A Culture of Food Safety

A CULTURE OF
FOOD SAFETY
A POSITION PAPER
FROM THE GLOBAL
FOOD SAFETY
INITIATIVE (GFSI)
V1.0 - 4/11/18
A CULTURE OF FOOD SAFETY
Foreword from GFSI

Board and Food Safety
Culture Working Group
Since the Board decided to kick off a technical
working group focused on food safety culture in
June 2015, we have been hard at work gathering
input from leading practitioners and scientists
to provide stakeholders with GFSI’s position and
thought leadership on food safety culture. Such
a topic that is relatively new to the global food
industry required a diverse and passionate group
to ensure practical and comprehensive thought
leadership. We want to thank each of the 35
working group members their hard work, pas-
sionate discussions, and willingness to strive for
a document that will add value to all parts of the
global food supply chain, from the farm orfactory
to the shop, and across the global reach of the
GFSI-benchmarked certification programmes.
We hope you find the document valuable to you
as you embed and maintain a positive food safety
2
culture in your company.
Mike Robach
Chair of the GFSI Board
Lone Jespersen
Chair of the Food Safety Culture Working Group
GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Virtually every enterprise that is a part of today’s It offers the insights of experts from different
global food industry, from the smallest roadside segments of our industry who collectively bring an
vendor to the largest multinational corporation, international perspective to this important issue.
follows some degree of safe food handling prac-
tices. By and large, these practices have kept, and Emphasis is placed on:
continue to keep, most of the world’s food supply
safe for human consumption. • The essential role of leaders and managers
throughout an organization, from CEO to farm,
Because a significant portion of the developed field and shop floor supervisors, from local
world today depends upon mass-produced, ‘Mom and Pop’ grocery stores to large franchise
globally sourced, processed and distributed restaurant organizations.
food, the importance of maintaining food
safety standards is well-recognised. However, • Why regular communication, education, metrics,
an increasingly complex and fragmented food teamwork and personal accountability are vital
delivery system demands more than a reliance to advancing a food safety culture.
on written rules, regulatory oversight and safe
food practices. • How learned skills including adaptability and
hazard awareness move important safe food
3
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), an in- practices beyond a theoretical conversation to
dustry-driven global collaboration dedicated to live in “real time.”
advancing food safety, believes that to be successful
and sustainable, food safety must go beyond formal We also have included a set of tables that offer
regulations to live within the culture of a company. guidance across the food safety culture matura-
tion process to foster culture change from both
In contrast to the rule of law, culture draws its pow- top-down and bottom-up. All sections are clearly
er from the unspoken and intuitive, from simple marked for easy navigation.
observation, and from beliefs as fundamental as
“This is the right thing to do” and “We would never GFSI believes that practices devoted to keeping
do this.” Rules state facts; culture lives through the the global food supply safe should be habitual
human experience. and systemic. Further, we believe these qualities
can develop naturally within a supportive and
This position paper was prepared by a GFSI technical positive cultural setting -- although they demand
working group (TWG) as a blueprint for embedding conscious investment, strategic oversight and
and maintaining a positive culture of food safety in ongoing engagement.
any business, regardless of its size or focus. For
our purposes here, we define a food safety culture
as the shared values, beliefs and norms that affect
mind-set and behaviour toward food safety in,
across and throughout an organization.
This paper is designed to help food industry pro-

fessionals promote and maintain a positive culture
of food safety within their respective organizations.

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. About This Document and Its Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1. About the GFSI Working Group Responsible for This Position Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
3.2. Food Safety Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Shared Values, Beliefs and Norms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Affect Mindset and Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Across and Throughout the Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Vision and Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1. Business Structure, Values and Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Setting Direction and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Leadership and Messaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4
4.5. Guiding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Food Safety Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
5.2. Food Safety Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Food Safety Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. The Learning Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.5. Incentives, Rewards, and Recognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.6. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Consistency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1. Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2. Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3. Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

7. Adaptability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1. Why is Adaptability Important?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Food Safety Expectations and Current State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.3. Agility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4. Change, Crisis Management and Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Hazard and Risk Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.1. The Importance of Understanding Hazards and Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.1.1. Foundational Hazard Information and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1.2. Hazard and Risk Technical Training and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2. Employee Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.3. Verify Hazard and Risk Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.4. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5
9. Concluding Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2 INTRODUCTION
Food is essential to our survival. Yet the World
Health Organization estimates that almost one in
10 people is sickened by eating food processed or
prepared by others. Consequently, the practices
designed to ensure the safety of our food are as
important as ever. When our food is grown, pro-
cessed, prepared, sold and served by others, we
rely on every person in the food supply chain to
make the right decisions to keep our food safe.
These decisions are highly impacted by the cul-
tures of each individual organization along the
chain, and how dimensions within these cultures
either enable or hinder the decisions and practices
of food safety.
The purpose of this document is to provide global

stakeholders with the Global Food Safety Initiative’s
position on what organizational dimensions drive
6
the maturity of food safety, and how a strong food
safety maturity can be sustained over time through
the organization’s culture. As such, the document
is targeted at a broad range of stakeholders, in-
cluding business owners, manufacturers, retailers,
restaurant managers and food safety experts.
Our primary goal is to outline the dimensions and

critical content of food safety within the context
of an organizational culture – referred to in this
document as “food safety culture.” The content
presented here has been written with all types of
organizations, public and private, large and small,
in mind. The dimensions are founded in science
from organizational culture and psychology (see
reading list for more detail) and designed to help
organizations strengthen and maintain a positive
and mature food safety culture and in turn, protect
customers, consumers and communities around
the world.

3 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

AND ITS STRUCTURE
The content presented here is divided into five chap- Each chapter also provides detailed “what” and
ters, each addressing one of the five dimensions of “how” content to help you define your overall jour-
food safety culture (Figure 1). These dimensions ney to maturing and sustaining food safety.
are based on an analysis of existing models used
to evaluate food safety and organizational culture Each chapter concludes with a set of Guiding
(see reading list for more detail). Each chapter Questions designed as conversation starters to
defines a specific dimension and explains why it help readers determine how their particular com-
is important to advancing a culture of food safety. pany might initiate or advance the key components
The chapters provide the reader with critical con- discussed in the chapter. To further help the reader,
tent areas that an organization should examine if it more detail has been provided in the appendixes.
wants to better understand its current food safety in the form of a maturity model, things to look for
culture and make improvements to strengthen it. and so forth.
Figure 1: The Five Dimensions and Critical

Components of Food Safety Culture

Two guiding principles helped to steer the creation In other words, this is not another paper or book
of this document: on food safety culture. Many have already been
written, and a reading list of several has been
(1) Content must be based on existing science and provided in Appendix 2. Instead, these are the
cultural dimensions and content GFSI believes
(2) All information presented must be clearly to be most critical for practitioners and support/
defined by practitioners, with priority given to the service companies alike to evaluate and nurture an
most critical components of a culture of food safety. organization’s food safety culture.
3.1. About the GFSI Working Group Responsible for This Position Paper
In July 2015, the GFSI Board established a technical (2) Benchmarking content, and
working group (TWG) to provide perspective on food
safety culture, with the goal of offering guidance to (3) A voluntary measurement system.
companies seeking to incorporate cultural aspects
into GFSI’s benchmarked certification programmes. This paper contains material related to deliverable
While culture has long been recognized as playing (1).
a significant role in organizational success or
failure, it has not been communicated in the same The contents contained here evolved through
way as more established food industry standards, several working sessions with 35 TWG members.
including supplier verifications, sanitation and These individuals were selected through an appli-
8
training requirements. This required the input of cation process designed to meet GFSI guidelines for
practitioners to explain how to give dimension to international and cross-sectorial representation
food safety culture. (Figures 1 and 2). Specific to country distribution, it
is important to note that multiple members come
The GFSI board asked the group for three deliverables: from global companies with headquarters in the
United States. As a result, they represent more
(1) A position paper outlining the formal GFSI per- than one country and were found to add significant
spective, value because of each company’s global presence.
A full membership list appears in Appendix 1.

Europe 14 (39%)
9
UK Food Services 1
5 (14%) Processor 1 Asia/Pacific 3 (8%)
Retail 1 Japan Processor 1
Americas 19 (53%) Support 2 1 (3%)
US Food Services 2 Ireland Retail 1 China Retail 1
15 (42%) Primary 1 1 (3%) 1 (3%)
Processor 6 France Processor 1
Retail 1 New Zealand Processor 1
3 (8%) Retail 1
Support 5 1 (3%)
Support 1
2 (6%) Processor 1
Germany Processor 1
Brazil Support 1 1 (3%)
1 (3%) Figure 2: Group members
Switzerland Processor 1 by sector and continent
Mexico Support 1 2 (6%) Support 1
1 (3%)
Netherlands Support 2
2 (6%)
3.2. Food Safety Culture
The GFSI TWG defines food safety cultures as, and food safety culture and made practical and
“shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mind- applicable through the group’s work.
set and behaviour toward food safety in, across
and throughout an organization.” The definition is A few terms from this definition are referenced
derived from existing literature on organizational throughout this document and warrant discussion.

3.2.1. Shared Values, Beliefs and Norms
Culture of any kind lives not in individuals, but in quently are shared and learned by new members
groups. Values are shared with new members of the group. This is one of several reasons why
of the company and operationalized in groups culture is perceived as hard to change. We are not
through norms and behaviours. This sets formal changing formal systems, e.g., values, but rather
systems apart from culture, in that what is “written” the underlying norms and behaviours that are in
goes through human translation within the group many cases unwritten and sometimes unspoken.
to become norms – good and bad – which subse-
3.2.2. Affect Mindset and Behaviour
Psychologically, our beliefs, mindsets and and mission affect the thinking of the individuals
behaviours are impacted by multiple factors within their respective groups. For example, are
including our national culture, upbringing and each person’s functions, roles and expectations
life experiences. In a work environment, we are clearly understood, and have they been a part of
affected by the group we identify with, including defining these roles? Do they understand how their
our department, coworkers, our role and position, roles contribute to the organization’s mission or
job security, formal and informal authority, and our purpose? These are examples of questions whose
own habits and consciousness around the job at answers affect how groups and individuals view
hand. So, when we seek to not only understand senior leaders’ commitment to food safety. They
10
how mature our food safety culture is but also how are essential to any organization’s food safety
to sustain and further strengthen it, we should culture.
understand how the company’s overall values
3.2.3. Across and Throughout the Organization
A food safety culture is not a “one size fits all” prop- broken down into the finer details of expectations
osition. Making it a reality means that throughout for every department and person throughout the
the organization, food safety has been defined organization.
for each member and department in terms and
expectations that are both relevant and clear to As you read through the individual chapters,
them. What is required of the purchasing depart- remember that culture of any kind is shared and
ment, for example, is different from that of the affects everyone throughout the company, and
maintenance team. Purchasing should understand that one dimension on its own cannot strengthen
the importance of selecting suppliers that are both a food safety culture. Instead, these dimensions
economically viable and deliver on the company’s must be viewed as integrated and in some cases
food safety requirements, not one or the other. working against each other, e.g., displaying a
Similarly, a maintenance leader should look out strong commitment to systems while remaining
for the condition of the equipment to maximize nimble enough to integrate change. Each chapter
up-time as well as food safety performance. For provides detailed “what” and “how” content to help
smaller organizations, the owner/operator leads you define your overall journey to maturing and
by example and influences food safety culture sustaining food safety.
significantly. A mature food safety culture is one in
which the company vision and mission have been

