Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective Training Programs. Results from the 2017 Global Food Safety Training Survey

Transcription

1 Building Strong Food Safety Cultures with Effective Training Programs Results from the 2017 Global Food Safety Training Survey

2 This research report is based on analysis of the 5th annual Global Food Safety Training Survey. The survey is sponsored by Alchemy Systems, Campden BRI, Safe Quality Food Institute, British Retail Consortium, Grocery Manufacturer s Association Science & Education Foundation, NSF Latin America, SGS, and TSI. The analysis and conclusions reflect the perspective of Alchemy Systems and not necessarily the other study sponsors. Sponsors: Contents Executive Summary... 3 Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety... 4 Training Budgets & Resources Steady or Rising...6 Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior... 8 Why Employees Don t Follow Food Safety Programs Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges Overcoming the Scheduling Time for Training Challenge Overcoming the Verifying Effective Training Challenge Overcoming the Organizing Refresher Training Challenge Audit Deficiencies Corroborate the Top Training Challenges Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement Focus Efforts Where They Have the Most Impact Include Employees in Assessing Training Needs to Drive Accountability Drive Employee Interaction with Better Training Tools Conclusion & Methodology... 23

3 Executive Summary The annual Global Food Safety Training Survey is an industry benchmarking tool for companies to assess their food safety training programs compared to their industry peers. Alchemy Systems and its research partners have conducted the survey for five consecutive years. This year, over 1,400 food safety professionals in 20 food industry sectors from across the globe responded to the survey. (See page 25 for survey demographics and methodology.) Survey responses indicate that companies are highly committed to building strong food safety cultures and are investing to continually improve their programs. Specifically: 74% 55% 83% believe they have a clear vision for improving food safety responded that their company is a leader in food safety believe they are able to provide the food safety training needed to drive positive behaviors However, food safety professionals continue to struggle translating that commitment to driving actual food safety behavior change on the facility floor. For example, 67% responded that despite their best efforts, they still have employees not consistently following their food safety procedures. The key reasons for non-compliance are: bad habits, prefer old ways of doing things, and following another employee s behaviors. It takes just one unfortunate food incident to cause irreparable damage to people, profits, and brands. Leading companies are tackling the top three food safety training challenges, which the survey found to be: Scheduling time for training Verifying effective training Organizing refresher training Alchemy s food safety research team conducted expert analysis of the Global Food Safety Training Survey research data to better understand the challenges and gaps, and identify actionable best practices for overcoming them. This report also shows how leading companies are using innovative training programs to engage today s frontline workforce and drive positive behavior change on the floor.

4 I. Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety

5 Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety 5 FIGURE 1: Company Commitment to Food Safety 74% Food companies have made significant investments over the past decade in their food safety programs and are committed to developing strong food safety cultures. After all, just one food safety incident can significantly impact their business and brand. The survey posed several questions around management s commitment to food safety programs. The responses clearly show confidence in their vision, leadership, and ability to drive behaviors. For example, 74% responded that their company has a clear vision for improving food safety, and 55% responded that their company is an industry leader in food safety (FIGURE 1). Our company has a clear vision for improving food safety in the next 12 months. 55% Our company is an industry leader in food safety standards.

6 Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety 6 Training Budgets & Resources Steady or Rising Food safety training budgets also reflect the commitment to food safety. Training budgets are mostly holding steady or rising compared to previous years. In fact, four times more companies are increasing their training budgets than decreasing them (FIGURE 2). In previous years of the study, lack of resources (time and money) was the top challenge to developing a strong food safety culture. In fact, the 2017 survey marks the first time this was not the #1 challenge, with only 31% of respondents citing lack of resources as a top challenge. That s down from 48% in 2016 (FIGURE 3). FIGURE 3: FIGURE 2: How does your budget for food safety training compare to last year? Lack of Resources (Time & Money) as a Challenge to Food Safety Culture Less 6% 44% 48% 31% More 23% Same 71%

