If your food safety and quality systems are documented separately, you're likely doing the same work twice. We build one integrated system on the shared structure both standards already use, and time it around the 2026 revision.
ISO 9001, the quality management system standard, and ISO 22000, the food safety management system standard, share the same high-level structure, Annex SL, used across modern ISO management system standards. Both standards use the same core clause numbering for context of the organisation, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation, and improvement.
For food businesses certified to both, or pursuing both, this shared structure means a significant portion of the documentation, internal audit scope, and management review content overlaps directly. Document control, internal audit procedures, corrective action processes, competence and training records, and management review all appear in both standards, often with near-identical wording, because both derive from the same Annex SL template.
Without integration, many food businesses end up maintaining two parallel management system manuals, running two separate internal audit programmes that cover much of the same ground from different angles, and holding two management review meetings where a single combined review would cover the same inputs and outputs more efficiently. Integration means addressing each shared clause once, in a single system, with food-safety-specific content, HACCP plans, PRPs, allergen controls, and quality-specific content, customer satisfaction monitoring, product conformity, layered in where the standards genuinely diverge.
ISO 9001 is used by over one million organisations across 189 countries, making it the most common management system standard a food business is likely to hold alongside ISO 22000 or FSSC 22000. The integration opportunity exists for any business holding, or pursuing, both.
Annex SL defines the common backbone every modern ISO management system standard builds on, including ISO 9001 and ISO 22000.
Understanding the organisation, its context, and the needs of interested parties. Largely shared between quality and food safety scopes.
Leadership commitment, policy, and roles. A single leadership commitment statement can address both quality and food safety policy requirements.
Risk and opportunity planning, objectives. Food safety hazard analysis and quality risk planning can be documented within one planning framework.
Resources, competence, awareness, communication, documented information. Almost entirely shared: one training matrix, one document control system.
The clause where the standards diverge most: HACCP plans and PRPs for food safety, product and service requirements for quality.
Monitoring, internal audit, management review. A single integrated audit programme and management review can cover both systems' requirements.
Nonconformity, corrective action, continual improvement. One corrective action process handles findings from either system.
In practice, Clauses 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are where the greatest integration opportunity lies, since these tend to be addressed almost identically by both standards. Clauses 6 and 8 are where food-safety-specific and quality-specific content genuinely needs to remain distinct, but even here, a shared planning framework can house both without duplicating the surrounding documentation structure.
The most widely used management system standard in the world is approaching its first revision since 2015, with publication expected within months.
ISO 9001:2026 is the upcoming revision of ISO 9001:2015. The Draft International Standard, DIS, was released on 27 August 2025 and formally approved by ISO member bodies. The Final Draft International Standard, FDIS, represents the approval stage before formal publication, expected around September 2026. The revision evolves and does not revolutionise: no existing 2015 requirements are removed.
An expanded Clause 5.1.1 requires top management to demonstrate leadership regarding quality culture, integrity, and ethical behaviour, with a corresponding awareness requirement in Clause 7.3.
Formal integration of climate change considerations, building on Amendment 1, ISO 9001:2015/Amd 1:2024, which took immediate effect in February 2024 and required organisations to assess whether climate change is a relevant external issue.
Clauses 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 separate treatment of risk from treatment of opportunity. Definitions move directly into ISO 9001, and the terms "maintain" and "retain" are replaced with requirements that documentation be available and retained as appropriate.
For food businesses, the quality culture and ethical behaviour emphasis in ISO 9001:2026 sits alongside a very similar emphasis already introduced into the food safety side through ISO 22002-100:2025's focus on management leadership and food safety culture. An integrated system built now has a natural place to house both: a single leadership commitment and culture framework that satisfies the food safety culture expectations already current, and is positioned to absorb ISO 9001:2026's equivalent requirements once published, without a second restructuring exercise. During the transition period, certification to either the 2015 or 2026 version may be accepted depending on accreditation body policy, but organisations already certified will need to transition to maintain certification.
Integration is relevant to any food business holding, or pursuing, both a quality and a food safety management system certification.
Organisations maintaining parallel ISO 9001 and ISO 22000/FSSC 22000 documentation with overlapping content addressed twice.
Operations conducting separate internal audit cycles for quality and food safety that cover substantially overlapping clauses.
Food businesses already certified to ISO 22000 or FSSC 22000 adding ISO 9001, building it integrated from the start and not as a separate system.
Organisations needing to plan for the ISO 9001:2026 transition, ideally as part of an integration exercise and not separately.
Businesses with multiple sites needing a consistent integrated management system structure applied across all locations.
Organisations also holding ISO 14001 or ISO 45001, which are also built on Annex SL, looking to extend integration further.
We cover the full scope of management system integration, from first gap assessment through to ISO 9001:2026 transition.
A review of existing quality and food safety management system documentation to identify duplication and gaps ahead of integration.
Development of a single, integrated manual and procedure set covering shared Annex SL clauses for both quality and food safety requirements.
Design of a combined internal audit programme covering both quality and food safety management system requirements in a single audit cycle.
Design of a single management review process covering inputs and outputs from both quality and food safety systems.