4 VISION AND MISSION

Vision and Mission communicates a business’s into expectations and specific messaging for its
reason for existence and how it translates this stakeholders.
11
Figure 1: Critical content of the Vision and Mission dimension
4.1. Business Structure, Values and Purpose
The Vision and Mission are established by the reflected in the company’s communications, in-
senior leadership team and, when applicable, the cluding its website and corporate annual reports.
board of directors or business owner. Vision and Similarly, a company’s core values transcend
Mission statements need not mention food safety all aspects of the business and inform the food
specifically, although their importance should be safety culture.
4.2. Setting Direction and Expectations
Direction-setting requires dedicated thinking and throughout the organization and understood by
planning to identify one clear path to success. all. It also demands a clear understanding of what
This defines a clear vision, shared and embedded success looks like, along with long-term and short-

term milestones. Successful direction-setting • Changes in regulatory requirements

involves regular follow-up meetings to evolve the
direction and ensure sustainability and viability. • Buying a new business
A company’s changing priorities will drive its • Changes in product category

direction. Food safety should always be core to
the business and integral in its direction-setting. • Entering new markets
When direction-setting, be mindful of all strategic
priorities and ensure food safety is a consistent • Serious food safety incidents
consideration in each.
• Science, technology and analytical advances
Circumstances that can alter direction-setting
include:
4.3. Leadership and Messaging
4.3.3.1. Leadership Commitment
Leadership sets the direction and tone for a responsibility for the food safety of products from
company’s food safety culture in ways that sup- product design across the full supply chain.
12
port, align and contribute to its overall vision and
mission. Enterprise leaders from headquarters Messaging
to the local level, along with business owners,
can have a profound impact on organizational Effective messaging is essential to successfully
culture. Leaders’ commitment to food safety can communicate a company’s food safety expecta-
significantly influence the development of a strong tions. Such messaging should be consistent and
food safety culture. Proper allocation of resources, clear to all staff members, so that they understand
including financial, people and time, demonstrates and are regularly reminded of the company’s safe-
leadership’s dedication to food safety. food practices and overall approach to food safety.
Leaders develop food safety policies and stan- The goal of all food safety messaging is to edu-
dards in alignment with the company’s strategic cate, inform and raise awareness among all new
direction, but policies alone are just documents and existing employees of safe practices so they
and requirements. True meaning comes when assume ownership of their role in ensuring con-
policies are translated into clear behavioural ex- sumer safety and brand protection. The company’s
pectations for employees. A consistent, visible and food safety policy statement plays an important
credible leadership commitment to food safety role and must be easily accessible to everyone and
and accountability is a foundational element of a referenced regularly in company communications.
food safety culture.
Messaging should target all constituents, from
The food safety policy statement places food safety full-time and temporary employees to contractors
requirements in alignment with the company’s stra- and external partners, as appropriate. It should
tegic direction and is endorsed by senior leadership be tailored to the organization’s various stake-
and site leaders. It addresses food safety ownership holder groups and created in multiple forms. The
of staff at all organizational levels, and establishes messages should cascade from leadership to

all employees consistently. Additionally, styles safety, whether local, regional, national or compa-
of messaging should change regularly to keep it ny-specific, must be shared with all employees. It
fresh, relevant and top-of-mind. is equally important to explain why these regula-
tions matter, and how they must be followed by
Applicable regulatory requirements regarding food everyone throughout the enterprise.
4.3.3.2. Messaging Tools
There are a variety of strategies and tech- rate website, as well as work team meetings and
nologies that help to spread key food safety informal learning events. Message effectiveness
messages across all segments of the company. can and should be measured via online surveys
They include frequent communications from and employee focus groups.
leadership, distributed via the organization’s
customary channels including company email,
intranet, worksite bulletin boards and the corpo-
4.4. Summary
Organizational leadership sets the tone and di- its requirements in alignment with the company’s
rection for its food safety culture. The corporate strategic approach. It is essential to utilize effec-
13
vision and mission statements need not mention tive messaging regarding food safety across the
food safety specifically, although its importance entire organization. Messaging should be clear,
should be reflected in company communications. consistent and tailored to different stakeholder
Direction-setting helps establish a good food groups. A messaging framework and its related
safety culture because it requires a clear vision, tools should distribute vital food safety messages
shared and embedded throughout the organization. throughout the organization. The credibility of an
Investment alignment ensures that the orga- organization’s food safety messaging ultimately is
nization is properly resourced for food safety dependent upon the value the organization places
initiatives. A food safety policy statement places on food safety.
4.5. Guiding Questions
• How do your senior leaders engage with food

safety?
• How is your messaging used to communicate

food safety expectations to all employees?
• Is your company’s vision and mission clearly ex-

pressed so that both are understood by all staff?

5 PEOPLE
People are the critical component of any food as well as consumer habits prior to eating the food,
safety culture. Our behaviour and activities, from contribute to the safety of food and potentially
processes on the farm to practices in the kitchen, decrease or increase the risk of foodborne illness.
14
Figure 2: Critical content of the People dimension
With “People,” we refer here to everyone engaged an understanding of everyone’s essential role in
within the food industry, from farm, field and maintaining the entire organization’s food safety
fishing boat to processing, packaging, distribu- standards, can help to foster a sustainable food
tion and the serving of food. This of course also safety culture.
comprises those in distribution, marketing, sales,
customer service, in fact the entire food chain, Broken down to their most primary components,
end-to-end. Major processes contained within the elements of the People dimension focus on
the People dimension include everything from competencies in food safety fundamentals; provid-
recruitment and on-boarding to capability-building everyone with the tools to maintain a safe-food
ing, educating and empowering employees. In environment (knowledge, standards, metrics and
addition to establishing proper governance and accountability); and empowering them to use their
metrics, an organization should create a robust skill-set to maintain effective food safety prac-
system of rewards and consequences. Creating tices. A company that devotes time and attention
a sense of personal responsibility, along with regularly to food safety information, education and

accountability helps sustain a food safety culture. As safety in, across and throughout an organization. It
explained previously, the concept of a “food safety is important to be mindful of the workforce diversity
culture” is adapted from the general definition of throughout the supply chain (e.g., languages, genders,
culture, i.e. “shared values, beliefs and norms” that ages, education levels, ethics, length of tenure, socio
affect mindset toward and behaviour regarding food economic status and religious and cultural beliefs).
5.1. Food Safety Stakeholders
“Stakeholders” in this context refers to everyone shared food safety goals, assume accountability
across all aspects of the supply chain, both within for their active role in maintaining food safety
and outside of a company, who supply, support or standards, and work in concert to achieve those
otherwise influence that company. This includes objectives (Appendix 4). Working groups can be
field workers, production line people, maintenance established as cross-functional teams of food
crews, delivery drivers, deli workers, wait staff safety champions. It is critical to note that the
and franchise owners. The maturity of an organi- traditional members of a food safety team cannot
zation’s food safety culture can be measured by be solely responsible for an organization’s food
the extent to which all stakeholders acknowledge safety culture.
5.2. Food Safety Governance

15
Food safety should be embedded within the or- The best results are achieved when the business
ganization’s governance structure and have the maintains a formal food safety structure with
appropriate profile across the whole enterprise. clearly defined individual responsibilities and
It is critical to establish standards that align with non-negotiable rules that exist throughout the or-
global food industry best practices. Food safety ganization. In larger businesses, a clear delineation
governance should cover elements including: should be made to separate commercial from safety
decision-making to minimize conflicts of interest.
• Strategic direction Consider creating an independent escalation route
that allows the food safety team to report directly to
• Organizational structure and accountability senior leadership rather than senior operations staff.
• Policies and standards As part of a company’s communication programme a

whistle-blowing policy should be established and in-
• Risk and issues management clude the education of employees on the appropriate
steps to take in communicating their ethical concerns
• Culture and behaviours to appropriate company personnel. Additionally,
employees should believe that their concerns will be
taken seriously and will be investigated.
5.2.3.1. People Empowerment
The extent to which people within a business have and sustain its food safety culture. Employees at
both the knowledge and authority to act will im- all levels should have the power to lead or initiate
pact that organization’s ability to adapt, improve positive change.

5.2.3.2. Employee Capability
A commitment to developing employee com- have confidence in the training and education they
petence in food safety will influence both the receive. Only through complete comprehension
organization’s and its employees’ ability to and confidence are they likely to implement safe-
adapt to change. Such development initiatives food behaviours and influence others around them
should encompass specific, technical food safety to do likewise.
capabilities in addition to broader leadership
and management skills such as negotiation and Typically, people fall into one of the groups identi-
influence, communications, problem-solving and fied in the chart below. In each quadrant, specific
change deployment. It is also important to monitor approaches show how to manage that group. (Ap-
how employee development impacts individual pendix 5 provides additional elements that impact
performance and behaviour. An organization that people management.) Individuals throughout the
successfully adapts to change typically is char- organization will have varying levels of knowledge,
acterized by empowered employees capable of understanding and confidence in food safety
taking on new and challenging responsibilities. behaviours. These levels may fluctuate, based on
changing competencies, new programmes and
Training and education are essential tools. circumstances. To manage these variances, a
company will need a process to routinely evaluate
Training and education are essential tools. It is vital not only levels of understanding but demonstrated
to determine how well people both understand and confidence in employee behaviours.
16
No Risk Coaching/
Use as internal Mentoring
champions
High High
Understanding & Understanding,
High Confidence Low Confidence
Low
Wrong
Understanding,
Understanding &
(know they don’t
High Confidence
know)
Highest Risk Training Focus
Immediate
Management
Focus
Figure 3: Confidence and understanding matrix; Original Source and with permission from Cognisco (www.cognisco.com).

5.3. Food Safety Communication
Communication is fundamental to all human inter- • Mentoring

action, and it plays an undeniable role in fostering a
sustainable food safety culture. Good communica- • Feedback/Suggestions process
tion ensures that a company’s food safety strategy
is received and understood by all employees within • Company Intranet and message boards
the organization. It must occur regularly, be tailored
to the organization’s various audiences, accessible • Competitions
wherever the desired behaviour should occur, and
measured for effectiveness. • Buddy programme
Examples of available food safety communication • Gemba Kaizen circle meetings

channels include:
• Awards and recognition
• Posters
• Consequences (Including disciplinary actions
• Meetings up to termination)
• Briefings Internal Social Network (e.g. Yammer). Achieving

a high standard in communications requires
• Videos consideration of the differences between indus-
17
try sectors and structures – such as retail when
• Phone calls compared to manufacturing, family-run than that
of chain restaurant and corporate compared to
• Conferences franchisee – and how they communicate both
internally and externally. As an example, a single
• Shift Huddles site that washes and packages potatoes will have
a different approach to risk communications when
• Digital Coaching compared to a global foodservice organization.
5.3.3.1. Communication of Risk
Communication of food safety risk may be portant to help employees inside and outside the
challenging, but it is an important element of technical team understand the hazards associated
promoting a shared understanding of risk with- with their duties. This requires education, training
in an organization. Communications to senior and effective communication. It is also important
and cross-functional personnel regarding the for routine status reporting as well as to identify
likelihood and potential effects of a food safety the early escalation of risk-related issues, which
crisis will drive risk-based decision-making and within a mature organization will lead to discus-
a commitment of financial resources to increased sions and decision-making by those both inside
knowledge and improved practices. and outside the technical community.
The technical community is usually relied upon As food safety risk awareness improves, the need
to lead risk assessment and influence decisions for additional investment and optimization will be-
related to its management. However, it is also im- come evident. Using risk assessment to prioritize

improvements proves beneficial in justifying and ment may include ongoing internal surveillance
communicating the need for change and avoiding data and insights, tracking external industry data
the potential for complacency over time. including the root cause of failures, and changes
in industry expectations. All require the effective
Drivers for continuous human and capital invest- communication of risk.
5.4. The Learning Organization
Training and education are essential to the People receive periodic refresher training. All locations
dimension. Training is as important for senior responsible for processing or preparing food
and middle management/supervisors as it is for should have key indicators and a recognition
frontline employees. Each group has its own food system in place to measure performance and
safety-related training needs. recognize continuous improvement.
Senior management is often excluded from food Companies seeking to take their training and edu-
safety training. As a result, managers may lack a cation programmes to a more advanced level can
fundamental understanding of food safety risks use the training and maturity model included in this
as well as the need for the resources to maintain document’s Appendix 4 as a guide. Collaboration
compliance with a food safety programme (See and teamwork are key to ensuring the effective
Appendix 4). sharing of lessons learned both from within the
sorganization and from other businesses.
18
A global food safety training survey found 62
percent of food safety respondents agreed that You need to define a competency framework which
“Despite our efforts, we still have employees not includes the set of competencies required for each
following our food safety programme on the plant role in your business to be performed effectively.
floor.” The extent to which all employees internal- Benefits experienced include:
ize consistent food safety behaviours is largely
influenced by their own cultures, attitudes, values, • Employees are clearer on what is expected of them
beliefs and training effectiveness, as well as those
of their peers and their business. (Reference: 2016 • Clearer accountability
Global Food Safety Training Survey by CampdenBRI
& Alchemy) In addition to creating effective food • More effective recruitment and new staff selection
safety training for a diverse workforce and veri-
fying comprehension, it is important to determine • More effective performance evaluation
the most efficient methods for its delivery. On-the-
job training, classroom instruction, self-directed • More efficient identification of skill and compe-
study, coaching and mentoring all can be used to tency gaps
optimize learning.
• Helps to provide more customized training and
Training content must be relevant to each learn- professional development
er’s job competencies, and employees must be
able to apply that learning in their work environ- • More effective succession planning
ment. Trainers should be technically competent,
with a thorough knowledge of theory and practice, • More efficient change management processes
and of course it is equally important that they are
good communicators. Additionally, they should More mature organizations use approaches based

