When it comes to Certification Audits, the Devil is in the Details

The seafood industry has recently been speaking out about audit fatigue. In an effort to increase the quality of the certification process, producers are seeking opportunities to reduce costs by integrating audits, while making specific changes to improve the integrity and quality of the certification process.

One of the main reasons producers complain about numerous audits is because several schemes address the same compliance criteria. In addition to repetitive audits, the process is further compounded by incompetent auditors, fluctuating costs of certification/auditing, and constantly changing schemes and requirements. This dreary cycle of poor quality expensive audits is dumbing down the certification process and creating a ground-swell of negative perspectives in the b2b supply chain. Needless to say, retail markets will continue to dictate the requirements, and processors will need to bend over backwards to meet those requests. The increase in product recalls and outbreaks will continue to provide a precedence for annual certification. Audits have been accepted as a necessary burden.

For retail buyers, running out of product is not an option. Projecting long term access to high volumes of specific species and product forms has become a seafood industry norm. For this reason, mid-sized processors must put themselves in the shoes of the largest buyers to understand the competitive landscape of the market. Importers and distributors packing private label products cannot depend on one producer to address long term purchasing goals. Price fluctuation, natural disasters, disease, detentions, and other product shortages provide additional complexities, often forcing quality assurance to be the first element to be sacrificed. It’s a volatile space to make a living. Certification attempts to insure retailers they are packing high quality safe products.

There is a wide range of options when it comes to audits, which is largely based on operator size and intended market. Those buyers who seek to provide large complex retail and food service chains are requiring accredited certification from farm to fork. They can also expect a visit from the distributor/retailer, who may conduct an audit based on a wide variety of compliance criteria. Smaller scale producers producing for domestic markets often do not require certification, but may be required to undergo an unaccredited good management practices audit. It’s those medium scale processors that are finding it most difficult to adapt to changing market requirements for certification, especially when buyers are requesting that farmers and processors meet a variety of different standards.

While there are legitimate differences between standards, and benchmarking programs arein place to recognize equivalence, processors continue to uselessly undergo repetitive and cheap audits. If certification is to continue providing cost effective verification and assurances, the supply chain will need to refocus on audit quality, not a race to the bottom based on the cost of getting certified. Certification has slowly been morphing into a process of maintaining flawed/forged documentation, rather than a safety net for hazard prevention. It’s high time for distributors and retailers to take on more responsibility with the certification process. It’s not enough to simply file away a processors certificate. It’s essential for retailers to vet certification bodies (and their auditors), and verify that all parties are devoted to protecting the reputation of their private label.