Support for organisations preparing to transition to ISO 9001:2026, including quality culture, ethical behaviour, climate change considerations, and restructured risk clauses.
A single leadership commitment and culture framework satisfying both ISO 22002-100:2025's food safety culture emphasis and ISO 9001:2026's quality culture requirements.
Review of context analysis under Clause 4.1 against ISO 9001:2015/Amd 1:2024 climate change requirements, ahead of formal integration in ISO 9001:2026.
For businesses adding ISO 9001 to an existing food safety certification, building the new system integrated from the outset.
A full mock audit reviewing the integrated system against both standards' requirements as a certification body would.
Integration follows a defined sequence. Our part of the process typically takes 1 to 2 weeks. Certification body audit scheduling is outside our control.
| Stage | What happens | Our role | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Documentation review | Existing quality and food safety management system documentation is reviewed for overlap and duplication. | We review both systems' documentation against Annex SL structure. | 2 to 3 days |
| 2. Gap assessment | Duplicated clauses, audit overlap, and management review structure are identified. | We deliver a written integration plan. | 1 to 2 days |
| 3. Integrated structure design | A single management system structure is designed, mapping shared and divergent clauses. | We design the integrated structure with your team. | 2 to 3 days |
| 4. Documentation consolidation | Manuals and procedures are consolidated into the integrated structure. | We develop the integrated documentation set. | 1 to 2 weeks |
| 5. Integrated audit programme design | A combined internal audit programme covering both systems is designed. | We develop the audit schedule and checklists. | 2 to 3 days |
| 6. Implementation | The integrated system is put into practice across affected sites. | We provide implementation support and review emerging records. | 2 to 3 weeks |
| 7. Mock integrated audit | A mock audit identifies remaining gaps before a certification body visit. | We conduct the mock audit and issue a findings report. | 1 to 2 days |
| 8. Certification audit(s) | The certification body assesses the integrated system against each standard's requirements. | We provide standby support and prepare responses to any findings. | Up to the certification body |
Our gap assessment maps exactly where your two systems currently overlap, and where they should stay distinct.
The assessment reviews existing quality and food safety management system documentation, where both exist separately, to identify clauses addressed twice with different wording, internal audit programmes covering overlapping scope separately, and management review cycles run independently for each system.
It produces a written plan for consolidating shared elements into a single integrated structure, while keeping food-safety-specific requirements, such as HACCP plans and PRPs, and quality-specific requirements, such as customer satisfaction monitoring, appropriately distinct where the standards genuinely diverge.
We map existing documentation from both systems against the Annex SL clause structure.
We identify clauses addressed twice and audit/review overlap.
We confirm which content must remain distinct, food-safety-specific vs quality-specific.
We produce a written gap assessment with a prioritised integration plan.
If you also hold ISO 14001 or ISO 45001, both built on Annex SL, we identify how those systems fit into the same integrated structure.
The same issues appear across integrated management system reviews regardless of sector. Knowing where these gaps cluster is the most effective preparation.
Documentation that nominally integrates two standards but in practice still contains duplicated procedures with slightly different wording for the same requirement, such as two separate document control procedures, doesn't deliver the efficiency integration is meant to provide.
Internal audit programmes that schedule food safety and quality audits separately despite covering overlapping clauses miss the efficiency gain integration is meant to provide, and can leave the same area audited twice in a year while another goes unaudited.
Management reviews that address quality and food safety as separate agenda items and not as a single review covering both systems' inputs and outputs treat integration as a formatting exercise and not a structural one.
Integration work that addresses the current standards but has no plan for incorporating the ISO 9001:2026 revision once published risks a second integration exercise shortly after the first is completed.
Over-integrating content that genuinely needs to remain distinct, such as merging a HACCP plan's hazard analysis into a generic quality risk register, can obscure food-safety-specific detail that auditors expect to see clearly addressed.
Quality culture and food safety culture initiatives run as standalone programmes, disconnected from the management system documentation they're meant to support, miss the integration opportunity both ISO 9001:2026 and ISO 22002-100:2025 point toward.
Understanding how these standards relate clarifies what integration can, and can't, combine.
| ISO 9001 | ISO 22000 | FSSC 22000 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Quality management, any sector | Food safety management | Food safety, GFSI-recognised scheme |
| Structure | Annex SL | Annex SL | Built on ISO 22000 + scheme requirements |
| 2026 status | FDIS stage, publication ~Sep 2026 | 2018 edition current | Version 7 expected ~May 2026 (PRP alignment) |
| Our consulting | ISO 9001 Integration | ISO 22000 | FSSC 22000 |
What drives the timeline and cost of an integration project. We provide a written proposal with a fixed fee after the initial consultation.
Timeline
How long our consulting work takes
Cost factors
What drives the consulting fee
Both ISO 9001 and ISO 22000/FSSC 22000 already certified separately. Our consulting work typically takes 2 to 3 weeks.
Adding ISO 9001 to an existing food safety certification, built integrated from the start. Our consulting work typically takes 1 to 2 weeks.
Existing ISO 9001:2015 certification needing transition planning, ideally combined with an integration exercise.