on competency-based learning. Competen- individual determine a learning path, identifying

cy-based learning systems focus on front-end the learning experiences that help the individual
analysis to determine the desired knowledge, attain the desired competencies. The instructional
skills, abilities, and behaviours necessary for high design methodology known as ADDIE (analysis,
level job performance. Such systems emphasize design, development, implementation, and eval-
the use of assessments to determine the level of uation), coupled with stakeholder input, learning
competence against desired outcomes, and focus experience review, and support systems make the
learning and developmental efforts on helping the system robust, efficient, and effective.
5.4.3.1. Behavioural Influencers
A food safety influencer is any person or thing that To better understand the link between employee
has the capacity to have an effect on food safety behaviours, the influencers of those behaviours
protocols, procedures or behaviours that may and appropriate consequences to take based
positively or negatively impact the organizational on employee behaviours, the ABC model can be
food safety culture. Recognizing the influencers of utilized. The ABC model stands for Antecedents,
employee behaviours and developing food safety Behaviours, and Consequences. An antecedent
training and communications to accommodate is something that comes before a behaviour and
them will optimize employee adherence to food is required for an individual to understand what
safety programmes. Common influencing be- is expected and how to perform a behaviour e.g.
haviours that drive human behaviour include: stimulus, policy, stated expectations, training, job
19
aids, circumstances, event past experience.
• Shine the Light – “I can be seen”
Training and communications are critical anteced-
• The Herd Effect --“Everyone else does it” ents, but it is important to acknowledge that there
are many antecedents that can be deployed to
• Carrot and Stick – “I get rewarded or punished” align employee behaviours. These antecedents
include appropriate tools and equipment, sufficient
• Follow My Leader – “My manager does it” time, trust and openness, competency, confidence,
simplified procedures, skilled senior leaders and
• Guilt and Conscience – “I know it is the right managers, data measurement, tracking and trend-
thing to do” ing, etc.
5.5. Incentives, Rewards, and Recognition
Rewards, when paired with fair and transparent rec- panies can use various incentives and deterrents
ognition programmes, can help management guide to achieve consistent compliance, including:
desired food safety behaviours. Such programmes
should be designed to accommodate cultural differ- • Positive and negative feedback
ences within the organization. See the reading list at
the end of this document for more detail. • Sharing best demonstrated practices
Clear accountability and compliance foster • Learnings from failures

commitment, empowerment and ownership. Com-

• Recognition programmes • Monetary and time compensation, praise
• Individual and team awards • Incentives to report failures

and near-misses
• Corporate, peer and self-recognition
• Promotion and demotion
5.6. Summary
People are the critical component of a food safety ernance and metrics. The extent to which people
culture. Employee behaviour and activities, from are empowered to promote food safety will impact
processes on the farm to serving customers, their organization’s ability to adapt, improve and
contribute to the safety of food and potentially sustain its food safety culture. Good communica-
decrease or increase the risk of foodborne illness. tion ensures that messaging regarding food safety
It is important to establish a formal food safety is understood by all within the organization. All
structure with clearly defined individual roles and leaders must “walk the talk,” and remain consis-
responsibilities. Major elements of this dimension tent in their messaging to ensure that there is the
include everything from educating employees and clear understanding that food safety is a journey of
reinforcing good behaviour to creating proper gov- continuous improvement.
5.7. Guiding Questions 20
Individuals throughout an organization with an • When was your last food safety training and
effective food safety culture should be able to what did you learn?
answer the following questions:
• To what level are people committed and acting
• When was the last time you or someone on your in accordance with food safety expectations?
team raised a food safety concern?
• How is your food safety performance mea-
• How do you contribute to food safety in your sured?
organization?

6 CONSISTENCY
Consistency refers to the proper alignment of consistent and effective application of a food safety
food safety priorities with requirements on people, programme that reinforces a culture of food safety.
technology, resources and processes to ensure the
21
Figure 4: Critical content of the Consistency dimension
Consistency needs to flow through all food safe- Performance measurements enable a company
ty-related decisions, actions and behaviours within to assess the actual situation, compare against
the organization, from top management to oper- desired outcomes and behaviours, and identify op-
ations. For example, technical and management portunities for improvement and verify consistency.
resource decisions should be in line with food
safety priorities as defined by the company vision; Consistency is supported by three major elements:
tasks, responsibilities and authorities should be
well defined, communicated and understood (see 1. Accountability
related table in appendix 8).
2. Performance Measurement
3. Documentation

6.1. Accountability
To ensure a consistent food safety system, it is Accountabilities should be interconnected at an or-

essential that all employees have clearly defined ganizational level. For example, an employee must
accountabilities. This enables individuals to take know where to refer food-safety-related issues
appropriate responsibility for food-safety-related beyond his or her responsibilities.
decisions and actions, and their consequences.
Accountabilities should be consistent with levels of
Individual accountability includes the acknowl- authority. For instance, it must be clear who decides
edgment of responsibility for actions, products, to do reworks or to reject non-compliant batches.
decisions and policies within the scope of one’s
role or employment position and encompasses Within the context of food safety culture, it is im-
an obligation to report and explain resulting con- portant that everyone’s values and beliefs do not
sequences. conflict with their accountabilities.
6.2. Performance Measurement
Performance measurement makes it possible to Food safety performance measurements should

monitor in accordance with defined food safety not only address product and process performance
policies, expectations and requirements, as well but decisions, actions and behaviours, as well. A
as to acknowledge good performance and make strong, company-wide measurement system com-
22
improvements where needed. To support an prised of organizational, functional and individual
environment of continuous improvement, these metrics, will help to capture the underlying mech-
measurements must align with the organization’s anisms (artifacts, espoused values and beliefs, and
food safety priorities. underlying assumptions) that can influence the
effectiveness of food safety implementation.
A strong connection exists between what is mea-
sured and subsequent behaviour. Consequently, The nature of performance measures should also
performance measurements and their connected be considered, since reactive (lagging) and proac-
reinforcement systems should be carefully tive (leading) measures have different objectives.
considered before implementation. For instance, Measuring foreign material (i.e. supplier) findings
many companies use audit results to measure appraises what has been found and so is reacting
food safety performance, awarding a bonus payoutto something that has already occurred. Converse-
if a plant achieves a top audit score. This may be a
ly, measuring the effectiveness of a supplier’s
good way to direct attention to the audit, but is it an
preventive maintenance programme can help
appropriate way to focus on everyday food safetyblock foreign material from reaching the plant in
behaviours and actions? the first place. Such actions proactively hinder the
impact on the customer while moving the risk one
Results should be transparent and communicat- step further away from the consumer.
ed within the organization. Where improvement
is required, actions should be clearly defined Metrics should be chosen and cascaded throughout
and understood by those who must execute the organization carefully, as a poorly developed
them. The effectiveness of improvement mea- metric can swiftly undermine an organization’s
sures should be verified to assure the intended culture objectives. Ideally, high-level, strategic met-
changes are achieved. rics are not simply duplicated at lower levels of the
organization. Instead, the higher-level metric could

be developed as the desired outcome of lower-level, from one or more operational-level metrics such as
operational or tactical metrics. For example, imag- process Cpk, consumer complaints and audit per-
ine a high-level, strategic metric designed to monitor formance that would ultimately lead to a reduction
the number of food safety incidents an organization in food safety incidents.
generates. If this metric were simply duplicated
throughout the organization and at the operational Both insights from the business’s external and inter-
level, it could generate the exact opposite of the nal environment are needed. Mechanisms to monitor
desired cultural behaviour. The desired behaviour the business environment may include the use of
could be defined as accurate and complete reporting internal and external insights including customer
of the number of incidents that have occurred, while feedback and surveys, customer or consumer com-
the metric is incentivizing individuals and teams to plaints, regulatory inspection results, internal culture
reduce the number of incidents. This “gaming” of surveys, measures and interviews. Additionally, the
the metric (whether conscious or subconscious) use of leading and lagging indicators, metrics and
is certainly not a desired cultural behaviour. It can reporting on food safety can either enable or disable
be avoided by eliminating the mere duplication of an organization’s capacity to align internal business
the metric and instead developing derived metrics processors based on external insights.
6.3. Documentation
Food safety documentation enables proper, con- must be accessible and up-to-date, as well as
sistent decision-making. It encompasses data easily understood. Attention should be paid to the
23
(e.g. product, process and training records) and development of procedures and instructions, with
information about food safety expectations, plans its users directly engaged in the process to ensure
and operational procedures and helps to verify system feasibility.
consistency. It also creates a starting point for new
employees and refresher training for tenured staff Examples of relevant documentation to support
and external partners. food safety include:
Documentation safeguards an organization’s • Food safety plans/manuals based on different

accumulated knowledge base and eliminates the schemes
need to rely on individual employee knowledge.
Related systems may vary from small to complex, • Clear descriptions of tasks/responsibilities and
but should be comprehensive and appropriate to authorities
the organization.
• Process standard operating procedures (SOP)
To be truly effective, a documentation system
6.4. Summary
Consistency refers to ensuring the alignment of and compliance, performance measurement and
food safety priorities, with people, technology, re- documentation. Other essential processes where
sources and processes, to effectively apply a food consistency is crucial include direction-setting in
safety programme and support its culture. Such alignment with risks, investment alignment and
consistency occurs in a variety of related decisions, coherent food safety communications. These as-
actions and behaviours including accountability pects are explained in the Strategy section.

• Are you confident that all employees know

their responsibilities and are held accountable
for their food-safety-related tasks, and that
accountabilities are well-connected?
• How does what you measure (e.g. customer

complaints; compliance to procedures, produc-
tivity, etc.) influence your food safety culture?
• Are your measurements related to

volume/efficiency at the expense
of food safety measures?
• Is your documentation designed to support em-

ployees’ food safety decisions and behaviours?
• Are employees engaged in the design and im-

provement of food safety-related protocols and
instructions?
24

7 ADAPTABILITY
Adaptability refers to the ability of an organization and respond within its current state or move to a
to adjust to changing influences and conditions new one.
25
Figure 5 : Critical Components of the Adaptability dimension
7.1. Why is Adaptability Important?
The ways an organization responds to changes In any enterprise with a strong food safety culture,
within the environment in which it operates will its adaptability is reflected in its skill in anticipat-
both impact, and be impacted by, its food safety ing, preparing for and responding to change and
culture. These changes may be anticipated or not, unexpected disruptions to ultimately survive and
but the nature, speed and success of that response prosper.
are dependent on the adaptability of employees as
individuals, within groups or teams, and as part of Critical components of adaptability include:
the organization.

