How the structure works
The Global Food Safety Initiative is an industry collaboration that benchmarks food safety schemes against its own requirements. A scheme that meets those requirements is described as GFSI-recognised or benchmarked. GFSI itself performs no audits and issues no certificates.
Certification is issued by a certification body that is itself accredited, following an audit against a named issue or version of the scheme's standard. This chain matters when a customer says they require "GFSI certification" — what they actually require is certification to one of the recognised schemes, and it is worth getting that specified in writing.
What actually distinguishes them in practice
All the major schemes cover hazard analysis, prerequisite programs, management commitment and verification. The practical differences are in structure, documentation weight and market acceptance.
- SQF, administered by the SQF Institute, offers a staged structure with strong acceptance among U.S. retailers, and separate food safety and quality codes
- BRCGS is heavily documented with a graded outcome, and includes unannounced audit options; fundamental clauses carry disproportionate weight in the grade
- FSSC 22000 builds on ISO 22000 plus sector prerequisite programme standards, so it fits organisations already operating ISO-style management systems
- IFS Food is widely required by European retail customers and is therefore most relevant to manufacturers supplying those chains
- GlobalG.A.P. addresses primary production rather than manufacturing, and is relevant where your scope includes farming activities
The questions that should decide it
Start with the constraint that usually settles the matter: what do your customers accept, in writing? A scheme your largest account will not recognise is an expensive irrelevance regardless of its merits.
Then work through scope. Which sites, which product categories, which activities — manufacturing, storage, distribution, packaging? Scope definition drives cost and audit duration more than most companies expect, and an unnecessarily broad scope is a recurring source of avoidable non-conformances.
Third, be realistic about documentation capacity. Certification is not a one-time event; it is an annual cycle with internal audits, management reviews, verification activities and record maintenance in between. A standard that your team cannot sustain between audits will produce a downgraded grade in year two, which is worse commercially than having chosen a simpler path.
Finally, consider what else you are already carrying. A site with an established ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 system will find FSSC 22000 structurally familiar. A site with no formal management system will find a staged approach less punishing.
What preparation can and cannot do
A consultant can run a clause-level gap assessment, build the documentation, train internal auditors and conduct a pre-assessment audit under audit conditions. That is genuinely valuable: the first non-conformance you see should be an internal one.
A consultant cannot influence the certification decision, and should have no interest in doing so. SURU Compliance is not a certification body and is not accredited to certify. Any firm suggesting it can secure or expedite a certification outcome is describing something that should not exist.
A related caution: a certificate that does not reflect a working system is a liability. It creates customer expectations, contractual representations and, in the event of an incident, a documented gap between what you claimed and what you operated.
Primary sources
Go to the source rather than relying on this summary. Regulation text and agency guidance are the authority; this page is an interpretation of them.
- Global Food Safety Initiative — benchmarking requirements and recognised schemes
- SQF Food Safety Code (current edition)
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety (current issue)
- FSSC 22000 Scheme (current version) and ISO 22000
- IFS Food Standard (current version)