Why Listening to Early ISO 22000:2018 Adopters Matters
When ISO 22000:2018 first came out, many organizations weren’t sure how different the new version really was. What stood out early on was something I saw repeatedly while guiding clients through their transition: the companies that moved first uncovered patterns—what worked, what didn’t, and what mattered far more than the text of the standard suggested.
If you’re preparing your own transition or strengthening an existing FSMS, learning from those early adopters saves you time, reduces guesswork, and helps you skip the mistakes others already paid for.
This guide walks through the most practical lessons early adopters shared—insights that help you transition faster and more confidently.
Now that we’ve set the context, let’s dig into what they discovered.
One of the first surprises early adopters faced was realizing how much ISO 22000:2018 depends on the strength of your prerequisite programs. Many teams expected the big changes to show up in HACCP or CCP logic, but the real pressure fell on sanitation, allergen control, infrastructure, and maintenance programs.
When PRPs were outdated, teams struggled to justify OPRPs and CCPs under the new decision tree. When PRPs were solid, reclassification became much easier.
Insights early adopters shared:
Cleaning and sanitation PRPs were often the weakest link.
Allergen-control programs needed more detailed monitoring.
Maintenance programs weren’t aligned with food-safety risks.
Pro Tip: Review PRPs before touching your hazard analysis. You’ll save hours of rework.
Early Lesson #2: Leadership Involvement Needed More Than Expected
Many early adopters underestimated how visible leadership accountability becomes under ISO 22000:2018. The standard no longer treats leadership as a signature on a policy—it expects active involvement.
The organizations that transitioned smoothly had leadership teams who participated in reviews, understood risks, and communicated expectations clearly.
Patterns we saw:
Leadership needed clearer roles in food-safety governance.
Food-safety objectives became more measurable and strategic.
Management reviews gained structure and depth.
Common pitfall: Delegating everything to the Food Safety Team Leader. Auditors quickly flagged this.
Early Lesson #3: Understanding Risk at Two Levels Was a Game-Changer
ISO 22000:2018 introduced two very different types of risk—business-level risk and operational food-safety hazards. Early adopters often blended these together at first, which created confusion and weak documentation.
Once organizations separated strategic risks (like supply chain disruption) from operational hazards (like pathogen growth), everything clicked into place.
Observations:
Two risk matrices worked better than one combined tool.
Leadership became more aware of strategic risks.
The hazard analysis became clearer once risks were separated.
Pro Tip: Keep the two risk processes distinct. It makes audits smoother and decisions sharper.
Early Lesson #4: Reclassifying PRPs, OPRPs & CCPs Required More Discussion Than Expected
Early adopters assumed reclassifying control measures would be quick—until they began applying the 2018 decision tree. Suddenly, long-standing CCPs were under review, PRPs needed strengthening, and OPRPs shifted categories.
The most successful teams held cross-functional workshops to walk through the decision tree together. These conversations clarified responsibilities and reduced misunderstandings.
Key takeaways:
Some CCPs were downgraded to OPRPs.
Some OPRPs were absorbed into stronger PRPs.
Several controls needed clearer monitoring or verification.
Common pitfall: Trying to make the new logic match the old system instead of letting the decision tree guide the process.
Early Lesson #5: Documented Information Needed a Complete Clean-Up
The transition to “documented information” exposed inconsistencies that had been hidden for years. Early adopters found mismatches between procedures, forms, logs, and monitoring records that didn’t align with updated requirements.
The organizations that performed a document-control clean-up early had a smoother transition overall.
Typical findings:
Old clause numbers still showing up in procedures.
SOPs updated, but forms still outdated.
Multiple versions of the same document circulating internally.
Pro Tip: Update your FSMS index or manual before reviewing individual documents. It gives you a clean structure to work from.
Early Lesson #6: Internal Audits Made or Broke the Transition
Internal audits became one of the most reliable tools for early adopters. The teams who ran focused transition audits uncovered issues before certification bodies did.
They found gaps in:
Context and interested-party analysis
Evidence of strategic risk
PRP alignment
Reclassified CCPs and OPRPs
Training and communication
Document consistency
Pro Tip: Run a readiness audit at least two months before your certification audit. It gives you time to respond properly.
Common pitfall: Using old internal-audit checklists that didn’t reflect 2018 changes.
Early Lesson #7: Training and Change Management Needed More Time Than Expected
Early adopters realized quickly that updating documents is the easy part—changing behavior takes more effort. Operators, supervisors, maintenance teams, and even middle management needed time to adjust.
The most successful teams focused on short, practical training supported by visual changes to workflows and work instructions.
Effective approaches included:
Toolbox talks after every major update
Updated visual SOPs in work areas
Clear communication about why changes were made
Role-specific competency checks
Common pitfall: Updating a PRP or procedure without updating training materials at the same time.
FAQs – Lessons Learned from Early ISO 22000:2018 Adopters
What was the biggest struggle early adopters faced?
Updating PRPs and reclassifying control measures using the 2018 decision tree.
Did early adopters need to rebuild their entire FSMS?
No. Most systems required targeted improvements—especially in PRPs, risk, leadership involvement, and documentation.
How long did it usually take early adopters to transition?
Most completed their transition in 3–6 months, depending on FSMS maturity and internal audit strength.
Conclusion – Applying the Lessons from Early ISO 22000:2018 Adopters
The experience of early ISO 22000:2018 adopters gives you a shortcut. Their successes—and struggles—make it easier to focus your transition efforts where they matter most: strong PRPs, clear risk separation, updated documentation, engaged leadership, and proactive internal audits.
Based on what I’ve seen, the organizations that learn from these early lessons transition faster, manage change more smoothly, and walk into their certification audit with real confidence.
Melissa Lavaro is a seasoned ISO consultant and an enthusiastic advocate for quality management standards. With a rich experience in conducting audits and providing consultancy services, Melissa specializes in helping organizations implement and adapt to ISO standards. Her passion for quality management is evident in her hands-on approach and deep understanding of the regulatory frameworks. Melissa’s expertise and energetic commitment make her a sought-after consultant, dedicated to elevating organizational compliance and performance through practical, insightful guidance.