7.2. Food Safety Expectations and Current State
As detailed in the Vision and Mission section, once vision or values statement, are these being applied
expectations and direction are clear, the enterprise to food safety decisions at all levels, by all employ-
can assess its current food safety culture against ees and especially in crisis decisions?
those expectations. Where food safety is part of a
7.3. Agility
Agility is defined as the ability to think and draw How is leadership involved in these activities? Can
conclusions quickly. In an organizational setting leaders quickly evaluate and assume, avoid or mit-
specifically, agility concerns the ability to assess igate risks and influences whenever a situation is
opportunity and/or threat and adjust one’s strategy deemed an opportunity or a threat? This requires
accordingly. Does a company’s strategy enable or leadership commitment, visible modelling and a
hinder its ability to respond and adapt to changing demonstration of the desired food safety behaviour.
circumstances?
How much and how quickly can the company’s
As noted in Governance, proper oversight of current business structure and processes be
performance against expectations will help adjusted if necessary? Does the presence or lack
inform agile responses to change. Accountability, of a hierarchy and working standards, formal and
transparent decision-making processes and sus- informal, help or hinder the ability to adapt?
26
tainable deployment of change are essential, while
simultaneously staying true to vision and values.
7.4. Change, Crisis Management and Problem-Solving
Consider how your business manages change. within defined expectations and values. A good
Does an awareness exist of the need to change, a crisis management plan includes a post-crisis
desire to do it, the knowledge of how to make it review that enables learning and continuous im-
happen, and the ability to do it well so it is sus- provement.
tainable? Effective change requires a structured
human-centric approach, as well as ongoing rein- Problem-solving concerns how a business re-
forcement to ensure success. sponds to issues identified through measures,
insights, near-misses or other events. It includes a
Crisis management addresses how well a busi- focus on determining root cause and implementing
ness anticipates and responds to critical situations long-term corrective and preventive actions.
7.5. Summary
“Adaptability” refers to the ability of an organization culture, its adaptability is reflected in its skill in an-
to adjust to changing influences and conditions. ticipating, preparing for, responding and adapting
Change may be anticipated or could take the form to change. Strong and engaged leadership plays a
of an event, such as a product recall or customer significant role in how well a business enterprise
issue. In any enterprise with a strong food safety adapts to change and responds to crisis.

1. Can you articulate your company’s food safety

expectations and how they are applied to every
decision?
2. Does your strategy enable you to respond

quickly and effectively, with appropriate over-
sight to ensure the right decisions are made?
3. How do you anticipate, manage and respond

to change, learn from the past and prepare for
the future?
27

8 HAZARD AND RISK

AWARENESS
This dimension differentiates food safety As a company, it is important to keep current on
culture from the broader organizational culture. the latest industry intelligence including market
Recognizing actual and potential hazards and risks incidents, changes to food safety legislation,
at all levels and functions represents a key element significant new technology and analytical advances.
to building and sustaining a food safety culture. This will broaden awareness and understanding of
Basic scientific and technical information should potential risks and hazards.
be accessible and understandable to everyone.
28
Figure 6 : Critical content of the Hazards and Risk Awareness dimension
8.1. The Importance of Understanding Hazards and Risks
How is information related to hazards and risks diverse functional groups and departments?
accessed and interpreted within your company?
Is it viewed as providing real value, or as unnec- Levels of understanding often vary considerably
essarily complex? How are risks communicated to within a company. Consequently, risk perception

likewise will vary. The regulatory requirements minimum regulatory requirements.

that drive bottom-line compliance sometimes
lack employee understanding of how potential Everyone must understand “why we do things” to
hazards and risks might affect the business over- promote trust that the right decisions are being
all. Advancing a culture of food safety requires made relative to policies, procedures, and the
establishing a uniform base-level comprehen- proper investment of financial and human capital.
sion of hazards and risks, a goal best achieved Education can create a sense of shared respon-
through employee education. The culture cannot sibility enterprise-wide, and help to engage both
evolve when focus is limited strictly to meeting hearts and minds.
8.1.1. Foundational Hazard Information and Education
All employees need a basic overview of hazards into greater depth, particularly around control
to recognise the responsibility that comes with measures. This group should include operators
being in an industry in which customers consume responsible for critical control points (CCPs) and
the product. In addition, each employee and de- certain pre-requisite programmes, such as sani-
partment should understand their respective food tation and allergen control programmes. Training
safety-related responsibilities. Everyone has a role, should be designed to reflect observable, measur-
and recognizing potential hazards is as important able changes in food safety-related behaviours.
at the senior executive level as it is for line workers.
All training curricula should be regularly reviewed
29
Everyone should be trained in the hazards and to ensure that it continues to capture the relevant
risks specific to their role. (For a list of topics to hazards and risks the company has identified.
consider for inclusion within a hazard and risk
curriculum, please refer to Appendix 6.) Training and education should be sensitive to dif-
ferent learning styles, appropriate to the functional
Operators, technicians and practitioner-level staff need, role and level of responsibility, and under-
should receive additional training relative to their standable by technical and non-technical staff alike.
area of work. The curriculum here likely will go
8.1.2. Hazard and Risk Technical Training and Education
Typically, training will be facilitated by those understanding of actual and potential hazards,
responsible for food safety hazard analysis and including the likelihood of occurrence and severity
risk evaluation, generally the same individuals of effect. They also should be able to challenge as-
who lead the overall development of food safety sumptions and communicate risk as appropriate.
programmes and norms. They should have a deep
8.2. Employee Engagement
Pro-food-safety communications from the CEO more formal education and training. In a manufac-
affirm true top-down engagement. Management’s turing environment, actions by plant managers and
commitment to food safety is demonstrated through supervisors often are quite impactful to employees.
the allocation of financial resources, alongside Together with improving awareness and under-

standing, this is key to bottom-up engagement. to fully carry out remedial action, such as shutting
down lines and isolating product.
Current and emerging food safety hazards must
be communicated regularly to employees. This Prevention is preferable to treatment, so employ-
inspires trust and belief in the food safety sys- ees should be encouraged to report and share
tem, which in turn builds a supportive culture. “near-misses,” while company management should
Employees will then take a greater interest in provide the necessary resources to address any
understanding why mishaps occur and identifying actions that result. Similarly, management should
ways to prevent them. Examples of genuine failure, foster a trusting environment in which employees
illustrated through case studies and other tools, can share positive experiences and speak up when
can make a significant impression -- for example, they see potential food safety hazards or inappro-
demonstrating the real impact on human lives priate behaviour.
whenever foodborne illness or injury occurs.
All employees are themselves consumers with
It is important to ensure that all employees com- families, and should feel the sense of responsibility
prehend the procedures, practices and behaviours that comes from working within the food industry.
that act as preventive control measures. Manufac- Consequently, they should play a part in the
turing plant employees often clearly understand decision-making process and be empowered to
the importance of good health and safety practices, suggest improvements to reduce food safety risks.
largely because they are regularly monitored to Communications at all levels within the organiza-
achieve related metrics. In contrast, the conse- tion should reflect this.
quences of food safety failures may not directly
30
or immediately impact them. Employees therefore An organization’s hazards and risks are unlikely to
need to know why the control measures are im- remain static, so end-to-end reviews of business
portant and what consequences they may face activities should be conducted regularly, with input
when measures fail or are not followed. Equally, from frontline employees as well as managers. Any
they must fully understand their responsibilities changes should likewise be reflected in training
when failures occur, and feel they have the support curriculum, as appropriate.
8.3. Verify Hazard and Risk Awareness
Proper verification should confirm that efforts to • Reviews of near-misses, including effective-
generate hazard and risk awareness are succeed- ness of investigations to establish root cause and
ing. Several tools and techniques can be used to resultant corrective and preventive action plans.
validate these efforts, including:
• Behavioural observation can establish whether
• Audits to drive expectations down to line-level the desired behaviours are routinely practiced,
employees and ensure ownership. Audit gaps which will only happen if employees believe
should be highlighted. An experienced auditor they are required.
can evaluate the existence of an active and
supportive food safety culture and confirm if a Regardless of which technique is used, it is vital
deep and applied understanding of food safety to verify that hazard and risk awareness exists to
hazards exists. avoid the potential for system failure.

8.4. Summary
Understanding hazards at all organizational levels rewards, disciplinary actions and recognition, and
and functions is essential to establishing an effec- reinforcing the importance of recognizing and
tive food safety culture. This can be accomplished controlling food safety hazards.
through ongoing education, the use of metrics,
• How do you educate staff to understand why

the hazard and risk management controls in
their areas are so important, and what would
be the consequences of not following them?
• How do you review your “near-misses” and use

this information to drive improvements in your
food safety system?
• Can you identify examples of where using in-

dustry intelligence has helped identify potential
hazards or risks to your business?
31

9 CONCLUDING SUMMARY
Food industry laws and formalised standards have The guidelines, methods of measurement and
done much to make the global food supply safer advice presented here may go a long way toward
for those living in today’s industrialised world. helping your enterprise expand your culture of
Virtually everyone responsible for food safety, food safety. Ultimately, its long-term success will
from point of origin to plate, receives at least fun- be determined by now spontaneously and uncon-
damental instruction in safe food handling, along sciously its practices are made manifest every day,
with an explanation of the risks and sanctions from the CEO’s office to the front lines of service.
imposed when safety standards are ignorantly or
willfully disregarded.
However, the Global Food Safety Initiative believes

that to be successful and sustainable, food safety
must go beyond formal regulations to live within
the culture of a company. We wrote this working
paper as a blueprint for embedding and main-
taining a culture of food safety in any business,
regardless of its size or focus.
32
Culture exists apart from written laws and regula-
tions. It can trickle down from the highest levels of a
social entity, or bubble up from its greatest depths.
It may appear complete and whole at inception, or
take years or even generations to mature. It does
not follow formal rules, or even a straight line.
Cultural standards often are shared via casual
conversation and reinforced through thoughts and
actions until they rest in the unconscious.
We recognise the contradiction here in suggesting

that culture operates on a more instinctual, sponta-
neous level even as we present how-to advice and
by-the-numbers checklists designed to nurture
a culture of food safety. In our defense, we note
that this information comes directly from human
experience and extensive observations of how a
corporate culture is born and evolves. Our goal is
to offer these cultural insights as tools to engage
with and adapt to your organization’s own food
safety initiatives as you see fit.

10 APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Glossary
Appendix 2: Reading List
Appendix 3: Technical Working Group Members
Appendix 4: Education and Training Maturity Model
Appendix 5: People Elements Maturity Model
Appendix 6: Hazard and Risk Curriculum
Appendix 7: Vision and Mission – Things to Look For
Appendix 8: Consistency – Things to Look for
33

Appendix 1: Glossary
Food safety culture - shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mind-set and behaviour toward food
safety in, across and throughout an organization.
Influencer – A person or group with the ability to affect the behaviour, opinions or actions of others. This
term is particularly popular today in marketing and social media, but it applies equally in a corporate
setting to those capable of influencing an organization’s social or cultural norms.
34

Appendix 2: Reading List
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned behaviour. Griffith, C. J. (2014). Developing and Maintaining a
Organizational behaviour and Human Decision Positive Food Safety Culture. Highfield.co.uk Limited.
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Griffith, C. J., Jackson, L. M., & Lues, R. (2017). The
Ball, B., Wilcock, A., & Aung, M. (2009). Factors influ- food safety culture in a large South African food
encing workers to follow food safety management service complex: Perspectives on a case study.
systems in meat plants in Ontario, Canada. Inter- British Food Journal, 119(4), 729-743.
national journal of environmental health research,
19(3), 201-218. Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010). The
assessment of food safety culture. British Food
Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Journal, 112(4), 439-456.
Self-Regulation. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes 50(2) 248-287. Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. A. (2010).
Food safety culture: the evolution of an emerging
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, Bollaerts, & Vlerick. risk factor? British Food Journal, 112(4), 426-438.
(2015). Food safety climate in food processing
orgaizations: Development and validation of a Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences – In-
self-assessment tool. Trends in Food Science & ternational differences in work-related values. :
Technology, 46(2015), 242-251. Sage Publications, London.
35
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., Uyttendaele, Jespersen, L. (2017). Supply chain and food safety
M., & Vlerick, P. (2016). Interplay between food culture. Food Safety Magazine, February - March.
safety climate, food safety management system
and microbiological hygiene in farm butcheries and Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M., & Wallace, C. A. (2017).
affiliated butcher shops. Food Control, 65, 78-91. Comparative analysis of existing food safety cul-
ture evaluation systems. Food Control, 79, 371-379.
De Boeck, E., Mortier, A. V., Jacxsens, L., Dequidt, L.,
& Vlerick, P. (2017). Towards an extended food safe- Jespersen, L., & Huffman, R. (2014). Building food
ty culture model: Studying the moderating role of safety into the company culture: a look at Maple
burnout and jobstress, the mediating role of food Leaf Foods. Perspectives in Public Health (May 8,
safety knowledge and motivation in the relation 2014).
between food safety climate and food safety be-
havior. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 1-13. Jespersen, L., T., M., & Vlerick, P. (2017). Develop-
ment and validation of a scale to capture social
Festinger, L. (1962) Cognitive Dissonance in Suther- desirability in food safety culture. Food Control.
land et al (2000) The Management of Safety: The
Behavioural Approach to Changing Organizations. Jespersen, L., & Wallace, C. A. (2017). Triangulation
Sage Publications; London. and the importance of establishing valid methods
for food safety culture evaluation Food Research
Fleming, M. (2000) Safety Culture Maturity Model, International.
HSE Books; Suffolk.
Knott, D. Muers, S. And Aldridge, S. (2008) Achiev-
Griffith, C. J. (2010). Do businesses get the food poi- ing Culture Change. The Prime Minister’s Strategy
soning they deserve? British Food Journal, 112(4), Unit. London; Cabinet Office.
416-425.