Design of a combined internal audit schedule and checklists covering both systems' requirements.
A single-site operation requires less integration work than a multi-site business needing consistent application across locations.
Businesses also holding ISO 14001 or ISO 45001 can extend the integrated structure to include these, scoped accordingly.
A gap assessment only, a full integration package, or an ISO 9001:2026 transition plan each carry different fees. All scopes are defined in writing before work begins.
Audit fees for each standard are set by the certification body and are separate from our consulting fees.
Answers to the questions we hear most often from food businesses managing multiple management system certifications.
ISO 9001, the quality management system standard, and ISO 22000, the food safety management system standard, share the same high-level structure, Annex SL, used across modern ISO management system standards. This means both standards use the same core clause numbering for context, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation, and improvement. Integrating the two avoids maintaining two separate management system manuals, two separate internal audit programmes, and two separate management review cycles for requirements that substantially overlap, such as document control, internal audit, corrective action, and management review.
ISO 9001:2026 is the upcoming revision of ISO 9001:2015, the world's most widely used quality management standard, used by over one million organisations across 189 countries. The Draft International Standard, DIS, was released on 27 August 2025 and formally approved by ISO member bodies, and the Final Draft International Standard, FDIS, represents the approval stage before formal publication, expected around September 2026. The revision evolves and does not revolutionise: no existing 2015 requirements are removed, but clarifications, terminology updates, and several new requirements are introduced.
Based on the Draft International Standard, key changes include: an expanded Clause 5.1.1 requiring top management to demonstrate leadership regarding quality culture, integrity, and ethical behaviour, with a corresponding awareness requirement in Clause 7.3. Formal integration of climate change considerations into the standard, building on Amendment 1, ISO 9001:2015/Amd 1:2024, which took immediate effect in February 2024. Restructured risk management under Clauses 6.1.2 and 6.1.3, separating treatment of risk from treatment of opportunity. Terminology changes, including definitions brought directly into ISO 9001 instead of relying solely on ISO 9000, and the terms maintain and retain no longer used, replaced with requirements that documentation shall be available and retained as appropriate.
Annex SL is the common framework ISO uses for management system standards, defining a shared set of core clauses, context of the organisation, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation, and improvement, with consistent numbering and largely consistent terminology across standards built on it, including ISO 9001 and ISO 22000. Because both standards share this structure, an integrated management system can address each shared clause once, with food-safety-specific or quality-specific content layered in where the standards diverge, instead of addressing the same clause twice under different headings for two separate systems.
An integration gap assessment reviews existing quality and food safety management system documentation, where both exist separately, to identify clauses addressed twice with different wording, internal audit programmes covering overlapping scope separately, and management review cycles run independently for each system. It produces a written plan for consolidating shared elements into a single integrated structure, while keeping food-safety-specific requirements, such as HACCP plans and PRPs, and quality-specific requirements, such as customer satisfaction monitoring, appropriately distinct where the standards genuinely diverge.
Not necessarily. Integration refers to the management system itself, the documentation, internal audits, and management review, being combined into one coherent system addressing both standards' requirements. Certification audits may still be conducted against each standard separately, or combined into a single integrated audit, depending on the certification body's approach and accreditation scope. The operational benefit of integration, reduced duplication in documentation and internal audit effort, applies regardless of whether certificates are issued separately or combined.
No. Building an integrated management system now, against the current ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 22000:2018, establishes the shared structure that the ISO 9001:2026 revision builds on and does not replace, since no existing 2015 requirements are removed. Organisations that integrate now are positioned to apply the 2026 revision's additional requirements, quality culture, ethical behaviour, climate change, restructured risk clauses, to an already-integrated system, instead of integrating two systems and transitioning to a new revision at the same time.
The most common issues are: documentation that nominally integrates two standards but in practice still contains duplicated procedures with slightly different wording for the same requirement, such as two separate document control procedures. Internal audit programmes that schedule food safety and quality audits separately despite covering overlapping clauses, missing the efficiency integration is meant to provide. Management reviews that address quality and food safety as separate agenda items and not as a single review covering both systems' inputs and outputs. Integration work that addresses the current standards but has no plan for incorporating the ISO 9001:2026 revision once published, risking a second integration exercise.
Our consulting work moves fast. A gap assessment of existing documentation typically takes a few days, and developing an integrated management system manual and procedure set typically takes 1 to 2 weeks, depending on how much existing documentation can be consolidated versus rewritten. Certification body audit scheduling for either standard is separate and outside our control.
Yes. Gap assessments, integrated documentation development, integrated internal audit programme design, and ISO 9001:2026 transition planning are all available remotely. We work with clients worldwide. On-site visits are available for mock audits where a physical review of integrated practices is needed.
You can commission any of these on their own, with an agreed scope and a written quote, without taking on ongoing consulting. See all food safety services.
Where the clause requires audits and nobody internal is independent enough.
Read about An internal audit →Where the documents themselves are the gap.
Read about Documentation development →To establish whether your controls were ever proven capable.
Read about A verification and validation review →Tell us which certifications you hold or are pursuing, and how your documentation is currently structured. We will tell you exactly where integration helps.