Comparison of the Purpose and Scope of the Two Standards
One of the most fundamental strategic decisions faced by food businesses during certification processes is making the right choice between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 standards. Although both standards offer systems centered on food safety and based on risk-oriented management approaches, they exhibit significant structural differences in terms of purpose, scope, and market positioning. Failure to properly analyze these differences may result in businesses having to revise their certification investments within a short period of time.
From the Kioscert perspective, the selection process between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 is not merely a technical answer to the question of “which certificate should I obtain?” This decision is directly linked to the markets in which the business operates, customer expectations, operational maturity level, and long-term growth objectives. Therefore, clearly understanding the differences in purpose and scope between the standards should be considered the first step of a sound certification planning process.
Primary Objective of the ISO 22000 Standard
The primary objective of the ISO 22000 Food Safety Management System standard is to ensure that organizations involved at any stage of the food chain systematically identify, evaluate, and control food safety hazards. The standard does not address food safety solely as an issue limited to production sites; it covers a broad interaction area extending from suppliers to logistics, storage, and supporting services.
One of the most significant characteristics of ISO 22000 is its applicability to organizations of different sizes and operating in various sectors. This structure, which addresses a wide user profile ranging from small-scale food businesses to multinational organizations, enables the standard to offer a flexible and adaptable framework. In this respect, ISO 22000 provides a strong foundation for entering food safety management systems.
Purpose-Oriented Positioning of the FSSC 22000 Standard
The FSSC 22000 standard is a certification scheme built upon ISO 22000, yet extending it further in certain aspects. Its primary objective is to place food safety management systems within a more detailed and structured framework that is accepted by global retailers, multinational brands, and international trade networks. For this reason, FSSC 22000 is not merely a management system standard but also a strong market acceptance mechanism.
While FSSC 22000 preserves the risk-based approach of ISO 22000, it additionally mandates sector-specific prerequisite programs (PRPs) and scheme-specific additional requirements. This structure aims to ensure that food safety practices become more standardized, measurable, and auditable in operational environments. As a result, FSSC 22000 stands out as a system positioned for organizations with a higher level of operational discipline.
Strategic Perspective
While ISO 22000 establishes the foundation of a food safety management system, FSSC 22000 should be considered an expanded version of this foundation in line with global market expectations.
Scope Approach and Applicability Differences
The ISO 22000 standard provides a general framework applicable to all organizations involved in the food chain. This scope is broad enough to include food manufacturers, packaging producers, transportation and storage service providers, as well as supporting activities such as cleaning and pest control services. This inclusive structure offers adaptability advantages for businesses with different operating models.
FSSC 22000, on the other hand, has a more clearly defined and sector-segmented scope. Separate technical specifications and PRP standards are defined for different categories such as food manufacturing, packaging materials, animal feed, logistics, and retail. This results in clearer boundaries and more detailed implementation expectations during the certification process.
Balance Between Flexibility and Standardization
ISO 22000 allows organizations greater flexibility in shaping their processes based on their own risk assessments. This flexibility represents a significant advantage, particularly for developing organizations or those at the early stages of their certification journey. However, a high level of flexibility may limit the perceived strength of the standard in certain markets.
FSSC 22000, by contrast, prioritizes standardization over flexibility. Scheme-specific additional requirements and detailed PRP definitions limit significant variations in implementation between organizations. This ensures that audit outcomes are more predictable and that the certificate gains stronger acceptance in international markets.
"Choosing the right standard should consider not only today’s needs, but also the markets the organization aims to reach in the future."
Initial Evaluation from the Kioscert Perspective
In preliminary evaluations conducted by Kioscert, ISO 22000 generally emerges as a recommended entry-level standard for organizations seeking to establish, structure, and gain organizational discipline in food safety management systems. In contrast, FSSC 22000 is positioned as a more strategic choice for organizations serving international customer portfolios or producing for global brands and retail chains.
Therefore, the comparison of purpose and scope represents the first and most critical decision stage of the certification process. An incorrect choice may lead to the need for post-certification revisions, resulting in time and cost losses. A well-founded analysis, on the other hand, accelerates the process and maximizes the return on certification investment.