Nyarugwe, S. P., Linnemann, A., Hofstede, G. J., Yiannas, F. (2015). Food Safety = Behavior: 30 Prov-
Fogliano, V., & Luning, P. A. (2016). Determinants for en Techniques to Enhance Employee Compliance:
conducting food safety culture research. Trends in Springer.
Food Science & Technology, 56, 77-87.
Reason, J. (1997) Managing the Risk of Organiza-

tional Accidents. Ashgate; Aldershot.
Saari, L. M. and Latham, G. P. (1982) Employee reac-

tion to continuous and variable ratio reinforcement
schedules involving a monetary incentive. Journal
of Applied Psychology 67(4).
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational

Culture and Leadership: Wiley.
Sutherland, V., Makin, P. And Cox, C. (2000) The Man-

agement of Safety: The Behavioural Approach to
Changing Organizations. Sage Publications; London.
Taylor, J. (2011). An exploration of food safety cul-

ture in a multi-cultural environment: next steps?
36
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(5),
455-466.
Taylor, J., Garat, J. P., Simreen, S., & Sarieddine, G.

(2015). An industry perspective: A new model of
Food Safety Culture Excellence and the impact of
audit on food safety standards. Worldwide Hospi-
tality and Tourism Themes, 7(1), 78-89.
Wallace, C. A. (2009). The impact of personnel,

training, culture and organizational factors on the
application of the HACCP system for food safety
management in a multinational organization (PhD
Thesis).
Wilcock, A., Ball, B., & Fajumo, A. (2011). Effective

implementation of food safety initiatives: Man-
agers’, food safety coordinators’ and production
workers’ perspectives. Food Control, 22(1), 27-33.
Yiannas, F. (2009). Food safety culture creating a

behavior-based food safety management system:
New York : Springer, c2009.

Appendix 3: Technical Working Group Members
Brian Bedard Gma science and education foundation

Megh Bhandari Barry callebaut
Ray Bowe Musgrave group ltd.
David Brackston Brc global standards
Kerry Bridges Walmart
Laurent Camberou Afnor - association française de normalisation
John Carter Danone
Chris Chapman Pepsico, inc.
Leann Chuboff Sqfi
Andrew Clarke Subway
Pierre de Ginestel Auchan
Lydia de Meyer Danone
Bertrand Emond Campden bri
Kathleen Ensley Taco bell
Dan Fone Walmart
Joanna Gilbert Fonterra
Charlean Gmunder Maple leaf foods inc.
Rolando Gonzalez The acheson group 37
Megan Guilford The hershey company
Dave Harlan Cargill, incorporated
Tony W. Huang Cofco corporation
Kentaro Ida Suntory holdings limited
Lone Jespersen Cultivate
Fiona Kibby Tesco
Michael Liewen Pepsico, inc.
Ellen Lopes Food design consultants
Paola López Sigma alimentos
Pieternel Luning Wageningen university
Jeff Miller Mars inc.
Sara Mortimore Land o’lakes inc.
Ingo Mücke Bahlsen gmbh & co. Kg
Laura Nelson Alchemy systems
Steve Parker Mondelez
Bizhan Pourkomailian Mcdonalds
Fons Schmid Foundation for food safety system certification 22000
Laurel Stoltzner Osi industries, llc
Linda Wesolowski Nestle
Bob Whitaker Pma

Appendix 4: Education and Training Maturity Model
Education and Training Maturity Model
Maturity Model Phases
1 2 3 4 5
Senior Maturity No recognition from Company operates in reactive Beginning of systems Proactive food safety messag- Food safety training integral
Manage- Charac- executives that training for mode regarding food safety development to provide es incorporated into regular to senior management roles,
ment teristics this population is necessary. issues, no action other than training, manage information communications from senior tailored to specific areas but
Food safety seen as Quality in response to complaints, and record performance. All management; formal system all executives can explain key
Assurance issue only. Training recalls or poor inspection executives receive food safety of management training in risk areas, controls and why
materials non-existent or results. No formal system for training and achieve a clear place and implemented. Se- food safety culture is essential
poorly produced, content training exists. Some ad hoc understanding of their own nior management comfortable across the organization.
weak, does not target spe- sessions conducted, not all se- food safety program compo- discussing key risks and Executives view food safety
cific company. Trainings nior management attend. No nents. Additional training for control measures, has system as fundamentally important
not always registered, no formal testing of competence critical food safety hazards in place to evaluate employee and potentially a business
performance evaluation. Ex- and understanding. Senior at food sites. Communication understanding and perfor- differentiator. Executives
ecutives delegate food safety management may understand mechanism established to mance. Food safety data and keep current on food safety 38
responsibilities to Quality food safety, but consider it the keep executives updated communication shared with issues across the industry,
Assurance and Quality Control; responsibility of the Quality on food safety program senior executives routinely and actively question perfor-
Limited or no communication Assurance and Quality Control status. Senior management and discussed for increased mance training materials to
between the two groups. teams. Information regarding begins to engage with food food safety comprehension emphasize the importance
Food safety concept not food safety is delivered safety issues and support within the team. Key business of food safety for personnel
universally understood among sporadically to specific exec- the Quality Assurance and decisions considered with and facilities. Attention given
senior management team. utives, generally regarding a Quality Control teams. food safety in mind. to equipment and routine
Training materials, if existent, crisis. Lack of foundational Training materials highlight practices, risks, possible
focus primarily on personal information creates a void for food safety’s importance consequences, to stimulate
hygiene. Senior management sound decision-making and for personnel and facility, pro-active and predictive
does not monitor money limits ability to affect positive including equipment and actions. Senior management
spent on food safety change and continuous routine practices, risks, and strongly supports the Quality
training programs. improvement. possible consequences. Assurance and Quality Control
Training materials go Senior management strongly teams, incentivizes them to
beyond personal hygiene, supports Quality Assurance promote continuous improve-
but are more rules-focused and Quality Control teams, and ment via graduation courses,
without addressing risks. food safety results are fol- participation in external con-
lowed systematically. Senior tinuing ed seminars, etc.
management looks to middle Senior management under-
management for specifics re- stands return on investment
garding food safety training’s (ROI) of training programs.
return on investment (ROI).

Sugges- Development of customized Begin development of systems Further implementation of Senior management coached Food safety messaging
tions for induction training for senior to provide training, manage systems, development of and supported as leaders updated frequently to keep
Matura- management. “Compre- information and record perfor- area-specific training and develop a stronger under- information fresh. Senior
tion: hension training” for senior mance. Ensure all executives evaluation of knowledge standing of food safety risks. management actively sup-
management provides food receive food safety training to and understanding (and Ongoing training program ports suppliers’ improvements
safety fundamentals and achieve a clear understanding confidence). Senior level developed to expand knowl- in food safety initiatives.
importance of leading by ex- of their own food safety rewards process implemented edge and embed need to focus Mechanisms developed for
ample. Training underscores program components. Provide to encourage learning (or on food safety. Use of external senior leadership to help
each individual’s role in food additional onsite training for conversely ensure strong resourcing for training and/ execute employee food safety
safety and management’s critical food safety hazards. consequence management is or specific off-site events behaviours, coach and mentor
support. Opportunity to Establish a communication in place). Senior management designed to engender team employees. Food safety
establish “best-in-class” food mechanism that continually ensures adequate funding spirit around food safety. awareness training regularly
safety programs (see Land Of updates executive team on the available and believes that Development of a food safety updated and customized to
Frost, Maple Leaf and Grocery food safety program’s effec- resources for food safety training message from senior the organization. Continuous
Manufacturing Association’s tiveness. Senior management training are an “untouchable” managment for all employees. improvement and well-de-
“Food Safety for Senior Lead- begins to support the quality in each budget review/dis- Continuous learning oppor- veloped recognition system.
ers” seminar as examples). assurance and quality control cussion. Knowledge exchange tunities provided for senior
teams, and remains engaged format created to collectively leadership on topics including
with food safety issues. review key decision points horizon scanning and
within the organization and emerging food safety threats.
related impacts on food safety,
including how equipment is
cleaned, how new products 39
may introduce new allergens
to operation, etc. Food
safety program updates
shared with management.

Middle Maturity No recognition from Company remains in reactive Company remains in reactive Proactive food safety messag- Food safety training integral
Manage- Charac- supervisors that training for mode regarding food safety mode, but has started a for- es incorporated into regular to supervisory roles, tailored
ment, teristics this population is necessary. issues, no consideration given mal system for staff training senior management commu- to specific areas but all
Super- Food safety seen as Quality other than responding to and development; system nications and shared. Formal supervisors able to explain
visors Assurance role only. Training complaints, recalls or poor remains general with no food system of management train- key risk areas, controls and
materials non-existent or inspection results. No formal safety roles or responsibil- ing in place and implemented. why food safety culture across
poorly produced, content weak training system exists; some ities specified. Supervisory Supervisors comfortable in the organization is important
and not tailored to specific ad hoc sessions are conduct- staff in key risk production discussing key risks and con- and their respective roles.
company. Educational focus ed, not all supervisors attend areas operate with limited trol measures for their areas Supervisors see food safety
limited to technical compe- and little formal recording. understanding of food safety of responsibility and across as fundamentally important
tences. Training materials, if No formal test of competence issues. Supervisory team production. System in place and potentially a business
existent, focus only or mainly and understanding. No formal meetings occasionally review for evaluating understanding differentiator. Supervisors are
in personnel hygiene. Middle coaching and mentoring food safety and report back on and performance is regularly aware of current food safety
managers, supervisors and/ provided to validate expected audits, etc. Supervisors accept evaluated by supervisory issues across the industry and
or Human Resources staff employee behaviours. Time importance of internal training team, built into KPIs for proactively question performance.
see food safety as a practice committed to food safety is and audits, but don’t always duction areas and subject to Internal champions exist
with no theoretical back- spent exclusively on correct- follow up on needed corrective routine consideration. across supervisory teams and
ground necessary, so only ing negative behaviours. and preventive actions. Training materials emphasize are positive influencers on
very basic rules are provided Training materials go beyond Training materials cover the importance of food company performance
before an employee begins personnel hygiene, but are the basics but still do not safety for personnel as well Training materials show the
working. Limited or no unique more linked to rules and address risks and possible as for the equipment and importance of food safety
training provided beyond the not to potential risks. Some consequences. Supervisors routine practices, with focus for personnel as well as for
basics; employe’s specific role behavioural capacitation(??) set an example and to act on risks and its possible the facility, equipment and
40
in food safety is undefined. is given to them/ show the as food safety knowledge consequences. The trainings routine practices, with focus
Focus remains exclusively on importance of “walk the talk”. multipliers, but still a stronger are interesting and stimulate on risks and its possible con-
attaining production goals. No capacitation in behavioural participation. Supervisors sequences and stimulate to
ability to explain the ‘why’s’ and andragogic tools are act as good examples and predict problems and to give
behind food safety protocols. lacking. encourage operational teams solutions. The trainings are
to act proactively. interesting and stimulate their
personnel to participate. They
act always as good examples,
as food safety knowledge
multipliers and they stimulate
their operational team to act
proactively. They reward the
frontline employees which are
best examples.

