11 minute read
How to develop and mature a food safety culture: the human factor
NZ Food Safety Science & Research Centre Symposium
Food safety culture was one of the main themes at the NZ Food Safety Science & Research Centre annual symposium in Hamilton, 1 July. Swiss-based food safety culture luminary, Lone Jespersen (Cultivate SA), was a compelling keynote speaker, seemingly unaffected by jetlag.
Lone remembers the shapes of the trees and the colour of the sky on the day in 2008 when she learned that a major outbreak of listeriosis was linked to sliced meat from Maple Leaf Foods, her, up-to-that-moment, highly reputable employer of 11 years. The cost was staggering. Twentythree people died, and many more were very sick and ended up in hospital. The recall cost the company over CAD$75 million.
Thus began Lone’s investigation into the importance of food safety culture within food companies. The term had barely been coined, literature was non-existent, and there were no sessions on it at food safety conferences. She uses the GFSI definition of food safety culture: ‘The shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mindsets and behaviour towards food safety in, across, and throughout, the company’.
“My job was to work with the new chief food safety officer at Maple Leaf Foods. There were lots of reasons why the contamination happened, but it came back to assumptions we made as leaders,” says Lone. “We had left food safety largely up to the food safety and quality people. All of that had to change.”
Now Lone is in demand by other food companies. She reported from her assessment of 155 companies that only half the CEOs and managers had any detailed knowledge of food safety hazards and associated risks. Food safety is just not on the Board agenda until something bad happens. “It bothers me tremendously that they don’t understand the food safety risk unique to their businesses.”
“Food safety culture needs to start at the top, with managers reflecting its importance, and showing a close interest in what’s happening on the factory floor.”
The best food safety plans and protocols, manuals, posters, stickers and training videos cannot, alone, ensure compliance or a desire to comply. “You’ve got to think about the human factor,” says Lone. “You need to put culture and systems together. Or safe food is just not sustainable.”
Staff who don’t really understand the reasons for the rules are more likely to be in breach of them or take shortcuts. Just because they’ve been through a training course doesn’t mean they really understand it or appreciate the risks. Companies must check their understanding after training courses, and regularly reinforce the training. “Food safety is all about risk and risk communication,” says Lone. “Do we use scare tactics or do we engage?” we really hadn’t connected our people to what we were doing.
Her research has also shown that many companies are weak when it comes to adaptability. Food safety is not static. It’s not just the pathogens that keep evolving. Managers and relationships change. For example, a key staff member or supervisor might leave, affecting emotions and behaviours.
As with Maple Leaf Foods, a very damaging recall, albeit precautionary, led to a major rethink at Fonterra.
Felicity Champion, people change specialist at Fonterra, also presented to the symposium, outlining the company’s work over the last 10 years since the ‘WPC incident’ as it is known, to develop a food safety culture.
“In dairy companies, with long supply lines, there are so many touchpoints where things can go wrong . . . we used to be all about the metrics, how much we were producing in what time frame . . .
“Of all the many things we did, post 2013, the thing that landed most was our leadership fronting up to staff round the country. In a memorable presentation, a senior manager said, “If you need to stop the line for a food safety issue, I will back you.” That had quite an impact, as staff know the serious consequences of stopping production.
“We also considered what rewards and incentives we needed to put in place. We need to value the quiet achievers who turn up every day and do it right.
“Latterly, we have started measuring our culture internally with an anonymous, voluntary, survey. Among other things, it tests their level of comfort in approaching managers with problems.” company represented in the research has 32 different ethnicities in the business, requiring clear visual signage and signage in other languages. Constant reinforcement is needed.
NZFSSRC Manager since its inception, Wendy Newport-Smith, is completing her PhD study on the interface between food safety culture and ethical leadership, and has been strongly supported by Fonterra. Her in-depth interviews with people at all levels in 35 companies, including Fonterra, provide insights into particular features of New Zealand food safety cultures. They bear out Lone’s comment about the devil being in the detail. For example, the diversity of the workforce in some companies requires creative approaches to communication to understand what motivates workers, what the most effective reward systems are, and what might undermine compliance.
For example, one company, with a large number of Polynesian workers, needed to source size 18 gumboots and XXXL gloves. The gloves weren’t big enough for workers’ hands. The importance of actively asking people what’s standing in the way of them doing their job to the best of their ability was highlighted by this company: “A compliance audit doesn’t pick up gloves that have split because they are too small. Was a worker wearing his gloves? Yes. Was he comfortable wearing them? No. Were they food-safe? No”. One
Here are other comments by staff Wendy recorded:
The primary driver for food safety was protecting customers and consumers. One infant formula manufacturer recounted a personal story, a “lightbulb moment” when he recognised that the product is “the sole source of nutrition for babies, meaning there is no workaround, no compromise”. Therefore, “What you permit or walk past, you are endorsing. Small things that get left or overlooked can escalate into big things”, a comment that is supported by research into workplace safety more generally. The values or ethics of company owners or organisations was the second most cited driver for food safety. Several people talked about the values being “in the DNA” of the company.
