BRCGS vs IFS vs FSSC 22000: How the Three GFSI Standards Differ

What do BRCGS, IFS and FSSC 22000 share, and what sets them apart?

All three are recognised by GFSI and rest on the same foundation: HACCP, prerequisite programmes, traceability, allergens, fraud, food defence and food safety culture. What separates them comes down to three points: who writes the standard, how the audit is scored and how audits are organised over time.

GFSI writes no standard. It compares certification programmes with its benchmarking requirements which, according to its page of recognised programmes, are not a food safety standard and cannot be used to audit or certify any business. Each programme owner writes its own text and audit rules; a certification body audits the site and issues the certificate. A consultant prepares the site and never certifies it.

The last row is not an administrative detail. GFSI’s benchmarking requirements allow two certification routes: product certification, under ISO/IEC 17065, and management system certification, under ISO/IEC 17021-1 together with ISO 22003-1. IFS Food follows the first route and assesses products and processes, requirement by requirement. FSSC 22000 follows the second and audits a management system built on ISO 22000:2018.

SQF, owned by SQFI in the United States, and GLOBALG.A.P., which certifies farms, are compared further down. All twelve recognised programme owners are presented on our page GFSI standards compared.

How is each standard built?

BRCGS and IFS are stand-alone standards, written as lists of audit requirements. FSSC 22000 combines an ISO standard, ISO prerequisite programmes and additional requirements. The knock-out requirements carry different names: fundamental requirements at BRCGS, KO requirements at IFS. FSSC 22000 names none, but a critical non-conformity suspends the certificate.

The five chapters of the IFS Food version 8 checklist are: governance and commitment; food safety and quality management system; resource management; operational processes; measurements, analyses and improvements. The BRCGS chapters and the list of the twelve fundamental requirements are covered in our guide to BRCGS certification in Morocco; the three building blocks of FSSC 22000 in our FSSC 22000 Version 7 consultant guide.

One topic, three treatments

The topics are the same; their weight in the audit is not. The table matches the clauses we work on first in a gap analysis, according to the official texts.

The practical consequence: the same gap does not have the same effect. At IFS, a D on a KO requirement deducts 50% of the points and rules out the certificate. At BRCGS, a major non-conformity against the statement of intent of a fundamental requirement weighs directly on the certification decision; the exact consequence is set by the audit protocol of the Standard. At FSSC 22000, everything depends on the severity the auditor assigns: minor, major or critical.

The other KO requirements of IFS Food version 8 cover compliance with customer agreements (4.1.3), raw material specifications (4.2.1.3), foreign material (4.12.1), recall and withdrawal (5.9.1) and corrective actions (5.11.3).

How is the audit result scored?

BRCGS gives a grade, IFS Food a percentage and a level, FSSC 22000 a simple grading of non-conformities. For a buyer, the grade and the score are information on top of the certificate: it can require a minimum.

IFS scoring uses an A to D scale for each requirement; it is explained on our IFS certification page. SQF also scores its audits, and SQFI states that the scoring is updated with Edition 10; the applicable scale is in the SQF Code of each edition.

What we see in gap analyses: sites aiming for IFS Higher level or a BRCGS AA grade prepare differently. They do not just avoid major findings; they chase the B scores and minor non-conformities that pull the score or the grade down.

Which audit model: frequency, unannounced audits, cycle?

All three require unannounced audits, with three different mechanisms. BRCGS and IFS audit the whole standard every year; FSSC 22000 follows a three-year cycle, as ISO certifications do.

For a seasonal exporter, two rules matter. IFS provides that, for seasonal products, the usual window does not apply: the unannounced audit takes place during the declared production season, with no blackout period. BRCGS reduces the number of excluded days pro rata when the season is shorter than the four-month window.

What this changes for a Moroccan site:

• records must be up to date every day, not the day before a planned audit;
• every process owner has a trained deputy able to receive the auditor;
• the contract with the certification body covers the unannounced audit before the window opens;
• a site certified to BRCGS and IFS follows two separate unannounced calendars, one per standard.

The budget effects of these rules are compared in our article on BRCGS, IFS and FSSC 22000 certification cost.

Who asks for which standard?

The buyer, always. Market habits are only clues, useful to prepare the commercial conversation: BRCGS is widespread among British retailers, IFS among German and French retailers, FSSC 22000 among multinational manufacturers. Two retailers in the same country may require two different standards.

When the request stays generic, “a GFSI-recognised certificate”, any programme recognised for your scope qualifies in principle. Have it confirmed in writing, with the version. Our method for choosing which food safety certification to export with sets out the questions to ask and how to cross-check the answers of several customers.

SQF or GLOBALG.A.P.: which one for primary production?

The one the buyer names. GLOBALG.A.P. IFA v6 certifies the farm, from growing to post-harvest handling, and only its GFS edition is designed for GFSI recognition. SQF covers the farm through its primary production codes, but also the packhouse, the factory and the warehouse under the same name, as PrimusGFS does.

According to SQFI’s Edition 10 FAQ, Edition 9 remains the only GFSI-recognised SQF programme until Edition 10 is recognised, and Edition 10 requires every site to have a food safety culture assessment plan. According to GLOBALG.A.P.’s IFA page, buyer requirements generally determine which edition a producer implements.

A packhouse (scope BIII) sits on the border: GFSI lists for it, among others, GLOBALG.A.P., PrimusGFS, BRCGS, IFS, FSSC 22000 and SQF. The detail for each link in the chain is on our page GLOBALG.A.P. IFA v6, SQF and PrimusGFS.

How do you choose, and can you combine two standards?

Choose in this order: each buyer’s written requirements, the site’s real scope, your other customers, your existing organisation, then the savings of a common foundation. Yes, you can combine: the foundation is built once, but each audit remains a full audit, with its own scoring and calendar.

Before booking an audit, check these points:

• Every current or target buyer has stated in writing the standard, version and audit programme it accepts.
  
• The minimum BRCGS grade or IFS level expected is known.
  
• The site’s activities are mapped to a GFSI scope, and the intended standard is listed for it in the version that will be audited.
  
• The sanitary approval or authorisation from ONSSA (Office National de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits Alimentaires), Morocco’s national food safety authority, covers the whole scope.
  
• The calendar takes account of the transitions under way: FSSC 22000 Version 7, SQF Edition 10, BRCGS Issue 10 with no date.
  
• The site can receive an unannounced audit throughout the window of each chosen standard.
  
• A certification body authorised for each standard has been consulted on audit duration and arrangements.
  

The case of an exporter serving three buyers with different requirements is worked through in our case study of a Moroccan exporter facing three buyers. To follow the GFSI recognition status of the new versions, read our update on GFSI recognised standards in 2026.