BRCGS audit management: how to eliminate food safety audit overlap

Managing BRCGS, retailer codes of practice, and internal audits simultaneously is one of the biggest drains on food industry QA teams. Learn how to align your audit programmes and eliminate duplication without compromising compliance.

Audit overload is an all-too familiar challenge for quality assurance (QA) teams. Managing audits compliant with BRCGS (Brand Reputation through Compliance Global Standard) Issue 9 and other GFSI-benchmarked certifications is an all-consuming business. No sooner has the preparation been done for one, than another lands in.

Throw into the mix a growing number of internal audits, introduced by companies looking to raise the bar on food safety protocols, and QA teams routinely find themselves swamped in compliance exercises. But it isn’t the volume of audits that causes the greatest frustration. These after all are needed to ensure the high standards needs across food safety. It is the level of duplication that is the sticking point.

Each audit can have a different remit. This can be a different code of practice or the satisfaction of a specific stakeholder requirement, but the majority still assess the same core criteria around food safety, product quality, traceability and risk management.

That leaves QA teams gathering much the same evidence on repeat, filling in the same paperwork and answering the same questions, albeit in slightly different formats. It’s a waste of their time, effort and resources, particularly given QA professionals are already grappling with more expectations than ever.

By creating a smart audit management framework that strips away these overlapping tasks, manufacturers can remove the burden on teams and reinforce the rigour of their own approach to food safety.

Why food safety audit overlap is a compliance risk, not just a time problem

The root cause of food safety audit overlap is the complex, multi-stakeholder nature of the supply chains that underpin global food and drink. This is then coupled with heightened scrutiny around food safety and product quality.

For decades, most manufacturers operated within a singular recognised certification scheme like BRCGS, as part of their broader GFSI certification management strategy.

BRCGS’ comprehensive annual renewal audits span product safety, integrity, legality and quality, as well as relevant operational controls in food and food ingredient manufacturing, processing and packing.

But as regulatory and public expectations around food safety have increased, even certification against a comprehensive GFSI-benchmarked standard like BRCGS hasn’t been enough, with a new tier of retailer or food supplier audit requirements layered on to address their specific commercial, operational or reputational concerns.

In the UK alone, manufacturers may also need to comply with M&S’ Field to Fork scheme, the Tesco Quality Connect (TQC) system and the Asda Responsible Sourcing programme.

It doesn’t end there either. Alongside this growing set of external assessments now sit internal audit programmes and site inspections, spearheaded by senior leadership to ensure standards are maintained between visits for external certifiers.

For QA teams the impact of having to comply with these myriad and often overlapping food safety schemes is considerable. Even preparing for a single audit may take days, even weeks, of carefully reviewing documents, gathering evidence, liaising with staff and– of course – carrying out any corrective action required. Managing multiple such schemes over the course of a year means hours upon hours lost to what often amounts to repetitive box-ticking.

It isn’t only the impact on resources either. Data input ahead of audits often remains manual and fragmented, with information transferred between spreadsheets, forms and disconnected systems, materially raising the risk of errors. If findings raised in one audit are not visible to teams actively working on another, there’s the potential for duplicate corrective actions or the same mistakes repeated across multiple documents.

Perhaps the biggest risk though is audit fatigue. By asking QA teams to constantly prepare for the next inspection, priorities can shift from genuine efforts to resolve underlying issues to a more mindset. Corrective and Preventative Actions (CAPAs) may be logged but not effectively followed through, for example, allowing root causes to persist and accumulate over time, raising the risk of repeated certification issues, customer complaints and even long-term threats to brand reputation.

All which makes resolving audit duplication a risk management imperative.

Where BRCGS and retailer standards align – and where they differ

Overwhelmed by paperwork and deadlines, it can be easy to miss the areas of commonality between the different audits that food and drink manufacturers are forced to contend with in the current trading environment.

But though each audit may have its own individual areas of focus – for example, M&S’ Farm to Fork zeros in on high welfare and environmental standards – BRCGS and retailer standards assess many of the same processes, particularly when it comes to core food safety and quality management processes.

Common areas of alignment could include:

• HACCP plans

• Supplier approval records

• Training documentation

• Traceability exercises

• Internal audit findings

• CAPA management processes

These are all often routinely scrutinised, regardless of which organisation sits behind an audit, creating plenty of opportunity for QA teams to really streamline their approach – saving time and cost, and often boosting due diligence.