7 Strong Management Commitment to Food Safety 7 The demonstrated management commitment and steady resources are providing much needed support. In fact, 83% of food safety professionals surveyed said they are able to provide the training necessary to drive appropriate, consistent food safety behaviors (FIGURE 4). Companies also feel that their frontline workforce is motivated to do their jobs well. Only 7% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their employees are not motivated (FIGURE 5). Yet another positive sign is that management recognizes a link between following food safety procedures and increasing yields. Indeed, 79% of survey respondents believe their company could be more productive if employees consistently followed the food safety program (FIGURE 6). This is important because food safety programs (including training) are often viewed as a drain on productivity due to time off the floor. But, due to the nature of food safety breaches, any non-adherence to food safety protocols results in wasted product, lost time, or both. FIGURE 4: Are you able to provide the needed food safety training to drive appropriate, consistent food safety behaviors? FIGURE 5: Are people in your company highly motivated to do their job well? FIGURE 6: Our company could be more productive if our employees consistently adhered to our food safety programs. No 17% Neutral 26% Disagree 5% Strongly disagree 2% Strongly agree 16% False 21% Yes 83% Agree 51% True 79%

8 II. Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior

9 Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior 9 FIGURE 7: Despite your efforts in employee food safety training, do you still have employees not following your food safety program on the floor? It s important to remember: commitment to food safety isn t the same as execution. Even though 83% of companies report positively on their ability to drive consistent food safety behaviors, 67% responded that despite their best efforts, they still have employees not following the food safety program on the floor (FIGURE 7). No 33% Yes 67%

10 Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior 10 Perception versus on-the-floor follow-through of frontline employees wasn t the only disconnect uncovered. There also seems to be overconfidence of some training system elements out of frontline workers control. For example (FIGURE 8), the survey found that 55% believe their company is an industry leader in food safety standards and yet: Only 36% measure employee performance or behaviors Only 46% verify training is applied correctly on the floor Only two thirds give a quiz or assessment associated with training This disconnect between commitment and on-the-floor execution raises key questions like: Why don t employees consistently follow their company s food safety programs? What challenges do companies face in building a food safety culture and providing effective training? Are leaders too reliant on the onboarding training and have blind spots around continual training and engagement? Is the training complete, consistent, and effective? How is the training validated by team leads and supervisors on the floor? This report will delve into these questions and provide best practices from industry leaders in food safety. FIGURE 8: Perception Reality 55% believe their company is an industry leader in food safety standards 36% measure employee performance or behaviors 46% verify training is applied correctly on the floor 66% give a quiz or assessment associated with training

11 Commitment Not Always Matched by On-the-Floor Behavior 11 Why Employees Don t Follow Food Safety Programs Survey respondents cited a variety of reasons for why employees don t consistently follow food safety programs (FIGURE 9). The top 3 reasons (bad habits, prefer old ways, following another employee) are all symptoms of a one and done training regimen that considers training a one-time event and a one-way conversation. In Alchemy s work with over a thousand food companies, we have seen the positive impact of an integrated program of onboarding training, supervisory coaching, reinforcement/refresher training, and ongoing communications. Beyond the top three, the next two reasons employees don t follow food safety programs (not engaged and training not remembered) are symptoms of poorly designed training content that simply fails to engage the learner. A frontline employee s learning needs are very different from a corporate or professional employee. Frontline employees may face language barriers, have lower educational attainment levels, or simply have less interest in learning due to the high turnover nature of their employment. It s critical to develop training content and deliver the training in an engaging, easy-to-digest way. Leading companies are switching from long, boring classroom training to shorter, fast-paced training that uses games and class competition to create engaging learning environments. FIGURE 9: Why do employees not follow your food safety program consistently? Bad Habits 62% Prefer Doing Things the Old Way 54% Followed Other Employees' Direction Not Engaged Training Was Not Remembered Not Sure Why Did Not Understand the Training 34% 30% 27% 19% 19% Other 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