Sugges- Customized induction training Systems developted to Further implementation of Ongoing coaching and support Continuous improvement of
tions for developed for supervisors. provide training, to manage systems, development of for supervisory team as they technical and behavioural
Matura- Delivery of ‘comprehension’ information and to record area-specific training and develop much stronger under- skills. Mechanisms developed
tion: training so that senior performance. Soft skill evaluation of knowledge, standing of food safety risks. for senior leadership tp help
management understands training developed to aid in comprehension and confi- Ongoing training program that execute employee food safety
importance of leading by improved communications, dence. Rewards process at expands knowledge and acts behaviours, coach and mentor
example. Technical food motivatioanl skills, providing implenented at supervisory to embed desire to focus on employees demonstrating
safety training specifically for constructive feedback, level to encourage learning food safety. Use of external their knowledge and support
supervisors developed to cre- coaching, demonstration of and conversely ensure strong resourcing for training and/ of food safety. General and
ate a deeper understanding of leadership, etc. consequence management is or specific off-site events to area-specific food safety
the ‘whys’ behind food safety Development of supervisor in place. engender team spirit around training updated regularly.
protocols and procedures. training skills. Continuing skills develop- food safety
Development of behavioural ment for supervisors. . Continuing skills develop-
competences. Upper ment as trainers; options
management communicates exist to reward those who
the importance of com- are best examples.
prehensive training.
Frontline Maturity Either no training or compli- Company continues to be Formal system for training Majority of staff, understand Formal system for training
Employees Charac- ance training only; limited reactive to food safety issues, exists during onboarding and what the control mechanisms exists as induction and
teristics onboarding training provided no consideration of food refresher training .as induc- are and how to implement refresher trainings and its
based on new hire remaining safety other than resulting tion and refresher trainings. them., they have confidence to contents is reviewed period-
with company; ‘Refresher from complaint, recall or poor Employees understand rules act if they see something they ically to go deeper, per the
training’ missing or incon- inspection result. No formal are mandatory but they don’t know to be wrong. team evolution, reinforcing the 41
sistent and consists of same system for training exists always follow the rules. Formal system for training necessary aspects as detected
onboarding content; Training but some ad hoc sessions exists during onboarding and during internal audits + the
is outdated and not reflective are operated, not all staff are refresher trainings. Contents supervisor’s perception.
of current workforce demo- required to attend and little is reviewed periodically using Operational team in fact goes
graphics (culture, language, formal recording. No formal performance for continuous further and do have a preven-
age, learning preferences, test of competence and improvement. Operational tive attitude. They stimulate
gender); Training facilitators understanding. Employees team demonstrating a new employees with their
are not content experts and occasionally discuss food preventive mindset. Training example and help newcomers
lack consistency in delivery; safety outbreaks/recalls in the materials go beyond the to follow the rule and they
More training needed but news. personnel hygiene; rules are appoint errors if there is
resources are not made Training materials go beyond showed as preventive actions some. Training materials go
available; No measure of the personnel hygiene, but is to avoid risks. GMP rules are beyond the personnel hygiene;
training effectiveness - move more linked to the rules and always being followed due to rules are showed as preven-
this sentence to the Middle not to the risks concept. GMP a good level of consciousness tive actions to avoid risks and
Management, Supervisors are to be followed specially if its format is very stimulating
section. supervisor is near them. and participative. Good
Training materials if existent, Manufacturing Practices rules
focus only or mainly in are always being followed
personnel hygiene. Only and the workforce takes
very general rules are given pride in their performance.
before they begin working.
They think the hygiene rules
are not in fact important.

Sugges- Update training content to Training materials should Specific training developed Strong system in place to Continuous improvement.
tions for reflect current operational, go beyond rules, with focus and delivered for every area evaluate understanding Encourage confident employ-
Matura- regulatory, customer expecta- on the risks concepts and across the company; some and confidence, support ees to monitor and observe
tion: tions AND to keep employees their consequences. GMP evaluation of understanding mechanisms in place for staff each other and provide
engaged; Insure training is at is always to be followed. and confidence in understand- who show poor understanding feedback and coaching around
the appropriate training level ing being implemented. or lack confidence. Differing food safety. Maintain food
using the Flesch-Kincaid test Improvement of trainings and approaches available to aid safety awareness programs
(suggested 8th grade level) to have a system to recognize effective learning. Food safety specific to the operation
by using Microsoft Word’s when they adhere to the rules. seen by all staff as ‘non-ne- (posters, huddle talks, digital
readability statistics; Insure gotiable’ ability to challenge signage). Celebrate food
all employees are onboarded and ‘stop the line’ is positively safety achievements
with fundamentals prior to encouraged. across the organization.
beginning work regardless Improvement of trainings, to
of turnover rate; Insure all have a system to recognize
employees receive ‘refresher’ when they adhere to the rules
training. Provide training in with special attention to the
formats that all employees newcomers.
can comprehend (heavy
imagery vs. text) and provide
language translations Format
heavy imagery X text will
depend on the educational
level of the team composition.
42
Contents shall cover all
aspects not only personnel
hygiene, but focusing specially
the actual food safety risks.

Appendix 5: People Elements Maturity Model

People Elements
Maturity Model Phases
1 2 3 4 5
Governance (who, Consciously do not comply Place ownership and Good hygiene requirements Understand the importance Actively check and improve
what and how au- unless enforcement obliges responsibility for food safety seen as burdensome. Busi- of food safety compliance and food safety in absence of third
thority is exercised, them to. e.g. lack of presence compliance on the regulator nesses do not consistently take ownership of meeting party inspection or require-
system of manage- within the business with no and other third parties. e.g. exhibit ownership of food the requirements. e.g. clearly ments. See food safety as a
ment) (based on delegation of responsibility just tell me what you want safety practices as these are understood organizational business risk that they must
greenback and skill- for food safety. Structure is me to do (e.g.with regard to believed unnecessary. e.g. structure and defined be excellent at. e.g. evidence
soft) VISION AND decentralized, lacking consist- food safety)‘. Coordination we don‘t need to worry - the responsibilities for food of active management of
MISSION PEOPLE ent standards and controls; between departments (e.g staff know what they are safety. Governance is food safety and completion
resulting in little to no coor- learning, talent development) doing – it‘s common sense. A well-established with strong of records, timely reaction to
dination between corporate starts to become more steering committee is estab- business and procurement issues. The governance pro-
and departmental efforts, so organized, beginning with the lished to provide oversight stakeholders. Centralized cesses are fully mature and
operations are highly ineffi- formation of some common to the change management decision making is the norm decisions for all aspects of
cient. The lack of coordination standards and partnerships processes. The cross-func- for the strategic and opera- talent and learning are made 43
may hit a pain point or a clash with suppliers, often tional team includes senior tional aspects of talent and from a fact-base of data-driv-
between teams where conflict facilitated by procurement. executives, business stake- learning. The infrastructure en inputs. The organization
can arise. Such conflicts Typically, this stems from holders, key representatives and processes are standard- runs efficiently because the
often remain unresolved. an imperative to resolve from talent and learning as ized across the enterprise. vision is well understood
Since there is a lack of skill gaps among targeted well as senior sponsors from There are often specialized and controls are not difficult
governance-based controls, employee groups (sales, IT. Some turf-protections centers of excellence that to maintain. There is a high
there is duplication resulting customer service, leadership, rise up in the early stages. stay on top of what is degree of team consensus,
in higher overall expenses. new employee orientation, The organization assembles trending. Formal meetings often underpinned by a less
etc.). Organizations may a talent transformation (typically quarterly) include hierarchical structure where
have a learning council plan to earmark its mile- senior Human Resources, IT all ideas for improvement
but participation tends to stones. Accountability to and business stakeholders are respected. Annually, a
be ad-hoc. Agendas for the plan and adherence to and executive-level detailed plan is written by
the council meetings are the emerging controls are updates are issued after the governance team to
often not directly connected reported regularly to senior each meeting. Academy or articulate any changes in
to the business – they are executives. The support of the university leads are typically budget, staffing, program
more topically based or executive team will greatly in place to liaise with each plans, and business alignment
simply provide a forum influence how difficult it is as business unit, geography or in practices. The plan also
for voluntary sharing. better governance is rooted. support of a global portfolio highlights Human Resources’
key performance indicators
(KPIs) to illustrate how the
current plan is tracking
to expectations and what
adjustments in measures are
proposed for the new year.

Supply Chain Lack awareness of food Supply chain personnel Good hygiene requisites Suppliers demonstrate Suppliers demonstrate that
safety issues for food still do not take ownership are required for suppliers better knowledge of food teams are fully aware of
(people involved supply chain related for food safety issues, but is seen as burdensome. safety requirements, its the importance of abiding
with materials / personnel Supply chain but they follow what Ownership of food reasons and importance. to Food Safety require-
ingredients ex- is still seen as out of the they see as burdensome safety by suppliers is still Processes are stan- ments and processes; take
tending through ownership of food safety
food safety management requirements of special- inconsistent, because their dardized and monitored.
a manufacturing
process to the processes. Deviation ized departments. Some personnel lacks deepened Metrics show improvement issues, requirements, pro-
distributor, of standards is motive initiatives of negotiation understanding on the and deviations are less cesses and measurements;
retailer, consumer) for conflict as the parts and beginning of a better discrimination between frequent, and problems are team is competent and
PERFORMANCE involved may think is not understanding begin to quality requirements and resolved promptly. Supply does critical analysis and
MEASURES their responsibility. Losses appear. Beginning of the food safety resulting in chain’s representatives contributes to mitigating
PEO-PLE of materials may happen development of partner- delegating the respon- become more integrated risks. Supply chain’s
HAZARD AND because there exists a lack ship between supply chain sibility of rework on the in the steering committee. representatives are fully
RISKS of clear agreement on the personnel and their clients. quality and assurance integrated on cross func-
food safety standards. personnel. Supply chain tional steering committee.
representative is invited
to the steering committee,
but its participation
is inconsistent
Supply Chain Lack awareness of food Supply chain personnel Good hygiene requisites Suppliers demonstrate Suppliers demonstrate that 44
(people involved safety issues for food still do not take ownership are required for suppliers better knowledge of food teams are fully aware of
with materials / supply chain related for food safety issues, but is seen as burdensome. safety requirements, its the importance of abiding
ingredients ex- personnel Supply chain but they follow what Ownership of food reasons and importance. to Food Safety require-
tending through
a manufacturing
is still seen as out of the they see as burdensome safety by suppliers is still Processes are stan- ments and processes; take
process to the food safety management requirements of special- inconsistent, because their dardized and monitored. ownership of food safety
distributor, processes. Deviation ized departments. Some personnel lacks deepened Metrics show improvement issues, requirements, pro-
retailer, of standards is motive initiatives of negotiation understanding on the and deviations are less cesses and measurements;
consumer) for conflict as the parts and beginning of a better discrimination between frequent, and problems are team is competent and
PERFORMANCE involved may think is not understanding begin to quality requirements and resolved promptly. Supply does critical analysis and
MEASURES PEO- their responsibility. Losses appear. Beginning of the food safety resulting in chain’s representatives contributes to mitigating
PLE HAZARD of materials may happen development of partner- delegating the respon- become more integrated risks. Supply chain’s
AND RISKS because there exists a lack ship between supply chain sibility of rework on the in the steering committee. representatives are fully
of clear agreement on the personnel and their clients. quality and assurance integrated on cross func-
food safety standards. personnel. Supply chain tional steering committee.
representative is invited
to the steering committee,
but its participation
is inconsistent

