteCode=7306570
- What is the typical life span of this pride?
- What sustains the pride?
- What happens to the pride in the event of a widely publicized product failure and harm to consumers?
2. How much guarantee comes with your certification?
3. Does certification mean that the certifying body is prepared to defend what is certified?
4. Is the certifying body willing to formally recommend your product and/or services to customers on the basis of the certification?
5. In the event of a court case because your product caused illness or injury while your certification has not expired, is the certifying body willing to testify that your certified systems and/or products are reliable?
6. Are existing external audit schemes not useful without certification?
- Certificates are issued after a careful assessment of the certified operation by well qualified and accredited auditors.
- Certificates issued to an operation are sometimes needed to convince customers that the operation can be trusted to provide safe products that meet regulations and acceptable quality expectations.
- Certificates are also needed for CYA (preferably CYB) purposes that are often described as due diligence demonstration purposes. They are also presumed to provide legal cover for the operations should things go wrong.
- All considered, if an operation needs legal cover due to product failures, it should not be certified by an external party. It should instead be helped. If, on the other hand, the production and control systems of an operation can be certified by an external party as an expression of confidence in the operation's ability to maintain the desired outcomes (safe and acceptable quality products), the operation does not need paper certificates. The desired safe and acceptable quality products serve as better and sufficient evidence of the operation's capability.
- The assessment by the qualified and accredited auditor is almost always within a limited time scope. The issued certificate technically covers only that time scope since the auditor cannot possibly know what happened at the operation before or what happens after the assessment time window. Hence the certifying auditor is justified to take a non-committal position immediately outside of the assessment time window.
- If a business can be trusted outside of the assessment time window, they do not need the certification except where the assessors know more or can see more than the operators of the business.
- If outside assessors know more and can see more than the operators of the business, these operators need to be trained and/or educated more than assessed. The effectiveness of the training may be assessed but not so much for an annual re-certification of the operation, but for operator re-training purposes until adequate operator proficiency precludes annual external coaching.
- Customers who rely on certificates without carefully examining the supplied products take no less risk than customers who are committed to carefully examining supplied products without requiring outside certificates.
- External corroboration over a short assessment window provides no greater credibility than where the supplied product credibly and consistently proves to be safe, meets regulatory and quality requirements.
- Where the supplied products cannot credibly and consistently prove to be safe, meet regulatory and quality requirements, external certificates offer no more than a blanket cover for undetected infractions, deviations and/or deficiencies. Under such circumstances, the certifying body remains justified to withdraw certification upon the detection, discovery or exposure of erstwhile covered infractions, deviations and/or deficiencies. In addition to already being non-committal outside of the assessment time window, certification essentially comes to naught under such circumstances.
- A genuine and effective exercise of due diligence is almost immediately and directly evident in an operation's products. Where due diligence is theoretically demonstrated in order to obtain certification, the due diligence is most likely only for show. Where due diligence is genuinely exercised and not merely demonstrated (for show), certification is not necessary.
- Unlike its genuine exercise, the mere demonstration (for show) of due diligence is only evident on the surface and product failures leading to possible litigation are more likely.
- In an environment of a genuine, consistent and effective exercise of due diligence, failures leading to litigation are at least minimized and obtaining certification to demonstrate due diligence becomes unnecessary.
- Certificates are usually flat. If large enough, they may provide the CYB effect only from one direction. Other areas are often exposed. Besides, evidence in real life situations such as the cantaloupe case have shown that CYB certificates are often tossed aside or even called to task with the certifying bodies (realistically and rightly) insisting on having offered no guarantees.
Beyond Compliance - http://gcse-food-health-protection.blogspot.ca/2013/03/product-safety-beyond-compliance.html