12 III. Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges

13 Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges 13 According to this year s survey respondents, the top three food safety training challenges are (FIGURE 10): Scheduling time for training Verifying effective training Organizing refresher training These key challenges can be overcome by implementing training best practices that have already been proven at leading food companies. Overcoming the Scheduling Time for Training Challenge Food production is a fast-paced, yield-focused environment where time off the floor means lost production especially in facilities that are running lean or have high seasonality in their production. So it s not surprising that scheduling the time needed to get frontline employees the necessary food safety training has remained the biggest training challenge every year of this study. In fact, it is by far the most critical challenge for most companies. FIGURE 10: What are your organization s biggest food safety training challenges? Scheduling Time for Training 66% Verifying Effective Training 41% Organizing Refresher Training Delivering Training in Appropriate Languages Management Commitment Identifying Competencies for Specific Roles Developing Current Training Curriculum Cost of Training Retraining or Remediation Resources for Training Delivery Training Documentation Finding Competent Trainers 27% 22% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 16% 14% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

14 Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges 14 Leading companies have developed many best practices to weave training into the production cycle so rather than collide with production, they have figured out ways to align with production. For example, many companies are turning away from 2-3 days of intense drink from a fire hose onboarding training to a more spread out onboarding effort over two to three weeks. This enables the employee to get the critical safety basics down and get on the production floor quickly. Then the employee continues the training on the more advanced topics with a much better understanding of the production floor and is far more engaged in the learning. This approach clearly requires more coordination between operations and training, but the impact on engagement and, ultimately, compliance to food safety standards, is worth the effort. Companies are also taking advantage of scheduled (and unscheduled) down-time by providing employees with access to e-learning through training kiosks in breakrooms and HR offices. Studies show that short bursts of training (about 5-15 minutes) improve engagement and learning retention. A leading Canadian food processor experienced a 20% increase in passing rates when complementing instructor-led onboarding with training kiosks. The length of training sessions factors into effectiveness as well. Today s workers are more easily distracted due to rapidly changing technologies and constant connectivity. Holding shorter training sessions can help sharpen focus and increase retention of important messages while minimizing time off the floor. Overcoming the Verifying Effective Training Challenge Verifying effective training is essentially a two-part challenge, encompassing both verification that training even took place, as well as effectiveness of that training. Companies overwhelmingly rely on paper-based documentation and/or Excel spreadsheets to verify training (FIGURE 11). These manual systems are not only subject to human error, they can be a headache when documenting training compliance for auditors. FIGURE 11: How does your organization document and manage training records? Paper-based documentation 66% Excel Spreadsheet 56% Commercial LMS Software 20% Internally Developed Software 13% Other 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

15 Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges 15 When asked how companies assess training comprehension (FIGURE 12), 66% report they use a quiz or exam. This is strong, but also means 34% of companies are potentially sending workers to the floor without verification they comprehend important food safety measures. Similarly, more than half of companies consider attendance as a sign of comprehension. And less than half use on-the-job reviews or questioning to assess understanding. Some companies have overcome these verification challenges by implementing robust learning management systems (LMS) that automate training documentation and reporting. By combining digital sign-ins with a clear verification process, companies can also quickly identify the workers who need more attention. FIGURE 12: How does your organization assess the understanding of any training undertaken? Quiz Assessment/Examination 66% Record of Attendence On-the-job Review/Questioning 55% 46% Measure Performance/Behaviors 36% Post-course Assignment No Measurement Currently Utilized Other 10% 5% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% This is especially helpful at facilities with large workforces or companies with multiple facilities. Which is likely a factor why the adoption of an LMS is higher for larger companies (FIGURE 13). Yet even 35% of the largest companies (over 1,000 employees) are still operating without automated reporting and as much as 80% of smaller companies are not FIGURE 13: % of Companies Using LMS by Company Size 65% 43% 37% 30% 20% < ,000 > 1,000 # of Employees