Issues related to the regulatory environment, and market access, were top-of-mind for some organisations: “Supplying to markets at a distance means companies must maintain high standards when it comes to microbial levels, as countries that didn’t traditionally test (product) at the border now do. In addition, markets have become more discerning over time. New Zealand has a great reputation for producing good quality, safe product. Our exporters want to do what is necessary to maintain access to markets”.
Organisational and food safety culture are top of mind for New Zealand food businesses according to Wendy’s research, e.g. “You can’t have a good food safety culture if you don’t have a good management culture”.
Staff are not always aware that what they do impacts food safety: “A large portion of the industry don’t understand they are in the food industry. Theoretically at management level people should understand that, however there is a fair bit of “she’ll be right”. This is also related to the level of education. The term “food safety culture” doesn’t help because it sounds like it’s a separate management system. These things and the level of industry maturity, which is improving, contribute to the problem, as does the transition from mum and dad businesses to a corporate model”.
And production pressures can sometimes override food safety: “It becomes obvious by observation that most people come to work wanting to do a good job. If they don’t do a good job, it’s usually because management hasn’t allowed them to. In the worst-case scenario, you can get people fed up and sabotaging food – a sign of a very poor culture. You have to keep reminding workers that they have
“There is a cultural river running through the business, but each area doesn’t necessarily have the same culture. Unless you know your staff, you can get it very wrong.” Finding a reward system that resonates with staff can be challenging: “A lot of the workforce doesn’t like to be identified individually. They are humble people who like everyone knowing they are good at their job but don’t want to be singled out. It can be very challenging to find out what people value. For example, in one company, a shared lunch was the reward staff valued the most. There was always a reason for it and they were limited; no more than four or five a year. No formalities and staff got an extra 30 minutes for their lunch break. It was a small thing and highly valued”.
Food safety is seen as a shared responsibility: “Food safety is more difficult than food quality and health and safety because food safety isn’t always visible. Food safety is not negotiable. The first question is “Are we doing anyone any harm?” If yes, stop immediately. This has to be instilled in senior and technical management”. All participants in this research agreed that the commitment to food safety is led from the top: “You can’t build this bottom upwards. It won’t work.” “If they get it (food safety and quality) wrong in the market, they not only don’t have a business, they’ve caused a catastrophe. It’s top of mind. There’s no coming back. Everyone loses their jobs, the company’s gone and they’ve done damage”.
Wendy summarises, “My research found that, generally, New Zealand company managers really do understand that they have to take the lead in creating a food safety culture. Although good behaviour is to a large extent forced by the demands of overseas markets, and the threat of market exclusion if something goes wrong, there is a strong motivation at all levels in our food companies to do the right thing by colleagues and customers, which was very pleasing to see. Staff demonstrated great pride in their work and are very aware of the vulnerability and dependence of some of their consumers on the safety of product. The danger is complacency . . . when things have been going smoothly for a long time. Food safety requires constant vigilance, foresight and adaptability.”
How to develop a food safety culture
Workshop by US food safety guru Frank Yiannas: 26/7 August 2024
Frank Yiannas will teach attendees how to develop a food safety culture in their workplaces where each person understands the reasons for the rules and is highly motivated and incentivised to follow them.
Following on from the Centre’s annual symposium session by Swiss-based Cultivate SA Principal, Lone Jespersen, the Centre is proudly hosting a two-day workshop by Frank Yiannas, author of the foundation text on food safety culture (2009). As well as being an author, Adjunct Professor, food system futurist, and consumer advocate, Frank was Deputy Commissioner for Food at the US FDA and Past President of the International Association for Food Protection.
In 2013 Frank was commissioned to help Fonterra develop their food safety and quality culture following the costly precautionary recall.
Workshop Description
This two-day workshop explores proven, evidence-based ways to change or strengthen the food safety culture of an organisation and influence employee behaviours.
By the end of the workshop, attendees will be able to
• Identify the core attributes of an effective food safety culture a direct impact on safety. Simple messaging changed regularly helps, for example, your granddaughter is going to eat this.”
• Recognise the difference between traditional food safety management versus a behaviour-based food safety approach.
• Help make food safety part of the organization’s value or belief system, so that compliance is done the right way, every day, even when no one is looking.
• Improve the effectiveness of training, education, and communication efforts, and create smarter food safety goals and metrics for the organization and their teams.
• Better use both positive and negative consequences to influence employee or workforce behaviour.
The workshop will be held at the University of Auckland Grafton Campus, on Monday and Tuesday, 26 and 27 August. The cost is $1000 per person.
Register by emailing Michal Dunn, Centre administrator, M.J.Dunn@massey.ac.nz with Frank Yiannas in the subject line. NZFSSRC members have priority.
