Grille D 39-evaluation Iso 22000 Version 2018 Excel -
Optimisez votre système de management de la sécurité des denrées alimentaires (SMSDA) avec un outil puissant, structuré et personnalisable
La mise en conformité avec la norme ISO 22000:2018 représente un défi majeur pour toute entreprise de la chaîne alimentaire. Entre la compréhension de la structure de haut niveau (HLS), l’approche basée sur les risques (Plan de Maîtrise Sanitaire – PMS) et les exigences spécifiques au secteur, les auditeurs internes et les responsables qualité ont besoin de solutions opérationnelles. C’est ici qu’intervient la grille d’évaluation ISO 22000 version 2018 Excel.
Cet outil, souvent sous-estimé, est le couteau suisse de l’auditeur. Dans cet article, nous allons décortiquer sa structure, son utilité, et comment la concevoir ou l’optimiser pour transformer votre audit interne en véritable levier d’amélioration.
Plutôt que "Conforme / Non conforme", utilisez une échelle de 1 à 4 : grille d 39-evaluation iso 22000 version 2018 excel
Calculez automatiquement un score moyen par chapitre avec un graphique radar.
To create a professional evaluation tool, set up your Excel sheet with the following columns in the first row:
The transition to ISO 22000:2018 introduced the High-Level Structure (HLS), aligning the food safety management system with standards like ISO 9001:2015. For Food Safety Managers and Auditors, an Excel evaluation grid (or checklist) is the most efficient tool to assess compliance, conduct gap analyses, and prepare for certification. Optimisez votre système de management de la sécurité
Unlike static PDF checklists, an Excel grid allows for:
ISO 22000:2018 adopts the High-Level Structure (HLS) — common to all ISO management standards (clauses 4 to 10). An evaluation grid in Excel is not merely a checklist; it is a dynamic maturity tool. Unlike proprietary software, Excel offers transparency, full customizability, and traceability of evaluations without vendor lock-in.
The grid serves three functions:
Each row corresponds to a sub-clause (e.g., 5.1 Leadership and commitment, 8.4.2 Hazard analysis, 8.8.1 Validation of control measures).
The grid should preserve the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle:
| PDCA | Clause | |------|--------| | Plan | 4 (Context), 5 (Leadership), 6 (Planning) | | Do | 7 (Support), 8 (Operation) | | Check | 9 (Performance evaluation) | | Act | 10 (Improvement) |
You can copy the table below and paste it into Excel. This covers the main clauses of the standard. Plutôt que "Conforme / Non conforme", utilisez une
| Clause | Requirement Question | Audit Evidence | Status | Comments | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 4. Context of the Organization | | | | | | 4.1 | Has the organization determined external and internal issues relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended results of the FSMS? | | | | | 4.2 | Has the organization determined interested parties relevant to the FSMS and their requirements? | | | | | 4.3 | Has the organization determined the scope of the FSMS? Is it available as documented information? | | | | | 4.4 | Has the organization established, implemented, maintained, and continually improved a FSMS in accordance with the requirements of this document? | | | | | 5. Leadership | | | | | | 5.1 | Does top management demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the FSMS? | | | | | 5.2 | Has top management established, implemented, and maintained a food safety policy? Is it communicated? | | | | | 5.3 | Have relevant roles, responsibilities, and authorities been assigned and communicated? | | | | | 6. Planning | | | | | | 6.1 | Has the organization planned actions to address risks and opportunities? | | | | | 6.2 | Has the organization established FS objectives at relevant functions, levels, and processes needed for the FSMS? | | | | | 6.3 | Has the organization planned changes to the FSMS and manage them effectively? | | | | | 7. Support | | | | | | 7.1.1 | Does the organization determine and provide the resources needed for the establishment, implementation, maintenance, and improvement of the FSMS? | | | | | 7.1.2 | Are persons competent based on appropriate education, training, or experience? | | | | | 7.1.3 | Has the organization determined, provided, and maintained the infrastructure needed for the FSMS? | | | | | 7.1.4 | Has the organization determined, provided, and maintained the work environment needed for the FSMS? | | | | | 7.1.5 | Has the organization established, implemented, and maintained a traceability system? | | | | | 7.1.6 | Does the organization have documented procedures for the management of externally developed elements of the FSMS? | | | | | 7.2 | Are personnel competent? Is necessary competence determined on the basis of appropriate education, training, or experience? | | | | | 7.3 | Are personnel aware of the food safety policy, relevance of their activities, and implications of non-conformity? | | | | | 7.4 | Has the organization determined the internal and external communications relevant to the FSMS? | | | | | 7.5 | Does the FSMS include documented information required by this document and necessary for effectiveness? | | | | | 8. Operation (Operational Planning) | | | | | | 8.1 | Has the organization planned, established, implemented, and maintained the operational processes needed to meet requirements? | | | | | 8.2 | Prerequisite Programs (PRPs): Are PRPs established and documented? Do they support food safety? | | | | | 8.3 | Traceability: Is the traceability system able to identify product lots and their relation to batches of raw materials? | | | | | 8.4 | Emergency Preparedness: Are procedures established to manage potential emergency situations? | | | | | 8.5 | Hazard Control: Has the organization implemented a hazard analysis to determine hazards that need to be controlled? | | | | | 8.5.2 | Are the levels of acceptable/unacceptable hazards defined? | | | | | 8.5.4 | Are Control Measures (CCPs/OPRPs) categorized and managed effectively? | | | | | 8.6 | Are validation activities performed for the combination of control measures? | | | | | 8.7 | Verification: Is verification planned to ensure that the hazard control plan is implemented effectively? | | | | | 8.8 | Control of Nonconformities: Are procedures established to handle actual or potential nonconforming outputs? | | | | | 8.9 | Withdrawal/Recall: Are procedures established for the withdrawal and recall of products? | | | | | 9. Performance Evaluation | | | | | | 9.1 | Does the organization monitor, measure, analyze, and evaluate the performance of the FSMS? | | | | | 9.2 | Is the internal audit conducted at planned intervals? Does it report on the effectiveness of the FSMS? | | | | | 9.3 | Does top management review the FSMS at planned intervals to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness? | | | | | 10. Improvement | | | | | | 10.1 | Has the organization determined and selected opportunities for improvement and implemented any necessary actions? | | | | | 10.2 | Nonconformity and Corrective Action: When a nonconformity occurs, does the organization react and take action to control and correct it? | | | | | 10.3 | Does the organization continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the FSMS? | | | |