16 Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges 16 The second part of the verifying effective training challenge is effectiveness. Companies are incorporating adult learning best practices like active learning and facility-specific content to drive training effectiveness. Active learning requires the trainee to do something every few minutes to demonstrate his or her understanding throughout the learning process. This method is more conducive to knowledge retention than passive learning, where the learner receives, rather than engages with, the training material. For example, compare watching a 30-minute video on slips/trips/falls to taking a quick pre-test, watching several short videos with knowledge checks every few minutes, and then a post-test all within 20 minutes. Which method is likely to create deeper learning and knowledge retention? Implementing a structured program of on-the floor coaching and corrective actions is another proven method to verify training effectiveness. A separate study shows that a structured observation program can lead to as much as 38% improvement in correct application of training 1 (FIGURE 14). This method of one-on-one observation also helps in reinforcement, ensuring employees retain information. Increased interaction also leads to a greater dialogue between supervisors and frontline workers, addressing safety issues before they arise. The need for on-the-floor coaching is greatest among the largest food companies. When asked how their companies measure sustained positive food safety behaviors, only 20% of respondents at the largest companies report utilizing supervisor observations (FIGURE 15). The drop-off in supervisor interaction begins at companies with 500-1,000 employees, and becomes dramatic at over 1,000 employees. This could be due to increased span of control. Regardless of causation, it s clear that meaningful interaction between supervisors and frontline workers gets harder as companies grow. But knowing and acknowledging this can help these larger companies overcome the additional challenges. FIGURE 14: Successful Application of Training On the Floor 1 FIGURE 15: % of Companies Using Supervisor Observations to Measure Food Safety Behaviors 38% Improvement 100% 80% 68% 82% 94% 60% 50% 40% 55% 52% 53% 46% 60% 40% 20% 0% Pre-training Post-training After 3 Observations 30% 20% 10% 0% < # of Employees 501-1,000 20% > 1,000

17 Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges 17 Overcoming the Organizing Refresher Training Challenge Organizing refresher training is the third biggest food safety training challenge, cited by 27% of respondents overall. Once again, larger companies face a greater challenge. 46% of the largest companies identifying organizing refresher training as a top challenge, which is percentage points higher than other companies (FIGURE 16). Regardless of size, refresher training has historically been considered a nice to have training with little attention paid to the content or timing. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% FIGURE 16: Lack of/late Refresher Training Cited Deficient in Audits 31% 33% 31% 28% 46% However, with increasingly complex regulatory and compliance requirements, and the limited attention spans, forward-thinking companies are focusing on refresher training as a critical part of the learning plan. These companies typically use multiple methods like team huddles, e-learning, digital signs, and posters to reinforce key safety messages. For example, a large pecan processing company deployed a structured refresher training program and experienced a 17% increase in knowledge retention across its workforce (FIGURE 17). Even more impressive, the company also had a 36% increase in knowledge retention among the workers needing it most (those who had scored lower in the onboarding training tests). 0% < ,000 # of Employees FIGURE 17: Impact of Refresher Training 17% 36% increase increase > 1,000 These new communication tools create so much engagement and discussion because we re actually doing the things as we re learning them. Ricardo P., supervisor at leading pecan processing company knowledge retention across ALL workers knowledge retention among workers needing it MOST

18 Overcoming Food Safety Training Challenges 18 Audit Deficiencies Corroborate the Top Training Challenges Interestingly, the top training challenges identified by the survey respondents align closely with the two most frequent training deficiencies identified in audits: lack of understanding by employee and late/lack of refresher training (FIGURE 18). Each of the top audit deficiencies has increased year-over-year according to food safety professionals (FIGURE 19). Lack of/late refresher training increased just over 50% (twelve percentage points) since 2013 while lack of understanding by employee increased 62% (16 percentage points). FIGURE 19: FIGURE 18: Type of Deficiencies in Training Program Identified During Audits Year-to-Year Comparison of Top Audit Deficiencies Lack of Understanding by Employee 42% Lack of/late Refresher Training Inadequate Training of Visitors/Subcontractors Incomplete Employee Training Records No Training Given in Specific Areas Other Lack of Training Records Training is Not Current 33% 30% 27% 18% 14% 12% 11% Lack of/late Refresher Training 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 34% 33% 21% Lack of Understanding by Employee 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 42% 32% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% %

