The article covers FSSC’s Integrity Program on how the program safeguards certification quality through its three pillars (Performance, Compliance, Certification Integrity). It highlights key trends in nonconformities from desk reviews and office assessments, along with network performance data, and concludes that the certification network is maturing with more targeted oversight rather than declining quality.
At our 2026 Insights Event, our Integrity Program Director, Neil Milvain, shared an update on the FSSC Integrity Program (IP) and its continued role in driving continual improvement across the certification network.
The Mission Behind the Integrity Program
The Integrity Program aligns with FSSC’s vision of “creating a better world” by building trust through education, accountability, and transparency. Its main goal is to safeguard the integrity of the certification process through ongoing senior management support and effective processes that ensure reliable results.
Feedback from the Business Benefit Study earlier this year reinforced this: the Integrity Program is central to credibility, reinforcing disciplined certification practices and strengthening trust among Certified Organizations (COs), Certification Bodies (CBs), brands, regulators, and Accreditation Bodies.
The Current Landscape
The Integrity Program now oversees a large, geographically diverse certification network spanning tens of thousands of certificates across a broad range of countries. This network is supported by a wide roster of licensed Certification Bodies (CBs) and Accreditation Bodies (ABs), and a dedicated team of IP Assessors and IP Officers provides oversight.
Three Pillars of the Integrity Program
The Integrity Program is structured around three pillars:
Performance — Complaints Management, Serious Situation Management, Performance Evaluation, Onboarding Program, and Partner Performance Program.
Compliance — License Management (Approval, Maintenance, Scope Extensions), Compliance Breach, Non-conformity Management, Sanctions, and Exemptions.
Certification Integrity — Desk Reviews and Office Assessments.
Certification Integrity: A Risk-Based Approach
The Integrity Program uses a Risk-Based Approach (RBA) to determine the risk profile of each CB and, in turn, the level of oversight it receives. Factors considered include Leaf Score, the count of desk reviews (DR) and office assessments (OA), nonconformities (NCs), the total number of certificates, and the number of countries, among other elements.
Looking at RBA performance from 2023 through 2025, the overall risk profile across CBs has shifted, with a growing share of CBs now falling into higher-risk categories, even as fewer desk reviews are being triggered overall. Read together, this points to a system that is getting better at identifying and focusing attention on the CBs that most need it, rather than an across-the-board decline in performance.
Top Nonconformities from Desk Reviews
Three areas consistently generated the most nonconformities in desk reviews:
Sub-category Approval
- Insufficient supporting evidence for auditor subcategory approval
- Work experience not relevant, not specific enough, or not clearly linked to the approved category
- Products or processes not identified clearly enough to justify competence
- Sub-subcategory approval criteria or sign-off records missing
- Audits used as support dated after the approval or appointment date, making them invalid as evidence
- Training, exam, or qualification records missing or incomplete
- Consultancy or audit experience recorded in the wrong section or described too vaguely
Initial Qualification
- Training evidence is the biggest weakness, most often missing, incomplete, or unclear
- Witness audit records are a major recurring problem
- Audit experience is often not properly supported
- Approval and sign-off controls are inconsistent
Report and Content
- The most recurring issue is poor closure evaluation of previous nonconformities
- Climate change reporting is a major systemic gap
- Evidence in reports is often too generic
- Traceability and control measure reporting need strengthening
Nonconformities Grading and Office Assessments
The Nonconformities/Desk Review ratio and office assessment grades are closely monitored. The average number of major nonconformities increased from 2022 to 2024, then decreased in 2025-2026, indicating that efforts to resolve root causes are beginning to work.
Top Nonconformities from Office Assessments
Scope Statements
- Scope statements do not match actual operations
- Wrong or missing Food Chain Category assignments
- Contract review process is ineffective
- Common wording problems, including missing references to intended use in the food/feed industry, transport conditions, retail/wholesale activity, storage/distribution activity, and correct exclusions
Written Audit Report
- Insufficient evidence in audit reports
- Traceability weaknesses
- Food safety controls not fully documented
- Required report content is missing
- Technical review is not catching gaps
Competence General
- Ongoing competency evaluation is not adequately documented
- Training evidence is incomplete
- Competency records are weak or incomplete
- Compliance with scheme requirements is not fully demonstrated
Performance: Partner Performance and Serious Situations
Since late 2023, partner performance ratings have improved, with more CBs achieving top ratings and fewer receiving lower scores. This upward trend across all periods shows that the network is gradually raising its overall performance standards.
Serious situations and complaints have risen since 2022, especially from 2023 before leveling off. Complaints followed a similar pattern. This likely reflects more reporting and oversight, not a decline in certification quality. Falsified certificates were a recurring issue in serious situations and complaints.
Compliance: Breaches and Exemptions
Compliance breaches increased through 2025 before easing in early 2026. Warnings, nonconformities, and sanctions, including yellow and red cards and terminations, declined in early 2026 compared with 2025, while suspensions remained steady. Exemptions also rose and then fell in 2026.
What the Network Is Conveying
The session gathered live input on two key questions:
- How can FSSC IP support further improvement? Participants emphasized better access to performance data via dashboards, trend insights, and benchmarking, rather than more data overall.
- What barriers do organizations face? Barriers mainly involve internal capacity and data quality issues, such as managing change, limited resources, lack of digital tools, and unreliable data, with some feeling current requirements are overly restrictive.
Looking Ahead
This session’s findings indicate a maturing network: performance is improving, oversight is more targeted, and CBs and ABs are actively engaged in driving continual improvement. Key themes, including training, report quality, and traceability, offer CBs a clear focus for strengthening practices.