A five-step BRCGS audit management framework to eliminate overlap

The challenge right now when it comes to creating a more combined audit approach to food safety is the model that many food manufacturers managing multi-standard compliance use to plan and structure their approach to audits. Relevant information is often maintained in different formats and stored across multiple manual systems or templates to satisfy individual audit requirements.

All which means QA teams are unaware of the level of duplication going on. They’re unknowingly recreating multiple reports on, say, their updates to HACCP plans or duplicating records that detail their approach to CAPA management, albeit organised under slightly different headers.

The good news is that reducing audit duplication doesn’t require a complete overhaul of an existing quality management system.

Instead, it’s about adopting a more structured framework to how audits, evidence and corrective actions are managed.

1. Build a cross-reference matrix across all applicable standards

Start by identifying every audit and compliance framework that applies to your business. That should include BRCGS, all retailer standards (or other customer requirements) and internal audit programmes. List out requirements of each and create a cross-reference matrix to identify where they are the same or similar, paying particular attention to core elements such as HACCP, supplier approval, traceability, training and corrective action in your supplier audit management.

2. Create a master audit schedule spanning BRCGS and retailer programmes 

Organise all upcoming audits, site inspections and other relevant deadlines into a centralised, shared calendar for your multi-site audit management. This will allow teams to plan more easily, distribute workloads more evenly and, crucially, use the cross-reference tool created above to spot areas where they can coordinate evidence gathering for multiple audits at once, rather than repeating the same exercise multiple times throughout the year.

3. Align internal audit programmes to BRCGS Issue 9 requirements

Tighten internal audit programmes to ensure that they reflect the standards against which the business is being measured by external assessors. Internal schemes following this risk-based approach should reinforce readiness for BRCGS and retailer audits, rather than creating an additional layer of unnecessary or divergent work for QA teams. By aligning internal and external criteria in this way, businesses can cut out audit duplication while also boosting the value of their internal checks in their food safety culture. 

4. Centralise non-conformance and CAPA management in one system

Management of CAPAs in separate spreadsheets or across disconnected systems can make oversight challenging and amplify the risk of errors, as well as duplication. Instead, establish a single process and/or platform for recording, tracking and closing corrective actions so that all stakeholders have visibility, recurring issues can be identified, and senior management can ensure proper follow-through.

5. Assign cross-functional ownership for audit readiness

Audit readiness isn’t the sole responsibility of the QA team. Or at least, it shouldn’t be. Given that modern compliance requirements often span operations, procurement and even HR, ownership for tasks should be distributed more strategically across the relevant teams, alongside responsibility for record-keeping and corrective actions. This reduces the burden for overloaded QA professionals and also helps embed a stronger culture of compliance throughout the organisation.

How food safety quality management software streamlines BRCGS audit management

To help execute this more unified audit management framework, it can often be helpful to move away from a manual approach to BRCGS audit management software.

Reliance on data stored on Excel spreadsheets or evidence shared via email chains with colleagues is a recipe for fragmentation, errors and extra administrative work, all while making it far more challenging to spot the areas of commonality that could help cut out audit duplication. A centralised platform creates an unbroken audit trail across all programmes.

By investing in a modern food safety management system (FSMS) or dedicated QMS designed for the food industry or dedicated food safety compliance software instead, all relevant data will be automatically housed on a single, centralised platform. Rather than maintaining separate records for different standards and stakeholders, businesses can manage areas of overlapping audit documentation simultaneously, with any errors or gaps addressed once and applied across all relevant audit programs rather than on a case-by-case basis. The same goes for evidence, which can be collected once and referenced across multiple standards. Many platforms also offer automated reminders and workflows to ensure audits are completed on time, ownership is applied to the right team member and deadlines aren’t missed.

Utilising technology in this way can have a positive impact downstream too, with more centralised CAPA management providing greater visibility of recurring issues, supporting teams in discovering the root cause and nudging follow-up action and monitoring at regular intervals.

Smarter BRCGS audit management: less duplication, more  compliance confidence

The goal of a smarter, combined audit approach to food safety isn’t to cut corners. Audits are a cornerstone of food safety protection, product quality and consumer trust. But in finding greater alignment between audits stemming from BRCGS, retailers and internal programmes, QA teams can eliminate unnecessary duplication, saving time, cost and effort.

Moreover, by centralising how different audit programmes are managed, they can also ensure compliance is more efficient, transparent and risk-free. 

Hear directly from senior quality leaders at two of the UK's leading food manufacturers –Finnebrogue and Freshpak – on what connected compliance looks like in practice in our webinar – How Food Manufacturers are Moving from Manual QA to Connected Compliance –  on 30 June 2026. Save your spot by registering here.