Which GFSI Scheme for a Small Food Manufacturer?

Most small food manufacturers do not pick a GFSI scheme. A customer picks it for them, usually in a supplier approval email that says "we require a GFSI-benchmarked certificate by the end of the year." The question that matters is what to do when more than one scheme would satisfy that email, or when no customer has named one yet.

I have come to think the best answer starts with a boring question: who will ask to see your certificate, and which logo do they already recognize? Everything else, including cost, audit style, and documentation load, is real but secondary. This article walks through the decision in the order I would walk through it with a plant owner.

What is GFSI, and why does a scheme choice even exist?

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) does not certify anyone. It publishes the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements, and certification scheme owners submit their programs to be compared against them. A scheme that passes is "recognized," which means a retailer or food service buyer can accept its certificate in place of running its own supplier audit.

SQF, BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, and FSSC 22000 are all recognized against those requirements. That is why a buyer who asks for "any GFSI scheme" is telling the truth: on paper, the three are interchangeable for supplier approval. In practice they are not, because each one grew up in a different market and carries different habits. If you want the broader background first, our overview of GFSI certification and how to get certified covers how the benchmarking works.

Do I need a GFSI scheme at all, or is FSMA compliance enough?

Legally, you need neither in the United States if you comply with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, hazard analysis, and risk-based preventive controls rules in 21 CFR Part 117. A GFSI certificate is a commercial requirement, not a regulatory one. FDA does not require it, and holding one does not exempt you from an FDA inspection.

That distinction matters for a small manufacturer because it changes the business case. You are not buying certification to satisfy a regulator. You are buying it to keep or win accounts. If no customer has asked and none is likely to in the next 18 months, a well-run Part 117 food safety plan, a documented preventive controls program, and a third-party GMP audit may be the right first step. If a buyer has already asked, skip ahead to the comparison.

Also worth knowing: 21 CFR 117.126 requires a written food safety plan prepared or overseen by a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual. Some very small businesses may be qualified facilities under 21 CFR 117.5(a) and Subpart D, which are subject to modified requirements instead of the full hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls provisions. Check whether you qualify, but note that a GFSI scheme will still expect a documented HACCP-based system. All three schemes will build on this work, so the effort is not wasted whichever way you go.

How do SQF, BRCGS and FSSC 22000 compare for a small manufacturer?

Here is the side-by-side I use as a starting point. The table is based on SQF Edition 9, BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9, and FSSC 22000 Version 6. Editions are revised, so confirm the current version on each scheme owner's site (linked in the cost section below) before you commit to an audit.

Two points from that table deserve more room.

First, FSSC 22000 is the only one of the three that sits on an ISO standard, but it is not the lighter path: you must also meet the scheme's own additional requirements and a prerequisite program standard on top of ISO 22000. If your company already runs an ISO 9001 quality system, the clauses on context, leadership, internal audit, and management review (ISO 22000:2018 clauses 4 through 10) will feel familiar, and you can often integrate rather than duplicate. If you have never run an ISO system, the same clauses can feel abstract compared to the more direct "do this, keep this record" language in SQF and BRCGS.

Second, the results differ. SQF produces a score and rating, and BRCGS assigns a grade tied to the number and severity of nonconformities. FSSC 22000 results in a certification decision without a grade. Grading rules change between editions, so check the current standard. A buyer who likes to compare suppliers by audit grade will notice the difference, and a plant owner who dislikes a lower grade on a certificate may prefer a pass or fail model.

Which scheme do customers actually ask for?

This is where most decisions get made, so I would not skip it. The following is a general pattern, not a rule, and not a substitute for asking your own customers:

• US grocery retail, club stores, and food service distributors frequently name SQF or BRCGS, and many accept either.
• UK and European retailers and their private-label suppliers usually name BRCGS first.
• Large multinational food companies and ingredient buyers often accept FSSC 22000 and sometimes prefer it because it matches the ISO systems they run internally.
• Co-packing for a brand owner depends entirely on what the brand owner has written into its supplier manual.

The only reliable way to know is to ask. Send your top five customers, or the five prospects you most want, a short email: "Which GFSI-benchmarked schemes do you accept for supplier approval, and do you have a preference?" Keep the answers. If four of five say SQF, you have your scheme, and you saved yourself a month of comparing PDFs.

If the answers are mixed, pick the scheme that your biggest or fastest-growing account names, and check whether your second tier will accept it. Switching schemes later is possible, but it means a new gap assessment, new documentation mapping, and a new certification body relationship.

How much does each scheme cost a small manufacturer?

I am not going to quote a dollar figure for each scheme, because certification body audit fees vary by site size, number of employees, number of HACCP studies, and region, and any number I print would be out of date quickly. What I can tell you is where the cost actually sits, and how it scales. Audit fees follow audit days, which rise with headcount, number of product lines and HACCP studies, and shifts, so a single-line plant with a few dozen employees sits at the low end of any certification body's range. Relative to each other, the three schemes' audit fees are usually similar for the same site; the larger differences come from internal time and facility fixes.

1. Audit fees. Paid to your certification body. A small plant with a single product line and a few dozen employees will have fewer audit days than a multi-line facility. Ask for quotes from at least two accredited certification bodies for the scheme you choose, and ask what a surveillance year looks like, not just the initial audit.
2. Scheme fees. SQF and BRCGS charge registration or database fees for certified sites. FSSC 22000 charges a foundation fee tied to the certificate. Current fee schedules are on each scheme owner's site (SQF Institute, BRCGS, FSSC), and they are worth pricing alongside the audit quote.
3. Internal time. This is the largest cost for a small company and the one nobody budgets. Someone has to write procedures, run the internal audits, hold the management review, and gather records. In a 25-person plant, that person is often also the quality manager, the sanitation lead, and the receiving supervisor.
4. Facility and equipment fixes. Gap assessments tend to find things like uncontrolled glass and brittle plastics, poorly drained floors, inadequate hand-wash stations, or missing allergen segregation. These are the same under all three schemes, because the underlying hazards do not care about the logo.

If I had to say which scheme costs a small manufacturer the least in internal time, it depends on where you are starting. A company with an existing ISO 9001 system will usually find FSSC 22000 lighter. A company with a mature HACCP plan and good Part 117 records but no ISO background will often find SQF the smoothest path. A company selling into UK or European private-label programs will find BRCGS worth the extra detail because it is what the buyer's auditors expect.

What does each scheme demand that surprises small plants?

SQF. The scheme requires a designated SQF practitioner for the site, with defined qualifications and a trained backup (check the requirement in the current SQF Code for your sector). Small plants are sometimes caught off guard that this is a named role and not just a job description line. SQF also separates its food safety code by industry sector, so you need to confirm you are working to the manufacturing code that matches your product category. For more on how the program is structured, see our SQF resource page.

BRCGS. The standard opens with senior management commitment and a food safety and quality culture plan, and the requirements throughout are written in considerable detail. Many small plants find the standard demanding on environmental monitoring, product security, and supplier approval. BRCGS also offers an unannounced audit option, which some buyers prefer and some small plants dread. The unannounced route does not change what the auditor is looking for, it only removes the preparation week, so it is a good test of whether your system actually runs on a normal Tuesday.

FSSC 22000. Because the scheme layers additional requirements on top of ISO 22000:2018, you have to meet both. These include food defense, food fraud mitigation, allergen management, and environmental monitoring, among others. Small plants that thought "ISO" meant a short list of clauses are sometimes surprised by the scheme-specific part. The other surprise is that ISO language leaves more room for interpretation, which is good for flexibility and uncomfortable for people who want to be told exactly what to write.

Which scheme fits which kind of small manufacturer?

Here are some common situations, and how I would lean in each. These are starting points to confirm with your customers.

A bakery, sauce maker, or snack producer selling to US regional grocers and distributors. I would lean SQF, then confirm with the accounts. The scheme is widely recognized by US buyers, the practitioner model gives a clear owner for the system, and the documentation style tends to suit a plant that already has HACCP.

A co-packer producing private-label product for a retailer with UK or European exposure. Lean BRCGS. If the retailer's supplier manual names it, the decision is made for you.

An ingredient manufacturer, blender, or seasoning company supplying other manufacturers. Lean FSSC 22000 or SQF, depending on what your customers' quality departments accept. Large manufacturers who already run ISO systems often welcome FSSC 22000, and I would ask them directly.

A company that already holds ISO 9001 and wants to add food safety under one management system. Lean FSSC 22000. Integrating the management review, internal audit, document control, and corrective action processes can reduce duplicated effort, and our team can help you map that if you want a hand with FSSC 22000 implementation.

A very small plant with no customer requirement yet. Hold off on choosing. Build a strong Part 117 food safety plan, get your GMPs and sanitation in order, and run an honest mock audit against the scheme your likely buyers use. You will lose nothing, because the work carries over.

How long does it take to get certified, and can I switch schemes later?

Timelines depend on how mature your system is when you start, so I will not give a single number; plants with little documentation should plan for a longer run than plants with a working HACCP program and records. What I can say is that the sequence is the same for all three schemes: a gap assessment against the standard, correction of gaps in documentation and facility, a period of operating the system so there are records to audit, internal audit and management review, and then the certification audit by an accredited certification body. Most small plants underestimate the "operating the system" step. An auditor wants to see records that show the program running over time, not procedures written last week.

If a customer has set a deadline, work backward from it and leave room for correcting nonconformities after the audit. Each scheme sets its own deadlines for closing out nonconformities, and they vary by the severity of the finding. Read the current scheme rules and confirm the dates with your certification body before you book an audit.

Can you switch schemes later? Yes, and plenty of companies do, usually because a new customer requires a different one. The good news is that the core work, hazard analysis, prerequisite programs, supplier approval, allergen control, and corrective action, transfers almost entirely. The part that does not transfer is the mapping: every document, procedure, and record that references a clause number has to be revisited. A plant that wrote its manual around clause numbers instead of around its own process will feel that pain.

My practical advice: write your procedures around how your plant actually works, and keep a separate cross-reference table to the scheme clauses. If you ever change schemes, you update the table and a handful of procedures instead of rewriting everything.

A decision path you can use this week

1. List your top customers and top prospects.
2. Ask each which GFSI-benchmarked schemes they accept and which they prefer.
3. Tally the answers. If one scheme wins clearly, choose it.
4. If the answers are mixed, check whether you hold an existing ISO system. If yes, give FSSC 22000 a serious look. If no, compare SQF and BRCGS on where your largest buyers are located.
5. Get quotes from at least two accredited certification bodies for the scheme you picked.
6. Order a gap assessment before you commit to an audit date.

If you want a side-by-side that also covers plain HACCP certification, our comparison of BRC, SQF and HACCP goes through it.

A plant that builds a binder for the audit will struggle with any of the three.

Last updated: 2026-10-13

Frequently Asked Questions

Which GFSI scheme is best for a small food manufacturer?

There is no single best scheme. SQF, BRCGS and FSSC 22000 are all GFSI-recognized, so the best choice is the one your key customers accept. Ask your top accounts which schemes they require, then choose the one that appears most often. If answers are mixed, an existing ISO 9001 system points toward FSSC 22000, and a US retail customer base often points toward SQF.

Is GFSI certification required by law?

No. In the United States the legal requirements for most manufacturers are in 21 CFR Part 117, including a written food safety plan under 117.126. GFSI certification is a commercial requirement set by buyers, not a regulatory requirement, and it does not exempt a facility from FDA inspection.

What is the difference between SQF, BRCGS and FSSC 22000?

All three are recognized against the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements. SQF and BRCGS are standalone food safety standards that score or grade audit results. FSSC 22000 is built on ISO 22000:2018 plus a prerequisite program standard and additional scheme requirements, and it gives a certification decision without a grade. Market recognition also differs: SQF is strong in US retail, BRCGS in UK and European supply chains, and FSSC 22000 with multinational manufacturers.

Can a small food company switch from one GFSI scheme to another?

Yes. Hazard analysis, prerequisite programs, supplier controls and corrective action transfer between schemes. The extra work is remapping documents to the new standard's clauses and booking a new certification audit, so writing procedures around your own process with a separate clause cross-reference makes switching easier.

Should a small manufacturer wait for a customer request before pursuing GFSI certification?

If no customer or prospect has asked and none is likely to soon, it is reasonable to first build a solid 21 CFR Part 117 food safety plan and run a mock audit. That work carries over to any scheme. Once a buyer names a requirement, you can move to a gap assessment with a clear target.