The Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection invites you to have your say. This is an action campaign that calls for collaborative engagement.
Fraud exists within the industry and that customers need to protect their reputations. Setting up a food manufacturing business does not require the supplier too demonstrate any qualification in food safety / engineering competence etc There is no regulatory requirement for purveyors of foods to be qualified in food safety. Unchecked market forces favour the supplier that markets product at the lowest price. Food safety and product quality have a cost which is not always visible so most customers require internal or external assurance. The 'above board' manufacturer should not fear and should welcome unannounced audits. Suppliers do fear loss of contracts (justified and unjustified) and know that a customer will change supplier on cost or quality grounds, most contracts may have a relatively short notice of contract termination which may be disproportionate to the dedicated product investment for the customer e.g packaging NPD equipment costs etc.
There are no simple solutions, manufacturers need to enter into contracts with their eyes open, especially when dealing with Companies which have a buying ethos that embraces a philosophy that any margin made by the supplier is money that should contribute to their own profit. Often suppliers case business 'at all costs' sometimes to justify minimum line capacity. Reputation protection / Corporate Social responsibility is key to Western consumer market. Any system which provides the required level of assurance needs transparency.
Audits are not intended to educate suppliers, they are based on checking compliance with 'standards' which should reflect consistent documented good manufacturing practice.
Would manufacturers prefer annual audits by third party accreditation bodies or by individual customers? Are manufacturers happy to absorb the costs of customer visits / inspections? If this is a condition of contract should this be capped?
You made very good points, Neil. There are "no simple solutions" but practical solutions are possible if there is the will to cooperate without the interference of greed or political agendas.
As for audits not educating, there seem to be a slight contradiction with your earlier observation: "The requirements for setting up a food manufacturing business do not require the supplier to demonstrate any qualification in food safety / engineering competence etc. There is no regulatory requirement for purveyors of foods to be qualified in food safety."
While I agree that auditors are not educators, the audit system is expected to open the eyes of audited purveyors of food to the requirements for ensuring food safety and quality - this is education. That said, I concede to the fact that the education bit is badly relegated because of current setup and approaches to auditing.
Finally, distrust is the reason behind the need for customers or third parties to audit suppliers. If suppliers can be trusted to behave in civilized (socially responsible) manner; if suppliers are determined enough to be educated on the methods and means for ensuring product safety and quality; if suppliers are truly committed to ensuring product safety and quality without allowing greed and profit-making cunningness to interfere; external (third party or customer) audits and inspections, if still favored, will have a different focus and will be administered differently (better). If suppliers can be trusted, there will certainly be stronger, more trustworthy and dependable internal audits (self-imposed audits by suppliers) where there is genuine commitment and complete transparency.
Interesting. New to me about the distrust.,
ReplyDeleteRoot causes of mistrust.
ReplyDeleteFraud exists within the industry and that customers need to protect their reputations.
Setting up a food manufacturing business does not require the supplier too demonstrate any qualification in food safety / engineering competence etc
There is no regulatory requirement for purveyors of foods to be qualified in food safety.
Unchecked market forces favour the supplier that markets product at the lowest price. Food safety and product quality have a cost which is not always visible so most customers require internal or external assurance. The 'above board' manufacturer should not fear and should welcome unannounced audits.
Suppliers do fear loss of contracts (justified and unjustified) and know that a customer will change supplier on cost or quality grounds, most contracts may have a relatively short notice of contract termination which may be disproportionate to the dedicated product investment for the customer e.g packaging NPD equipment costs etc.
There are no simple solutions, manufacturers need to enter into contracts with their eyes open, especially when dealing with Companies which have a buying ethos that embraces a philosophy that any margin made by the supplier is money that should contribute to their own profit. Often suppliers case business 'at all costs' sometimes to justify minimum line capacity.
Reputation protection / Corporate Social responsibility is key to Western consumer market.
Any system which provides the required level of assurance needs transparency.
Audits are not intended to educate suppliers, they are based on checking compliance with 'standards' which should reflect consistent documented good manufacturing practice.
Would manufacturers prefer annual audits by third party accreditation bodies or by individual customers? Are manufacturers happy to absorb the costs of customer visits / inspections? If this is a condition of contract should this be capped?
You made very good points, Neil. There are "no simple solutions" but practical solutions are possible if there is the will to cooperate without the interference of greed or political agendas.
ReplyDeleteAs for audits not educating, there seem to be a slight contradiction with your earlier observation: "The requirements for setting up a food manufacturing business do not require the supplier to demonstrate any qualification in food safety / engineering competence etc. There is no regulatory requirement for purveyors of foods to be qualified in food safety."
While I agree that auditors are not educators, the audit system is expected to open the eyes of audited purveyors of food to the requirements for ensuring food safety and quality - this is education. That said, I concede to the fact that the education bit is badly relegated because of current setup and approaches to auditing.
Finally, distrust is the reason behind the need for customers or third parties to audit suppliers. If suppliers can be trusted to behave in civilized (socially responsible) manner; if suppliers are determined enough to be educated on the methods and means for ensuring product safety and quality; if suppliers are truly committed to ensuring product safety and quality without allowing greed and profit-making cunningness to interfere; external (third party or customer) audits and inspections, if still favored, will have a different focus and will be administered differently (better). If suppliers can be trusted, there will certainly be stronger, more trustworthy and dependable internal audits (self-imposed audits by suppliers) where there is genuine commitment and complete transparency.