External Stake- External stakeholders External stakeholders Efforts of food safety train- The external stakeholders External stakeholders are
holders (vendors, work autonomously are fully integrated with ing and shared food safety / staffing are more com- seamlessly integrated into
regulators that pro- without oversight or expec- shared food safety goals goals are more consistent. petent in regard to food organization with routine
vider services like tations; no mechanisms integration training and They show more under- safety issues. They tend performance reviews,
temporary staffing or processes in place seek to just to comply standing and acceptance of to follow the standards continuous improvement
PERFORMANCE for performance review, with regulators /minimum food safety requirements with only minor deviations. plans, collaborations to
MEASURES PEO- contract compliance standards. They do not and processes, but they The communication is enhance operational goals;
PLE HAZARD consider that they should still lack accountability constant and there is more External stakeholders are
AND RISKS follow all requirements, for all risks and impacts. confidence to point out seamlessly integrated
because they do not doubts, suggestions or and share food safety
understand its importance. even errors. The metrics objectives with routine,
Food safety rules, pro- are taken seriously and consistent performance
cesses etc. seen as client’s made to analyze the reviews, continuous
annoyance. Only abide if results and improve improvement plans, col-
constantly supervised. performance. They are laborations to enhance
consulted and inserted on operational goals.
the improvement plans.
Teamwork and Departments/shifts Few efforts in the direction Some departments/ Majority of teams work Departments/shifts/
Collaboration (the are maintained in silos of more cross-functional teams are more open to more integrated and employees exhibit deep
characteristics and without cross functional team cooperation. Mini- communicate and work the cooperation is level of commitment and
approaches for 45
activities; employees lack mum opportunities to give together, especially to more intense even with trust in each other and
creation cooperative
work; efficient,
‘big picture’ of how their and receive opinions. More solve common problems. departments that usually with the organization; open
effective behaviors role affects organization awareness of the need Roles have been clarified. are not cross-functional in lines of communication
from cohesive goals; problem-solving to clarify the roles and Better comprehension of normal operations. Have exist; teams exhibit wide
workforce) is completed in isolation; responsibilities regarding the impacts of each role developed a complete range of competencies and
PEOPLE CONSIS- roles and responsibilities food safety but limited in on the organization results picture of the impacts of participate in cross func-
TENCY ADAPT- lack clear definition; awareness plan execution. and objectives. More each area and role on the tional teams as needed;
ABILITY HAZARD opinions and consensus is Still lack clear understand- freedom to give opinions food safety of the compa- Teams exhibit adaptability
AND RISKS not solicited or welcome; ing of difference of quality and feedbacks. Recognition ny. Recognition and reward and are flexible in meeting
no reward or recognition and food safety. More or reward exist, but not systems are devised in changing plant conditions/
for working together; prone to work together. in a systemic way and a systemic way and are needs; creative thinking is
lack of communication is dependent on the based on metrics/ current encouraged and rewarded
leadership of the area. data. Teams spontaneously
seek external opinions,
suggestions and present
their worries in routine
efforts to solve problems
or improving things.

Policy of There is no policy, They realize they need to They realize it’s important There is a formalized Behaviors are already
Consequences (in- there is no consistency give feedback but there to have some kind of consequences policy. Zero internalized, with the right
centives, awards, in management of is no consistency nor system/ scheme, but tolerance where neces- mindset for the majority
recognition) non-compliances/ compli- established structure to be it’s a “crude” system, sary. Perceived as fair of personnel. They do not
PEOPLE ances. There no reward followed. There is some re- for example peer to and transparent. Tailored need special recognition
PERFORMANCE ward but no transparency. peer established, not for individuals or groups for compliant behav-
MEASURES individualized / for groups. and tied to strategic iors. People try to inspire
CONSISTENCY Perceived almost as goals of food safety others to do their best.
fair and transparent.
Empowerment (the No knowledge/ not allowed Some knowledge/ allowed Good but not full Almost full knowledge/ Full knowledge/ correct
process of giving or to take any action to take action (localized, knowledge/ encouraged most of the actions are actions are always taken;
delegating power not across all the orga- to take action taken independently proactively predicting
and authority within nization). Do not receive and correctly problems beyond his/
the organization) general support for taking her own responsibility
PEOPLE appropriate responsibility
CONSISTENCY
Community (when Lack of people, re- Acknowledge that the Connections between Programs in place. Focused in building social
necessary – that cruitment issues, high support of the community employees with wider Improved stability programs, full engagement
means: direct turnover, government is needed. Identifying how community is established. of workforce. of community, High
family, relatives subsidies No involvement to assess the problem loyalty. Lower turnover. 46
and wider groups).
with community. to design a plan. Stable workforce.
PEOPLE VISION
AND MISSION
Performance (the No measurement. No metrics. Ad hoc metrics, metrics of There are some metrics. Full metrics, used to drive High performing teams.
assessment of food safety are still not sep- Not systematically done. continuous improvement. Demonstrable. Success
works, acts, behav- arated from quality metrics. Individual / groups Validation and support of the metrics. Trying to
iors, actions, deeds, No feedback is provided. performance is clearly from supervisors/leaders exceed. They are fully
in the execution of related to food safety but little
intended purpose) feedback or use of data.
supportive of each other.
PEOPLE
PERFORMANCE
MEASURE
CONSISTENCY

Motivation Mostly disengaged workforce; Mostly not engaged; inter- Almost engaged but there are Engaged; feel like a vital part Highly engaged, self-moti-
Commitment & mainly working for the ested in overtime; have more times when not. Relatively of the business; feel important vated, committed workforce;
Engagement (the money; not particularly sick days than they should; proud to work in the company at work; really busy and people inspire each other
process that sus- satisfied and excited by the working conditions not great; but not telling others as such. feeling sometimes stressed; to do their best and keen to
tains and regulates job; Dictatorial approach not particularly keen on Might leave if tempted. No feeling of achievement; will identify what they can do for
employee behavior) to managing staff or simply manager and/or on own team; particular career development only leave if something much others. Love working here;
(based on Maslow do not seek staff opinion. does not really like the job prospects here Doubt better comes along Employee clear career development
and Greenstreet) but gets on with it. Looking the significance of the risk engagement is accepted to prospects here. High flyers
PEOPLE PERFOR- around for other jobs in other posed by food safety and help comply with regulation. can strive. Actively seek
MANCE MEASURE companies Development the effectiveness of food Develops food safety practices employee views on how to
CONSISTENCY and application of practices hygiene regulations and with some staff involvement improve food safety. e.g.
and procedures is driven requirements e.g. ‘we‘ve and offers the opportunity for evident active interest in
by the regulator and other always done it this way’ employees to comment once continual improvement in food
third parties. e.g. staff are complete. e.g. Hazard Analy- safety – incentives/rewards
left to get on with what they ses Critical Control Plan/Safer for compliance and consistent
are paid to do. Staff do what Food, Better Business review. achievement of internal
they think is appropriate. standards; encouragement of
suggestions for improvement.
Responsibility & No clear responsibility & They are informed about Individuals or groups know Individual or groups are Fully Responsible &
Accountability accountability established. their responsibilities, what to do but not always fully aware of what they accountable. Clear
(delegation and ac- The victim and persecutor duties, and what they do what they are supposed need to do and the reason position, Role descriptions.
ceptance of one’s mentality is in place. are expected to do but to do. Generally, they why they should do it. Supported by higher level, 47
individual actions or
the organization’s
still tend to resist seeing tend to follow what they Their behavior is more team and the peers.
actions) as more exaggerated are required to do in the consistent, even in the
PEOPLE demands of people that presence of their leaders absence of their direct
PERFORMANCE are nitpicking! Usually try or people in charge of leaders. They reinforce
MEASURES VISION to defend and attribute monitoring the standards. each other to abide. They
AND MISSION responsibility to others. are more vigilant and tend
not to allow colleagues be
noncompliant with regu-
lations and requirements.
Regionality Ignore any differences; Acknowledge cultural differ- Doing diagnostics on Assess plan success, Celebrate differences and
and Cultural Fit impose one; varying ences but cater for majority. cultural differences; create continuous measurement proactive development
(cultures, languages, level of compliance Ad hoc activities. Responding and execute plan taking and get to deeper beliefs of community activities;
genders, ages, to issues following poor audit account differences ability to successfully
education levels,
length of tenure)
absorb cultural differences
PEOPLE
CONSISTENCY

Metrics (standards No Food Safety Diagnosis of Food Food Safety Culture Food Safety Culture Food Safety Culture
for measurement or Culture Diagnosis Safety Culture show Diagnosis show around Diagnosis show around Diagnosis approaching
evaluation of effi- around 1/3 evolution ½ level of evolution 2/3 maturity level maximum maturity level
ciency, performance,
progress or quality No metrics for ele- Lagging indicators, not Addition of some leading Leading indicators systemati- Adequate capture and
of a plan or process) ments: Turnover, GMP systematically imple- indicators not systematically cally implemented nor treated treatment for all these
PEOPLE compliances, Learning mented nor treated. implemented nor treated. but not for all the organization indicators Behaviors
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES plans, audits results, and attitudes involved
CONSISTENCY internal audit, custom acknowledged adjusted
complaints, behavioral and internalized across
verification, Leading all the organization. Data
indicators, peer to peer are integral towards
observations, pre-op the decision making
compliance, downtime,
regulatory Food Safety
compliance, balance
score card, engagement
research, annual
performance review
Resources, Funding Consider food safety to be Consider food safety to be Food safety given low priority Sets food safety as one of Considers food safety to
& Investment as a nuisance. Food safety of low priority in relation to as business fails to see the several business priori- be a top priority, a critical 48
(sufficient people, requirements are rejected other business priorities. e.g. benefit or importance of ties. Accept that food hygiene business success factor &
time, equipment, for reasons of self interest. ‘I have a business to run, tax food safety. e.g. business is important. e.g. evident something they must be
structure to achieve return to complete etc ‘. resistant to discussions about acknowledgement of com- seen as excellent at. e.g.
behaviors) (based food safety – ‘we‘ve never pliance within the business. frequent reference to food
on greenback) poisoned anyone‘. Evidence Receptive to suggestions from safety/hygiene, enthusiasm
PEOPLE of misplaced complacency. Local Authority Inspector. for prevention rather than
VISION AND Focus on getting the job done. cure i.e. using sampling
MISSION and testing to verify safety
rather than control issues.
Behavioral Science Do not feel the need for Few people realize that Behavioral Science concepts Behavioral Science is reputed Company have specialized
(application of the searching behavioral technical knowledge is not are being inserted into the as important as technical people or persons more
scientific study of knowledge. Even technical enough. Feel the need of the training. Start incorporating knowledge. Board, Directors, interested or have
human behavior) knowledge usually does not help of behavioral aspects. and applying some concepts Managers and leaders are established ways for
comprise food safety is- Become aware that more on the Human Resources trained, understand and
sues profoundly. behavioral science knowledge management tools and apply concepts and tools
constantly updating on
is necessary to help and Human Resources system. from behavioral science on behavioral knowledge.
leverage the efficacy of People refer more frequently their daily interactions. And applies/ articulates
technical aspects. This kind on daily interactions, this knowledge within its
of knowledge is aggregated meetings etc. to achieve Human Resources’ prac-
through the support of more behavioral outcomes tices, training and system.
curious people, Human
Resources representatives or
with the help of consultants.