The Impact of Customer Specifications and Market Expectations on Standard Selection
In choosing between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000, another decisive factor—alongside technical requirements—is customer specifications and target market expectations. Today, food businesses are no longer limited to regulatory compliance; they are also required to meet the certification levels demanded by their customers, retail chains, and export markets. This reality transforms standard selection from an operational decision into a strategic business development decision.
As frequently observed in Kioscert practices, a significant number of organizations initiate certification processes without sufficiently analyzing customer demands, which often leads to the need for certificate upgrades or system revisions in a short period. However, when customer specifications and market expectations are accurately interpreted, selecting the right standard at the outset provides both time and cost advantages.
The Role of Customer Specifications in Certification
Customer specifications are binding documents that define the technical, hygienic, and managerial requirements food businesses must comply with. Corporate customers, retail chains, and international brands in particular explicitly demand certain certification levels from their suppliers. While ISO 22000 may be accepted as a minimum requirement in some cases, many global customers mandate FSSC 22000 as a compulsory criterion.
ISO 22000 is generally positioned in customer specifications as an “acceptable” food safety management system. However, for organizations producing private label products or supplying large-scale retail chains, this standard may not always be considered sufficient. At this point, FSSC 22000 stands out as a tool that enhances customer confidence and accelerates supplier approval processes.
Critical Reminder
Before making a certification decision, the specifications of existing and potential customers must be thoroughly analyzed and certification requirements must be clearly identified.
National and International Market Expectations
Whether the target market is domestic or international has a direct impact on the choice between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000. For organizations operating primarily in local markets with a limited customer base, ISO 22000 often provides sufficient assurance. This standard effectively demonstrates that a food safety management system has been established and is being maintained.
In contrast, for organizations engaged in export activities or planning to enter export markets, market expectations shift to a different level. European Union countries, the North American market, and global retail chains frequently prefer certifications based on schemes recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). The key advantage of FSSC 22000 in this context is its recognition by GFSI and its high level of acceptance in global markets.
Retail Chains and Private Label Production
For organizations producing for retail chains or engaging in private label manufacturing, certification choice represents a critical competitive factor. In such business models, customers place significant emphasis not only on product quality but also on the maturity and auditability of the supplier’s management systems.
FSSC 22000 serves as a reference that facilitates faster approval in supplier evaluation processes of retail chains. Although ISO 22000 may be deemed sufficient by some chains, it often needs to be supported by additional audits or supplementary requirements. This situation can indirectly increase operational workload and audit-related costs.
Competitive Advantage and Marketing Impact
Certification is not merely an indicator of compliance; it is also a strategic element that supports marketing and sales processes. Holding an FSSC 22000 certificate clearly demonstrates alignment with international standards and creates a competitive advantage. Particularly during entry into new markets, this certificate accelerates the process of building trust.
ISO 22000, on the other hand, is generally positioned as a “basic competency” indicator from a marketing perspective. Depending on the organization’s target market, this positioning may represent either an advantage or a limiting factor. In Kioscert consultancy processes, ensuring alignment between the organization’s marketing strategy and certification choice is considered especially important.
"Certification choice is a commitment made to the customer; market expectations define the level of that commitment."
Correct Interpretation Through the Kioscert Approach
In preliminary analyses conducted by Kioscert, certification selection is recommended based on the organization’s existing customer portfolio and potential market targets. This approach aims to meet short-term needs while supporting long-term growth plans. An incorrect standard selection may lead to the need for certificate transition in later stages, resulting in additional cost and time losses.
Therefore, customer specifications and market expectations should not be considered secondary factors in the choice between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000; they must be treated as one of the determining criteria. Accurate analysis accelerates the certification process and enhances the organization’s competitive strength.
Additional Requirements and Implementation Cost Approach
When choosing between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000, the scope of additional requirements and the implementation costs these requirements impose on the organization constitute a critical area of evaluation. While both standards adopt a risk-based food safety management approach, they introduce different expectations in terms of implementation depth and level of detail. These differences directly affect pre-certification preparation time, resource requirements, and total investment cost.
In the Kioscert consultancy approach, cost evaluation is not limited solely to certification fees. Indirect costs such as training, documentation, infrastructure improvements, internal audit activities, and operational revisions are also analyzed from a total cost of ownership perspective. This approach enables organizations to base their certification decisions on more realistic and sustainable foundations.
