What was the plant’s starting point?
A plant in good standing with the food safety authority and used to bulk exports, but which had never had an IFS audit. This is a typical case: it brings together situations our teams find in Moroccan food plants, without describing any client.
The plant, in the Fès-Meknès region, receives olives from growers and cooperatives during the harvest. It sorts them, debitters them or puts them straight into brine, then stores them in tanks for several months. All year round it pits, stuffs, packs in glass jars and pouches, pasteurises, and makes sauces and tapenades based on olives and peppers. It sells in bulk to European manufacturers and under its own brand in Morocco.
A German importer that supplies a retailer’s private label sends its specification: a valid IFS Food certificate before the first order, Higher level preferred, German labelling and precise recipe tolerances.
The starting point, as the gap analysis established it:
- an ONSSA approval and a HACCP plan built for official inspection, not for an IFS audit;
- customer specifications handled by the sales department and little known to production;
- long-standing olive suppliers, recorded on a simple list;
- packaging (jars, caps, pouches) bought without full specifications;
- a seasonal workforce hired for the harvest;
- a small trading activity in capers bought already packed and resold as they are.
ONSSA approval, issued by the Office National de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits Alimentaires, remains the regulatory prerequisite. IFS Food comes on top of it as a commercial requirement.
Which decisions were taken before work started?
Six decisions, written down and approved by management before any action. They set the scope, the audit date and the risk, and therefore the cost.
Decision | Options | Choice in this case | IFS Food Version 8 rule |
|---|---|---|---|
Standard | IFS Food or another GFSI-recognised standard | IFS Food Version 8, confirmed in writing with the importer, along with the level sought | A buyer who names IFS does not accept an equivalent unless it says so in writing |
Product scope | Export lines only, or the whole site | The whole site: olives, sauces, tapenades, own brand included | All lines and products on site, no process exclusion |
Caper trading | Outside the certificate, or IFS Broker | Outside IFS Food, with a statement on the certificate; IFS Broker considered for later | Traded products are not covered by IFS Food |
Audit date | Off-season or during the harvest | During the harvest, with receipt, debittering, brining and pasteurisation running | The main audit takes place when the most hazardous processing step is carried out; lines running |
Audit option | Announced or unannounced | First audit announced | An initial audit can be announced or unannounced |
Language | French or Arabic | French declared as the working language; interviews in Darija (Moroccan Arabic) to prepare with the certification body | Audit in the working language; no interpreter allowed if that language is French |
The audit date weighed most. Off-season, receipt and brining would not have been seen, and an extension audit would have been needed every year for those steps. By timing the audit for the harvest, the plant shows its whole process at once.
What gaps did the gap analysis reveal?
The heaviest gaps concerned six of the ten KO requirements. Almost all came from the same source: a system designed for inspection and bulk sales, not for a retailer’s private label.
Requirement | Gap found | Action taken |
|---|---|---|
KO no. 4 — 4.1.3 Customer agreement | Recipe tolerances and German labelling known only to the sales department | Contract review, customer product sheet passed to production, label check at the start of each run |
KO no. 5 — 4.2.1.3 Raw material specifications | No specification for jars, caps, salt, acidifiers and stuffing ingredients | An up-to-date specification for each material and each packaging item, compliant with the law and the customer specification |
KO no. 2 — 2.3.9.1 Monitoring of each CCP | Pasteurisation records filled in, but verified at the end of the month and with no instructions in case of drift | Monitoring procedure, verification by a responsible person, operator training (2.3.9.2 and 2.3.9.3) |
KO no. 7 — 4.18.1 Traceability | Lots from several growers mixed in tanks, with no written link between receipt, tank and jar | Tank register, upstream and downstream test with mass balance, within four hours at most |
KO no. 6 — 4.12.1 Foreign material risk mitigation | Glass breakage handled case by case; pit fragments not assessed on pitted olives | Risk analysis, glass breakage procedure, suitable checks |
KO no. 9 — 5.9.1 Recalls, withdrawals and incidents | No one permanently available, an incomplete contact list, never tested | Procedure completed, end-to-end test (5.9.2) |
1.1.1 Food safety culture | No objectives on the four dimensions | Objectives on communication, training, employee feedback and performance measurement |
4.20 Food fraud | Origin and variety claims not verified | Vulnerability assessment of the olives and sensitive ingredients |
Two points required building works: separating the stuffing area, for sauces containing allergens, and protecting empty jars against broken glass. Both were costed at the gap analysis, not discovered at the mock audit.
How was the audit planned and carried out?
Like a harvest operation. The certification body, chosen from the list of bodies under contract with IFS, calculated the duration with the IFS tool from the year’s maximum headcount, seasonal workers included, the product scopes and the processing steps.
Three months before, a full mock audit run without notice scored every requirement. It confirmed two weaknesses, the verification of pasteurisation records and the recall test, which were dealt with before the audit. The plant also prepared its response plan: who corrects what, with which evidence, within how many days, and who translates into English.
On the day, the opening meeting was short, as the standard requires, and the auditor went into production with product samples and a traceability test. The managing director attended the opening and closing meetings. Once the action plan was received, the team had four weeks to evidence its corrections: repair invoices, training records, amended procedures, never quotes.
This typical case publishes no score. It retains one rule: a single Major non-conformity would have required a follow-up audit and capped the certificate at Foundation level, while the importer wanted Higher level. The budget and duration of such a project are covered in IFS Food certification cost and duration.
What does seasonality change for later audits?
It makes the unannounced audit unpredictable. At least one audit in every three is unannounced, and a site producing seasonal products declares its production dates: the usual window does not apply, no blackout period is allowed, and the auditor can come at any time during the season.
The importer may also complement the certificate with its own supplier audit: see our audits and inspections.
What lessons for other food exporters?
Three lessons apply equally to a cannery, a fruit plant or a sauce maker. First, write down the scope and the audit date before anything else: they set the cost and the risk. Next, treat KO requirements as daily controls, not as a chapter of the manual. Finally, bring the buyer’s specification onto the shop floor: IFS checks that it is complied with, not that it is filed.
The general rules are in our guide to IFS Food certification in Morocco, and audit preparation, KO by KO, in our how-to on IFS Food audit preparation.