Competency (job No definition of required Competencies are described Competency concepts Competency Management
tasks, work instruc- skills, no job tasks or for all functions and positions. and tools have already System is completely
tions, knowledge, work instructions. And communication was com- been implemented and developed and integrated
skills, behaviors) pleted. So everybody knows people are informed about to all HUMAN RESOURCES
PEOPLE about its meanings, impor- the competencies profile of
PERFORMANCE tance for their performance their function / positions.
practices and tools.
MEASURES evaluation, development Personnel knows the meaning Competence system is
CONSISTENCY and advancement plan. of the competencies, was articulated with Food Safe-
HAZARD AND RISKS trained on how to evaluate, ty in training, management
to monitor, to give feedback. practices, performance
evaluation, career
advancement, reward sys-
tem. Personnel is provided
with opportunities of devel-
opment and advancement.
Management Sup- Management advocates Leadership surrounding Leaders fail to role model food Leaders role model and Frequently encourage staff
port and Oversight/ non-compliance except where food hygiene is inconsistent safety behaviours and express encourage the food safety to apply food safety proce-
Accountability risk of enforcement. e.g. no and follows instruction cynicism to staff. Poor food behaviours desired from dures, explain why this is
(resource allocation, attempt to provide suitable from the regulator. e.g. safety practice remains their staff as per the regula- necessary and applaud good
personal demon- equipment /facilities to lack of initiative and drive unchallenged and feedback tions. Leaders challenge poor practice. e.g. evident active
stration of food enable staff to work correctly from the business. - little is not provided with regards food hygiene practices which interest in food safety;
safety support, food e.g. hand wash facilities presence of /direction from to hygiene behaviours. e.g. fail to comply with legisla- leader-ship through good 49
safety priority within the business in workplace Managers not adhering to tion. e.g. complies with rules examples. Recognition of
operations, food with regard to food safety. protective clothing rules for hygienic practice. Shows achievement i.e. scores for
safety recognition, Except following inspection active interest in compliance compliance with standards
ethics and integ- and deals with breaches.
rity in food safety
decision-making)
PEOPLE MISSION
AND VISION
CONSISTENCY

Communications
(trust to engage
in food safety and
report issues,
escalation protocols
for food safety
concerns, spoken
and non-spoken
communication
practices)
(based on Green
street and skillssoft)
PEOPLE
CONSISTENCY
HAZARD AND RISKS
Human Resources’ Either no trust or actively Employees not encouraged to Communication about food Communications focus on Employees feel completely
Role (strategy; discouraged from reporting report poor food safety. Very safety is derogatory of the promoting food safety in line free to report issues and
learning & talent concerns. e.g. evident poor little communication about requirements. Reported con- with regulation. Staff are en- trust management to
ownership, job role awareness of food safety food safety. e.g. staff left to cerns remain unattended e.g. couraged to report examples respond positively. e.g.
specific training, among staff/evident fear of get on with the job and work ‘I suppose we‘d better do x of poor food safety practice to evident communication of
outcome/ reporting – ‘more than my around any issues. /we have to do x because ensure compliance. e.g. staff food safety matters e.g. staff
behavior based job‘s worth‘. Focus is on Funding processes are the Inspector said so‘. No indicate they can influence ‘noticeboard‘ -display of any
50
training validation continually reducing expenses not uniform and when action taken when issues are food safety practice within complaints and actions taken.
program, delineated versus ensuring performance. times are tight, learning reported or actions taken the business. People are Management receptive to
performance HUMAN RESOURCES investments are often among are not timely/staff have to regarded as investments suggestions for improvement.
standards) (based is frequently among the first the first sacrificed. Not all raise issues several times that directly influence the Involvement of staff in
on skillsoft) to suffer in a cost-contain- training spend is visible to to get a response. The organization’s agility so resolving issues and providing
PEOPLE VISION ment initiative. There is no the corporate Hurman Re- larger rationalization effort funding is reliably in place support in taking agreed
AND MISSION predetermined commitment sources organization because is typically coordinated with and investments are aggres- actions People development
ADAPTABILITY to talent at a certain considerable “shadow train- the expertise of procurement sive to retain and attract top is an integral part of the
percentage of payroll or ing” investments are made at and finance. The cohesion talent. With the lion’s share of enterprise brand, so funding
revenues. Talent acquisition the departmental levels. Pro- really begins when the first rationalization opportunities per capita is the highest. Any
and performance man- curement may get engaged significant centralised funding achieved, the focus now is capital investments for new
agement are typically to resolve duplicative invest- and platform decisions are on capitalizing on nascent systems or considerable in-
not automated processes ments across certain cost made through the consensus opportunities to enhance creases in staff are expressed
due to lack of desire to invest categories. Outside of those of the committee. While the enterprise performance. in payoff to the business.
in modernizing them. Budget key investment consolidation cross-functional steering Budget targets are parallel Organizations at this level are
for learning and talent is far projects, funding decisions committee is formed, several with industry benchmark often envied, their methods
below industry benchmarks. are commonly federated opportunities for alignment to best-in-class companies. may be shared with the ex-
and often not connected. the business or elimination of tended enterprise or to others
Budget planning occasionally duplication may be missed on a consulting basis. Budget
takes industry benchmarks because this new group is is typically significantly
into account. early in its establishment. above industry benchmarks
Budget targets begin to take because it is based on the
industry benchmarks into organization’s Key Process
account Indicators and Return
on Investment goals.

Minimal overarching Strategies regarding critical Practices among key All aspects (talent Highly sophisticated
learning and talent strategy talent and learning functions learning and talent processes attraction, development, and integrated near
directs the Human Resources (talent acquisition, devel- start to become integrated promotion, mobility, and long-term HUMAN
team’s efforts. The Human opment and performance as the organization recog- engagement and rewards) are RESOURCES strategies exist.
Resources team is largely management) are project nizes the need for greater connected to one another in Strategic objectives, which
reactive to the business managed and process-driven, adaptability. Performance order to heighten the output are typically cross-organi-
stakeholders with respect but they are not integrated. consulting is applied to of the enterprise. Internal zational, require HUMAN
to independent processes There may also be differing ensure better alignment talent mining becomes more RESOURCES leaders to
(acquisition, training, succes- degrees of maturity within between the HUMAN adept. The business strategies collaborate cross functionally,
sion, compliance, etc.) The talent and learning. HUMAN RESOURCES strategies and are routinely translated creating shared goals and
scope of HUMAN RESOURC- RESOURCES & Learning and the business strategies. The into talent strategies so the actions. Collectively these
ES’s roles and structure hold Development begin to engage cascading of organizational HUMAN RESOURCES team behaviors drive outcomes.
the function back from under- more proactively with the goals as a way to guide remains in-step with the The strategy is continually
standing the business and the business to ensure alignment, individual and team objectives enterprise Employees reviewed to ensure it is on
employees. Several HUMAN but efforts are not consistent and development begins to demonstrate strong account- track with the business and
RESOURCES systems may be and change tends to happen become pervasive Employees ability to take advantage averting risk. When necessary,
manual. HUMAN RESOURCES slowly. Greater appreciation are more visibly accountable of what the organization the strategy is rapidly altered
perceives employees as pas- for employee ownership for steering their development provides and HUMAN RE- based on data-driven inputs
sive about progressing their of development and career and careers, and HUMAN SOURCES is focused on to stay at the fore. Employees
development and careers. starts to emerge. HUMAN RESOURCES begins to design clearing their paths. Top are drawn to this organization
Many of the training needs RESOURCES recognizes an enabling environment for talent is actively nurtured. due to its strong people brand
are compulsory; Learning that staff members are that to flourish. Developing Sophisticated systems and and reputation for a Human
and Development typically initiating their own talent from within is well rec- social rewards celebrate Resourcesiving, diverse 51
mandates direction. Value development, with or ognized so clear development employee knowledge culture. Employees are pro-
of learning and talent without Learning and Devel- paths exist for most roles. and skills (badging, mi- vided real-time performance
is largely from the organi- opment. Select managers Reward systems start to be cro-credentials, etc.). feedback so they can take
zation’s point of view, not are proponents of learning tied to talent and learning. immediate steps to adapt.
the employee’s point of view. within their teams and they Employees actively encourage
take a more active role one another to engage in
in career counselling. learning. Managers are
people-developers.

Appendix 6: Hazard and Risk Curriculum
• Introduction to Hazards
• Microbiological
• Chemical
• Physical
• Case studies, including examples of failures in food safety programmes
• Instructions on minimising food safety risks throughout the company and across the supply chain
• Examples of risk-based preventive control measures, the overarching principles of HACCP, and the
risks of relying solely on inspection and testing
• Information on how food safety roles and responsibilities fit within each job task
• Information regarding regulatory and customer expectations and the role of GFSI
• Materials providing consumer perspectives and perceptions of food safety risk

52
• Briefings on the importance of sustaining and improving food safety management
• Information on the role of a supportive food safety

Appendix 7: Vision and Mission – Things to Look For
There are several ways to judge food safety’s value within a company, and the related credibility of its
messaging:
• Where does food safety rate in corporate decision-making?
• Are food safety decisions risk-based, profit-based, reputation-based, consum-

er-centric, or more appropriately seen as standard business procedure?
• How do people demonstrate food safety ownership?
• Is ownership evident in the ways they do their work?
• Is food safety messaging accepted and embraced?
• Is there evidence of “unconscious competence,” i.e. where food safety practices appear to be second
nature and do not require a lot of active thought?
• Are there indications of success or failure in food safety initiatives?
• Are good behaviours in food safety reinforced and recognised?

53
• Conversely, are there consequences and accountability for bad behaviours?
• Is food safety measured frequently to track its “pulse”?
• Is messaging changed frequently to keep it fresh?

Appendix 8: Consistency – Things to Look For
Things to look for Focus on How to assess/measure Guiding questions
Clear priorities • Systematic prioritization • Methodology employed • How are food risks
and direction - food of food risks/ hazards (e.g. SWOT) (emerging) assessed?
safety/ risk based aligned to strategy
• Horizon scanning to • How do you prioritize
• Understanding your identify and anticipate the food safety
business, problems, to systemic risks strategy based on
challenges, opportunities food risks?
and food risks
Alignment of • Food safety considerations • Through checking • How are food safety
investment – people, in all functions when records and interviews considerations taken
process, technology, capital spend/ investment into account for the
physical (plant, i.e. design, change, pur- different functions
premises)
chasing, procurement, R&D (investment /
(across all departments) design/ change/
procurement / R&D)?
• Suitable prioritization
of FS decision making • How are food safety
priorities set? Are
• create an enabling they aligned with the
environment for FS FS Policy goals?
54
• compliance
Systematic • Accountability and • Through observations, • How do you make
Reinforcement - metrics: including KPIs interviews and records people accountable
essential mechanisms for their FS tasks?
to achieve food • Rewards
safety culture • How do you recog-
• Recognition of nise/ reward good
adequate behaviour FS behaviours?
• Consequences to failure • How do you deal
with FS failures and
• Actions match the words their consequences?

A Culture of Food Safety

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Culture of Food Safety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CULTURE OF

Foreword from GFSI

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

This paper is designed to help food industry pro-

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

3. About This Document and Its Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2. Food Safety Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2.1. Shared Values, Beliefs and Norms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2.2. Affect Mindset and Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2.3. Across and Throughout the Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Vision and Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2. Setting Direction and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.3. Leadership and Messaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.5. Guiding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.2. Food Safety Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.3. Food Safety Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.4. The Learning Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.5. Incentives, Rewards, and Recognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.7. Guiding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.2. Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6.5. Guiding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

7.2. Food Safety Expectations and Current State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

7.4. Change, Crisis Management and Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

7.6. Guiding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8. Hazard and Risk Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.1.1. Foundational Hazard Information and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8.1.2. Hazard and Risk Technical Training and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8.2. Employee Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8.3. Verify Hazard and Risk Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

8.5. Guiding Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

The purpose of this document is to provide global

Our primary goal is to outline the dimensions and

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

3 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

Figure 1: The Five Dimensions and Critical

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

3.2. Food Safety Culture

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

3.2.1. Shared Values, Beliefs and Norms

3.2.2. Affect Mindset and Behaviour

3.2.3. Across and Throughout the Organization

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

4 VISION AND MISSION

Figure 1: Critical content of the Vision and Mission dimension

4.1. Business Structure, Values and Purpose

4.2. Setting Direction and Expectations

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

term milestones. Successful direction-setting • Changes in regulatory requirements

A company’s changing priorities will drive its • Changes in product category

4.3. Leadership and Messaging

4.3.3.1. Leadership Commitment

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

4.3.3.2. Messaging Tools

4.5. Guiding Questions

• How do your senior leaders engage with food

• How is your messaging used to communicate

• Is your company’s vision and mission clearly ex-

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE

Figure 2: Critical content of the People dimension

GFSI / GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE