Understanding Compliance Levels in IFS Audits

When food manufacturers undergo an International Food Standard (IFS) audit, they’re evaluated on every aspect of their food safety and quality management systems. Unlike simple pass-fail assessments, IFS uses a nuanced scoring system that categorizes compliance into distinct levels. Understanding these levels, particularly the critical knockout criteria, is essential for any facility seeking or maintaining IFS certification.

How IFS compliance levels work 🔗

The IFS audit system evaluates each requirement using a point-based approach. Auditors assess compliance on four levels: A for full compliance, B for minor attention points, C for deviations, and D for major non-compliance. Each level carries specific point values that contribute to the facility’s overall score, which ultimately determines certification eligibility.

During an audit, every requirement in the IFS checklist receives individual evaluation. The auditor examines documentation, observes processes, interviews staff, and inspects physical facilities to determine the appropriate compliance level for each criterion. This thorough assessment ensures that facilities maintain consistent food safety standards across all operations.

The four compliance levels explained 🔗

A-level: Full compliance 🔗

When a facility achieves A-level compliance, it means the requirement is fully met according to the standard’s specifications. This earns 20 points per requirement. Full compliance demonstrates that the facility has effectively implemented all necessary controls, maintains proper documentation, and follows established procedures without deviation.

B-level: Minor points of attention 🔗

A B-level rating indicates almost full compliance with minor issues that don’t yet constitute deviations. This scores 15 points. These are points of attention that could potentially develop into problems if not addressed. For example, slightly incomplete documentation or minor procedural inconsistencies might receive a B rating. While corrections aren’t immediately required for B-level findings, facilities should address them to prevent future escalation.

C-level: Significant deviations 🔗

C-level compliance means only a small part of the requirement has been implemented, earning just 5 points. These represent significant gaps that require corrective action. Deviations at this level indicate substantial non-conformity with IFS requirements, such as inadequate implementation of critical procedures or missing essential documentation. Facilities must develop and execute corrective action plans to address C-level findings before certification can be granted.

D-level: Requirements not implemented 🔗

A D-level rating signals that a requirement hasn’t been implemented at all, resulting in 0 points. This represents complete failure to address a specific standard requirement. When applied to regular requirements, D ratings significantly impact the overall score. However, when applied to knockout criteria, a single D rating results in automatic audit failure regardless of performance in other areas.

Understanding knockout criteria 🔗

Among all IFS requirements, ten are designated as knockout (KO) criteria. These represent the most critical aspects of food safety that cannot be compromised. Failure in any KO requirement results in automatic audit failure, making certification impossible regardless of the facility’s overall score.

The severity of knockout criteria reflects their fundamental importance to food safety. These requirements form the foundation upon which all other food safety measures are built. Without proper implementation of KO criteria, even excellent performance in other areas cannot ensure consumer safety.

The ten knockout requirements 🔗

Management commitment: Senior management must demonstrate clear commitment to food safety through documented policies, resource allocation, and active involvement. This includes ensuring employees understand their food safety responsibilities and implementing mechanisms to monitor operational effectiveness.

HACCP system and CCP monitoring: Facilities must maintain a fully implemented HACCP system based on Codex Alimentarius principles. Each Critical Control Point requires specific monitoring procedures with defined methods, frequencies, and documented results to detect any loss of control.

Personal hygiene: Comprehensive personal hygiene standards must be established, implemented, and maintained for all personnel, contractors, and visitors. This includes documented requirements for protective clothing, hair restraints, and procedures for managing infectious diseases that could impact food safety.

Customer agreement: Clear agreements with customers must be established and maintained, ensuring all parties understand requirements and specifications for products and services.

Raw material specifications: All raw materials and ingredients require documented specifications that include food safety parameters. These specifications must be regularly reviewed, updated, and approved to ensure incoming materials meet safety standards.

Foreign material risk mitigation: Effective programs must be in place to prevent physical contamination. This includes metal detection, glass and brittle plastic control, and procedures to minimize foreign body risks throughout the production process.

Traceability system: A documented traceability system must enable complete tracking of product lots and their relationship to raw material batches, packaging materials, and legally required information. The system must work both forward and backward through the supply chain.

Internal audits: Effective internal audits must be conducted according to an agreed schedule, covering all IFS requirements. The scope and frequency should be based on hazard analysis and risk assessment, including any off-site storage locations.

Recall procedures: An effective procedure must exist for product recalls and withdrawals, ensuring affected customers are informed as quickly as possible. The procedure must clearly define responsibilities and include regular testing to verify effectiveness.

Corrective actions: When deviations or non-conformities are identified, corrective actions must be clearly formulated, documented, and implemented promptly. Each corrective action requires defined responsibilities and timeframes, with documentation stored securely and accessibly.

Major non-conformances beyond knockout criteria 🔗

While not as severe as knockout failures, major non-conformances represent significant failures to meet standard requirements that could lead to serious food safety risks. These differ from KO requirements in that they don’t automatically fail an audit, but they do prevent certification if not addressed.

Major non-conformances typically involve substantial process failures that could impact product safety, critical gaps in required documentation, or significant breakdown in control systems. For example, inadequate temperature control during processing, missing hazard analysis documentation, or failure to verify supplier compliance could constitute major non-conformances.

When an audit identifies one major non-conformance and the overall score is 75% or higher, facilities may undergo a follow-up audit focused specifically on verifying the corrective actions. However, multiple major non-conformances or a major non-conformance combined with a score below 75% results in audit failure requiring a full re-audit.

The not applicable designation 🔗

During audits, some requirements may not apply to specific facilities or products. When this occurs, auditors designate them as “Not Applicable” (NA). This designation is important because it affects score calculation. The total available points are adjusted to exclude NA requirements, ensuring facilities are only evaluated on applicable criteria.

For NA designations to be valid, auditors must provide clear explanations in the audit report. This documentation ensures transparency and prevents inappropriate use of the NA designation to avoid evaluation of legitimate requirements.

How compliance levels affect certification 🔗

The final audit score, calculated as a percentage of total available points, determines certification level. Scores above 95% earn Higher Level certification, demonstrating exceptional compliance and mature food safety systems. Scores between 75% and 95% result in Foundation Level certification, indicating the facility meets basic requirements but has room for improvement.

Scores below 75% mean no certification is granted. Similarly, any knockout requirement rated as D results in automatic certification failure regardless of the overall score. This stringent approach ensures that critical food safety elements are never compromised, even when other areas show strong performance.

The role of the audit report 🔗

The audit report serves as the official record of findings and forms the basis for certification decisions. Auditors must provide detailed explanations for all findings, including requirements scored with B, C, or D ratings, major and knockout non-conformities, and any requirements designated as not applicable.

This comprehensive documentation helps facilities understand their performance, identify areas for improvement, and develop effective corrective action plans. The report also serves as a roadmap for continuous improvement, guiding facilities toward higher compliance levels in subsequent audits.

What do you think? How might implementing a systematic approach to addressing minor deviations before they become major non-conformances improve your facility’s overall food safety culture?

References

1. https://goaudits.com/blog/ifs-audits/
2. https://www.foodsafety-experts.com/knock-out-ko-criteria-ifs-food-version-8/
3. https://www.fda.gov/food/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp/haccp-principles-application-guidelines