Structure of Additional Requirements in ISO 22000
The ISO 22000 standard provides organizations with a certain level of flexibility in structuring their food safety management systems based on their own risk analyses. The standard defines core requirements but allows organizations interpretative space regarding how these requirements are implemented. This provides ease of application, particularly for organizations at the early stages of the certification process.
Within ISO 22000, additional requirements are largely shaped by the organization’s existing infrastructure and process maturity. PRPs can be defined within the organization’s own documentation, and sector-specific detail obligations remain limited. This structure makes it possible to keep implementation costs at a more controlled level.
Additional Requirements and Level of Detail in FSSC 22000
Although built upon ISO 22000, FSSC 22000 significantly elevates the level of implementation through scheme-specific additional requirements. These additional requirements cover areas such as mandatory application of sector-based PRP standards, food defense, food fraud prevention, labeling control, and supply chain management.
This broad scope requires more detailed documentation, more systematic record-keeping, and more disciplined on-site controls in FSSC 22000 implementations. As a result, FSSC 22000 expects a higher level of operational maturity and resource allocation from organizations. This expectation may cause implementation costs to be higher compared to ISO 22000.
Cost Perspective
While the additional requirements in FSSC 22000 may create higher costs in the short term, they can generate indirect gains in the long term by accelerating customer approval processes.
Analysis of Direct and Indirect Costs
Direct costs in the certification process consist of consultancy, training, and certification audit fees. For ISO 22000, these costs are generally more limited. In FSSC 22000, however, direct costs may increase due to additional audit time, extra requirements, and scheme expectations.
Indirect costs, although often overlooked, have a decisive impact on the overall budget. Process improvements, infrastructure investments, additional personnel requirements, and increased record management workload become more pronounced, particularly in FSSC 22000 implementations. Therefore, focusing solely on the certificate fee when evaluating costs may be misleading.
Resource Planning and Time Management
In ISO 22000 implementations, the preparation period is generally shorter and offers a fast transition opportunity for organizations with existing quality or food safety infrastructures. This creates advantages in terms of human resource and time planning.
In FSSC 22000, the preparation process requires a longer-term project-based approach. Integrating additional requirements into operations, expanding internal audits, and detailing documentation make time and resource planning more critical. This reality must be carefully considered during the standard selection phase.
"Cost is not only the budget spent, but also the time and opportunities lost when the wrong standard is selected."
Balanced Decision Through the Kioscert Approach
Kioscert recommends that organizations make balanced decisions between short-term budget constraints and long-term market objectives when evaluating additional requirements and cost considerations. While ISO 22000 offers an accessible entry point in terms of cost, FSSC 22000 provides strong positioning in global markets despite requiring higher investment.
Therefore, implementation cost should not be treated as a standalone determining criterion; it must be considered together with return on investment and strategic objectives. Proper analysis ensures that the certification process is managed in a sustainable and efficient manner.
Audit Structure and Certificate Acceptance Level
One of the key aspects to consider when choosing between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 is the audit structure and the level of market acceptance of the certificate. Although both standards are certified through third-party audits, they present significant differences in terms of audit scope, depth, and the commercial impact of audit outcomes. These differences directly determine the resources organizations must allocate to audit processes and the market value created by the certificate.
In certification and consultancy projects conducted by Kioscert, it is frequently observed that many organizations view audits merely as a technical obligation and evaluate certificate acceptance as a secondary factor. However, proper analysis of the audit structure and certificate recognition is a strategic factor that directly affects the return on certification investment.
Key Characteristics of the ISO 22000 Audit Structure
ISO 22000 certification audits aim to assess compliance of the food safety management system with standard requirements. Audits focus on core areas such as adequacy of documentation, risk analyses, PRP implementations, and traceability. Audit duration and depth may vary depending on the size and scope of the organization.
In ISO 22000 audits, the auditor’s interpretation margin is relatively broader. While this provides flexibility for organizations, it may lead to differing perceptions of audit outcomes across certification bodies. For some major buyers, this flexibility may be perceived as a factor limiting the perceived strength of the certificate.
Structural Differences in FSSC 22000 Audits
FSSC 22000 audits cover verification of ISO 22000 requirements in addition to scheme-specific additional requirements and sector-based PRP standards. This results in longer audit durations and more detailed examination of on-site practices. Audit planning is generally conducted within a more structured and standardized framework.
