What was the warehouse’s starting point?
A well-equipped warehouse, with no certification, asked by two customers to adopt two different standards. This is a composite case: it brings together situations our teams meet in Moroccan cold stores, without describing a client.
The company runs a cold store in the logistics zone of Tanger Med, Morocco’s port complex on the Strait of Gibraltar: frozen rooms, chilled rooms, a loading dock for reefer containers bound for Europe and a contract defrosting room. During the season, it rents an overflow platform at another address, where pallets pass through without being stored. Transport is entrusted to two regular hauliers and, at peak times, to occasional ones. Headcount doubles with agency workers during the berry season.
Customer | Its own certification | Written requirement | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
A frozen berry processor selling to UK retailers | BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 | BRCGS Storage and Distribution Issue 4, with the cross-docking module for the overflow platform | Before its next season |
A frozen seafood exporter selling in Germany and France | IFS Food version 8 | IFS Logistics version 3 | Before its contract renewal |
A Moroccan dairy distributor | None | Any GFSI-recognised logistics certificate | No date |
How did management compare the two standards?
By applying the same criteria to both, against its own activities. Both standards certify cold storage and transport, and both appear on the GFSI page for scope G. Their differences were read in the official texts.
Criterion | BRCGS Storage and Distribution Issue 4 | IFS Logistics version 3 | Effect for this warehouse |
|---|---|---|---|
Contract defrosting | Section 17, to the product owner’s specifications | Accepted logistics processing service (freezing and thawing) | Covered by both |
Overflow platform | Cross-docking module: separate report, non-conformities outside the main site’s grade | Decentralised structure belonging to the company, to be audited within the scope | A rented platform must be qualified with the certification body in both cases |
Result | Grade from AA to D, “+” if the audit was unannounced | Percentage score: Foundation level from 75%, Higher level from 95%; six KO requirements | Two different ways of steering performance |
Unannounced audit | At least one every three years; window in the last four months of the cycle | At least one audit in three; window from 16 weeks before to 2 weeks after the audit due date; IFS Star status | Demanding in both cases for a site running around the clock |
Audit duration | Official BRCGS calculator | One day minimum, extended according to storage and transport units, service providers and headcount, temporary staff included | To compare on quotes |
Language | SD401 self-assessment checklist in English only | Official version 3 text in English and French; no interpreter allowed if the site language is French (April 2026 doctrine) | Working translation needed on the BRCGS side for French- or Arabic-speaking teams |
GFSI list (November 2026) | Issue 4 listed; undergoing benchmarking against the 2024 version | Version 2.3 listed; version 3 undergoing benchmarking | To be confirmed by each customer |
The decision followed a simple rule: the standard required in writing by the customer with the nearest deadline. The first customer had a date and also required the cross-docking module. Management therefore chose BRCGS Storage and Distribution Issue 4 first, and planned IFS Logistics version 3 on the same system. The Moroccan distributor confirmed in writing that it accepted either.
With a different service offer, the same grid would have given a different answer. A warehouse offering ripening or simple sorting of fruit and vegetables finds these services expressly accepted by IFS Logistics; in that case, and with equal deadlines, IFS Logistics would have carried more weight.
Which gaps did the gap analysis reveal?
Gaps on the floor, not in the documents. The gap analysis, run on the Issue 4 self-assessment checklist translated for the dock supervisors, brought out seven points.
Area | Situation found | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
Temperatures | Alarms routed only to the night guard’s phone, with no action instructions; no manual readings on Sundays in the defrosting room | Recording linked to an automatic failure alarm, or manual checks frequent enough, non-working days included (17.3) |
Transport | Contracts with regular hauliers never signed by them; occasional hauliers booked by phone | Written contract signed by both parties: temperatures, segregation, security, vehicle type (3.5.2.1) |
People | Seasonal agency workers unaware of their responsibilities and of where instructions were kept | All personnel, agency staff included, know their responsibilities (1.3.2) |
Fraud | No assessment of customers’ vulnerability to fraud | Documented plan, competent team (3.5.3.1) |
Security | Old threat assessment, never reviewed after an intrusion into the container park | Review at least annually and after any incident (4.2.1) |
Equipment | Brooms left on the floor, no colour coding; trucks moving from the container park into the cold rooms | Cleaning equipment identified and stored off the floor (6.4.5); movable equipment restricted to designated areas (6.1) |
Traceability | No link between pallet and container number for consolidated containers | Traceability from intake to dispatch, tested on a real pallet |
How did the project unfold?
By building one system for two standards, and by first fixing what the auditor would see on the dock.
- A written scope, agreed with the certification body: storage, transport, section 17 for defrosting, cross-docking module for the overflow platform.
- The alert chain: call list with a deputy, action instructions on display, a test on a public holiday, dated evidence.
- Contracts: signed by both regular hauliers; a list of qualified occasional hauliers, with a template contract.
- Training for agency workers on hiring, in French and Arabic, on their responsibilities and the cold-chain instructions.
- Fraud and threat assessments, carried out by a team combining quality, operations and security.
- Traceability: container and seal numbers entered at each loading, then a test on a pallet picked at random.
- The mock audit, run without warning the teams, followed by the initial audit, announced as the protocol requires.
From the start, a cross-reference table linked the BRCGS requirements to the IFS Logistics ones, so that the second certification could reuse the same evidence.
Topic | BRCGS Storage and Distribution Issue 4 | IFS Logistics version 3 |
|---|---|---|
Storage and transport subcontractors | Approval and monitoring of storage and transport providers | Control of outsourced service providers |
Fraud | Food fraud vulnerability assessment | Fraud requirements |
Temperature alarms and recording | Cold chain control, including for contract operations | Temperature monitoring, alarms and recording |
Traceability | Traceability requirement of the standard | Traceability requirement, with a test at least once every 12 months |
Customer agreements | Review of customer contracts | KO requirement on customer agreements |
The table describes the requirements without the standards' numbering: the site's own cross-reference table points to the exact clause numbers of the text in force.
What were the results, and what lessons apply to another warehouse?
The Storage and Distribution certificate was obtained at the first audit, cross-docking module included. The contract with the certification body already provided for the unannounced audit, which will come in the following years, within the window of the last four months of the cycle set by the BRCGS079 protocol.
For IFS Logistics, the gap analysis against the checklist of the IFS Logistics version 3 standard focused on what BRCGS had not required in the same terms: the six KO requirements, including customer agreement (4.1.3) and the monitoring system of each CCP (2.2.3.6), the percentage scoring and the traceability test with mass balance.
Five lessons apply to other warehouses:
- a verbal customer requirement is not enough: ask in writing for the standard, version, audit programme and deadline;
- the overflow platform is dealt with when the scope is set, not on audit day;
- an alarm with no response at night is a gap, even with a brand-new data logger;
- agency workers are audited like permanent staff;
- two standards mean one system and two audits: build the cross-reference table at the start.
Before choosing between the two standards, check:
The full path is in our BRCGS Storage and Distribution Issue 4 guide, dock preparation in our article on cold store certification in Morocco, and the budget in BRCGS Storage and Distribution certification cost and timeline.