TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9vsIATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production

See exactly how BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 controls map to IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
17
Gaps Found
21%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 maps to IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production with 21% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 28 BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 controls identifies 22 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Product and Process Control.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 28 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Senior Management Commitment(6 mappings)

1.1Senior Management Commitment and Continual Improvement2 targets
→IATF-10.2Nonconformity and Corrective Action
→IATF-4.4Quality Management System and Its Processes
1.2Food Safety and Quality Culture2 targets
→IATF-10.3Continual Improvement
→IATF-9.2Internal Audit
1.3Organizational Structure and Responsibilities2 targets
→IATF-10.3Continual Improvement
→IATF-9.2Internal Audit

Food Safety and Quality Management System(5 mappings)

3.1Food Safety and Quality Manual2 targets
→IATF-10.2Nonconformity and Corrective Action
→IATF-4.4Quality Management System and Its Processes
3.3Record Completion and Maintenance2 targets
→IATF-10.3Continual Improvement
→IATF-9.2Internal Audit
3.5Management of Suppliers
→IATF-8.4Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products and Services

Related Comparisons

Other BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 comparisons

BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence12 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR)12 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs AS9100D — Aerospace Quality Management System12 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs ISO/IEC 27003:201712 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products12 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — General Requirements for Testing and Calibration Laboratories12 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs ISO 15189:2022 — Medical Laboratories Requirements for Quality and Competence12 mappingsBRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements12 mappings

Other IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production comparisons

AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production8 mappingsSQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production8 mappingsAS9100D — Aerospace Quality Management System vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production8 mappingsISO/IEC 27003:2017 vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production8 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production7 mappingsILO Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977) vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production7 mappingsFTC Health Breach Notification Rule vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production7 mappingsASEAN Data Management Framework vs IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production7 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 and IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 has 28 controls across its framework, while IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production covers 25 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (21% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Product and Process Control, where 6 BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 controls have no direct IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production equivalent.

How many controls map between BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 and IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

Of 28 total BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 controls, 6 map directly to IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls — representing 21% coverage. The remaining 22 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 to IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

22 BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 controls have no direct equivalent in IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production. The highest concentration of gaps is in Product and Process Control with 6 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 and IATF 16949:2016 — Quality Management System for Automotive Production?

The domain with the highest gap count is Product and Process Control (6 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.