In FSSC 22000, the boundaries of auditor discretion are more clearly defined. Audit criteria are largely standardized in line with scheme rules and GFSI expectations. This structure ensures greater consistency of audit results across organizations and enhances the credibility of the certificate in international markets.
Audit Reality
Longer and more detailed audits may appear challenging in the short term, but they increase the long-term market value of the certificate.
Certificate Acceptance Level and the GFSI Effect
Certificate acceptance level is one of the most important indicators of how certification translates into commercial value. ISO 22000 has broad recognition as an international ISO standard. However, this recognition does not always equate to sufficient acceptance among global retailers and multinational brands.
The most distinguishing feature of FSSC 22000 is that it is a scheme recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). This recognition ensures that the certificate is directly accepted by major retail chains and brands worldwide. For this reason, FSSC 22000 serves as a strong reference, particularly for export-oriented organizations.
Commercial Impact of Audit Outcomes
Audit outcomes shape not only the certification decision but also the organization’s perception in the eyes of customers. Organizations that successfully pass FSSC 22000 audits typically face fewer additional controls during customer audits and can complete supplier approval processes more quickly.
Organizations holding ISO 22000 certification, however, may be subject to additional audits or supplementary requirements by certain customers. This can create indirect costs in terms of time and resources. Therefore, certificate acceptance level should be evaluated together with the audit structure.
"It is not the difficulty of the audit, but the trust created by the certificate in the market that endures."
Kioscert Assessment
When evaluating audit structure and certificate acceptance level, Kioscert bases its assessment on the organization’s target customer profile and market strategy. ISO 22000 may be sufficient for organizations operating in domestic markets and seeking to document a basic food safety management system, whereas FSSC 22000 emerges as a more strategic choice for organizations competing in global markets.
Therefore, audit structure should not be considered solely as a process experienced on the audit day, but rather together with the long-term commercial value of the certificate. Proper evaluation enables the certification process to deliver tangible added value to the organization.
Facility Infrastructure, PRPs, and Operational Maturity Requirements
In selecting between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000, the organization’s existing facility infrastructure, prerequisite programs (PRPs), and level of operational maturity play a decisive role. While both standards aim to control food safety risks, they introduce different expectations regarding infrastructure requirements and the degree of standardization of on-site practices. Therefore, choosing a standard without considering the organization’s physical and operational realities may lead to significant challenges during implementation.
In Kioscert consultancy processes, one of the most frequently encountered issues during pre-certification site analyses is the mismatch between the organization’s operational capacity and the expectations of the selected standard. Particularly in systems with more detailed requirements such as FSSC 22000, a certain level of maturity in facility infrastructure and PRP implementation is critically important.
Compliance of Facility Infrastructure with Standards
Facility infrastructure encompasses elements such as building design, layout of production areas, flow arrangements, equipment selection, and maintenance management. ISO 22000 requires facility infrastructure to be planned in a way that minimizes food safety risks; however, the level of detail of this planning is largely left to the organization’s risk analyses. This approach provides applicability advantages for organizations with varying infrastructure levels.
FSSC 22000, on the other hand, defines expectations regarding facility infrastructure through clearer and sector-based frameworks. Separation of production areas, arrangement of personnel and product flows to prevent cross-contamination, hygienic equipment design, and detailed maintenance planning are explicitly expected. This approach makes infrastructure deficiencies more visible during the certification process.
PRP Approach and Depth of Implementation
Prerequisite programs (PRPs) cover fundamental practices such as hygiene, cleaning, pest control, maintenance, personnel hygiene, and waste management, which form the foundation of the food safety management system. ISO 22000 mandates the definition and implementation of PRPs but provides organizations with a degree of flexibility regarding how technical details are addressed.
In FSSC 22000, PRPs are based on sector-specific technical standards, and implementation details are largely predefined. This structure enables more objective evaluation of on-site practices during audits. However, it also requires PRP implementations to be managed with greater discipline and a strong focus on records across the organization.
Operational Reality
The mere existence of PRPs on paper is not sufficient; consistent and traceable implementation in practice is a critical evaluation criterion, particularly in FSSC 22000 audits.
Importance of Operational Maturity Level
Operational maturity indicates the extent to which an organization defines, monitors, and continuously improves its processes. ISO 22000 provides a framework that allows operational maturity to be developed over time. In this respect, the standard serves as an appropriate starting point for organizations seeking to gradually structure their food safety management systems.
FSSC 22000, however, assumes a certain level of operational maturity as a starting condition. Processes are expected to be documented, recorded, and measurable, with effective internal audit and management review mechanisms in place. These requirements may necessitate a significant adaptation process for organizations with lower levels of operational discipline.
Infrastructure Investments and Improvement Needs
Standard selection often brings with it the need for infrastructure investments. In ISO 22000 implementations, such investments can typically be managed through limited and risk-based improvements. In FSSC 22000, more comprehensive improvements—such as facility layout modifications, equipment modernization, and strengthening of record systems—may be required.
At this stage, the organization’s investment capacity, growth objectives, and market expectations must be evaluated together. Through pre-certification infrastructure and PRP analyses, Kioscert aims to objectively determine which standard the organization is better prepared to implement.
"Standard selection should reflect not the facility’s current condition, but the operational level it aims to achieve in the future."
Compliance Assessment from the Kioscert Perspective
In the Kioscert approach, facility infrastructure and operational maturity are central to standard selection. While ISO 22000 offers a flexible roadmap for organizations seeking to develop their infrastructure gradually, FSSC 22000 is more suitable for organizations that have reached a certain maturity level and wish to transform this capability into a competitive market advantage.
Therefore, facility infrastructure, PRP implementations, and operational maturity level are among the fundamental criteria that must not be overlooked when choosing between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000. Proper analysis ensures that the certification process is managed in a more predictable and sustainable manner.
Integration Opportunities and Documentation Alignment
When choosing between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000, the organization’s capability to integrate with existing management systems and the level of documentation alignment constitute a critical area of evaluation. Today, food businesses often operate multiple management systems simultaneously and aim to establish integrated management systems covering quality, environment, and occupational health and safety. In this context, the degree to which the selected food safety standard aligns with the existing structure is of strategic importance.
In Kioscert consultancy processes, it is observed that organizations with high integration capability complete certification projects in a shorter time and with lower operational burden. The foundation of integration is formed by a common documentation structure, similar management cycles, and compatible terminology.
Compatibility of ISO 22000 with Integrated Management Systems
ISO 22000 follows a High-Level Structure (HLS) that is compatible with other ISO management system standards. This structure facilitates integration through common elements such as leadership, risk-based thinking, documented information, performance evaluation, and continual improvement. For organizations already certified to standards such as ISO 9001 or ISO 14001, the transition to ISO 22000 is generally faster and more manageable.
From a documentation perspective, ISO 22000 offers organizations a flexible structure. Revising existing procedures and instructions with a food safety perspective often reduces the need to create entirely new documents. This represents a significant advantage for organizations seeking to establish integrated management systems.
Structural Boundaries of Integration in FSSC 22000
Although FSSC 22000 is based on ISO 22000, scheme-specific additional requirements necessitate extra planning during the integration process. Requirements related to food defense, food fraud prevention, and scheme-specific records require documentation structures to be designed in greater detail. This may lead to an increase in the number of documents within integrated systems.
Nevertheless, when integrated with a well-structured documentation system, FSSC 22000 provides organizations with strong management discipline. Especially in organizations where quality and food safety processes are managed together, FSSC 22000 integration delivers long-term improvements in operational consistency.
Integration Note
While ISO 22000 offers greater flexibility in terms of integration, FSSC 22000 requires a higher level of documentation discipline.
Documentation Alignment and Simplification Approach
In integrated management systems, it is essential for documentation to be simple, clear, and free of overlaps. In ISO 22000 implementations, the number of documents can be kept under control through shared procedures and consolidated record forms. This approach facilitates system adoption by employees and supports correct implementation in operational environments.
In FSSC 22000, while documentation alignment is pursued, scheme requirements must be clearly distinguished. Shared documents may be used; however, additional documents and records are unavoidable in areas such as food defense, food fraud prevention, and detailed PRP requirements. This necessitates a professional approach to documentation management.
Management Cycle and Process Alignment
Both ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 are based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. This common approach enables integrated systems to manage management reviews, internal audits, and performance indicators collectively. While ISO 22000 allows this cycle to be applied within a more flexible framework, FSSC 22000 expects a more structured and record-focused implementation.
In integration projects, Kioscert aims to analyze existing management cycles and determine which standard enables a more compatible structure. This analysis prevents unnecessary document creation and eliminates redundant activities.
"Successful integration does not produce more documents; it produces more aligned processes."
Integration Decision Through the Kioscert Approach
From the Kioscert perspective, integration opportunities represent a strategic criterion that must not be overlooked in standard selection. ISO 22000 offers a practical solution for organizations seeking rapid adaptation to integrated management systems, whereas FSSC 22000 is more suitable for organizations aiming to establish a more complex but stronger management structure.
Therefore, integration and documentation alignment should be considered not only as a reflection of the current state, but also as an expression of the organization’s medium- and long-term management system vision. The right choice simplifies the certification process and enhances the effectiveness of management systems.
Selecting the Right Standard Through a Decision Matrix
The final decision between ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 cannot be reduced to a simple choice based on a single criterion. This selection requires the simultaneous evaluation of multiple variables such as market expectations, customer specifications, cost structure, facility infrastructure, operational maturity, and integration objectives. The decision matrix approach facilitates the selection of the right standard by enabling these variables to be analyzed within a systematic and objective framework.
In Kioscert practices, the decision matrix is considered one of the most critical stages of the certification process. Through this approach, organizations are able to make informed choices that take into account not only current needs but also medium- and long-term strategic objectives. The decision matrix replaces intuitive judgments with measurable and comparable data.
Defining Decision Criteria
The first step in building an effective decision matrix is the clear definition of the criteria to be evaluated. In ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 selection processes, commonly used criteria include target market structure, customer requirements, certificate acceptance level, implementation cost, facility infrastructure, PRP maturity, operational discipline level, and integration requirements.
Each of these criteria may carry different weights depending on the organization’s sector and strategic priorities. For example, certificate acceptance level is critical for an export-oriented organization, whereas implementation cost and rapid certification may be more decisive for an organization operating in the domestic market. Therefore, criteria should not be treated as fixed, but rather customized to the specific organization.
Decision Discipline
The decision matrix answers not the question “Which standard is better?”, but rather “Which standard is more suitable for this organization?”
Weighting of Criteria
The second stage of the decision matrix involves weighting the defined criteria according to their relative importance. Assigning equal weight to all criteria often fails to produce realistic outcomes. Instead, higher weights should be assigned to criteria that are directly linked to the organization’s strategic objectives.
For example, in an organization aiming to work with global retail chains, GFSI recognition and certificate acceptance level may be assigned higher weight, while cost and implementation time become secondary. Conversely, for an SME, cost control and flexibility may carry greater importance. This approach ensures that the decision matrix is tailored to the organization.
Scoring ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000
Once weighted criteria are defined, ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000 are objectively scored against each criterion. This scoring should take into account technical requirements, market acceptance, and operational expectations. The objective is to make the strengths and weaknesses of each standard visible through numerical comparison.
ISO 22000 typically scores higher in criteria such as flexibility, lower implementation cost, and faster transition, whereas FSSC 22000 stands out in certificate acceptance level, customer confidence, and competitiveness in international markets. When these differences are clearly reflected in the decision matrix, the selection process becomes more rational.
Interpreting Results and Strategic Decision-Making
Decision matrix results should not be viewed as an automatic decision mechanism. The resulting scores provide strong input to management; however, the final decision must be evaluated together with the organization’s growth plans, investment capacity, and risk appetite.
In the Kioscert approach, the decision matrix serves as a core input for strategic evaluation meetings conducted with management. During these sessions, matrix results are interpreted, potential scenarios are assessed, and the certification roadmap is clarified. As a result, standard selection becomes a deliberate and planned decision rather than a random one.
The right standard is not the one with the highest score, but the one that best serves the organization’s objectives.
Clarifying the Roadmap with Kioscert
Kioscert uses the decision matrix approach not only for standard selection, but also for designing post-certification development plans. For organizations that begin with ISO 22000, a medium-term transition scenario to FSSC 22000 can be planned, with required infrastructure and operational improvements defined in advance.
This holistic approach transforms certification from a one-time objective into a component of a continuous improvement journey. Selecting the right standard through a decision matrix enables organizations to derive maximum value from their food safety management systems.