19 IV. Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement

20 Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement 20 The food industry has come a long way in recognizing the importance of employee engagement when it comes to food safety training. But fostering that engagement isn t always easy. Some best practices to drive employee engagement and on-the-floor behaviors include: Focus efforts where they have the most impact Include employees in assessing training needs to drive accountability Drive employee interaction with better communication tool Focus Efforts Where They Have the Most Impact It makes sense to focus employee engagement efforts around food safety where they will have the most impact. The survey indicates that supervisor communications and team meetings are the most effective ways of keeping food safety training top of mind (FIGURE 20). Supervisors have tremendous implicit and explicit power and interact with their frontline employees every day. So they can have a profound influence with on-thefloor safety behaviors. Since supervisors have the strongest interaction with frontline employees, it is imperative to provide them with communication tools they need to succeed. For example, rather than just scheduling pre-shift meetings, leading companies arm their supervisors with pre-built huddle guides with scripts that reinforce key training concepts. These guides provide questions to pose to help create two-way dialogue on important safety issues. The structured discussions increase engagement and consistency by alleviating the issue of some supervisors being better at training than others. FIGURE 20: How does your organization keep training top of mind on a daily basis for hourly employees? Supervisor Communications 65% Team Meetings 63% Bulletin Boards Posters 44% 41% Communication TV Monitors for Messages & Images Newsletters Digital Messaging Paycheck Stuffers Other 26% 20% 11% 7% 4% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

21 Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement 21 Include Employees in Assessing Training Needs to Drive Accountability Currently 78% of companies adopt a formal annual food safety training plan to identify training needs and activities (FIGURE 21). This is a good thing. But the dramatic drop for any other method utilized to assess training needs means this top-down approach is often the only method utilized. In this scenario, the most important component of a food safety plan the frontline employees doing the work are largely left out of the process in identifying gaps. Methods that include employees in the process scored low across the board: only 26% of food companies use a formal training needs analysis, while 35% utilize employee development reviews, and 32% use knowledge/ skills matrices of employees. Improvements in these areas could not only help identify gaps that lead to training not being applied on the floor, but also build employee engagement. This concept is supported by a separate study that finds 68% of workers want to be included in training development. 2 It fosters a strong safety culture and encourages greater accountability. After all, if frontline workers helped develop food safety training plans and priorities, they have a much more personal interest in its success. FIGURE 21: How Companies Identify Safety Training Needs & Activities Formal Annual Training Plan 78% Regular Employee Development Review Knowledge & Skills Matrices Continuing Professional Development Formal Training Needs Analysis 35% 32% 28% 26% Just-in-time Training 16% Succession Planning Other 9% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

22 Best Training Programs Focus on Engagement 22 Drive Employee Interaction with Better Training Tools According to the survey, 76% of companies rely on reading materials and on-the-job instruction to deliver food safety training (FIGURE 22). While reading policy and procedure manuals may have been standard practice in the past, it s simply not the way today s workforce is accustomed to learning. For many employees, reading complex work procedures and SOPs can be a challenge. On-the-job instruction is an easy and fast training method for operations, but when it comes to food safety, much can be lost in translation and bad habits or short-cuts can be handed down to the new employee. While on-the-job instruction is a great reinforcement tool, it may not be the best way to introduce new employees to food safety practices. But there are effective means of communication that encourage interaction. The survey showed that coaching and interactive tools are generally underutilized (40% and 10% respectively). But leading companies are tapping into mobile technologies to successfully combine the two. FIGURE 22: How is Food Safety Training Delivered? Read & Understand (Policies, Procedures, etc.) 72% On-the-job Training Classroom Training with Instructor or Facilitator 72% 66% Coaching Videos, Webinars Online Training (elearning) Offsite External Training 40% 35% 32% 29% Interactive Technology Capturing Audience Response 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

23 V. Conclusion & Methodology

24 Conclusion & Methodology 24 Conclusion The 5th annual Global Food Safety Training Survey results show that management is deeply committed to food safety. Despite this commitment, there are several challenges to ensuring the commitment turns into consistent, on-the-floor safety behaviors. Over two-thirds of respondents said they still have employees not consistently following their food safety program. The top challenges to food safety training are shifting. It is less about budgets and resources and more about finding the time to train, verifying effective training was delivered, and providing ongoing refresher training that keeps important safety topics top-of-mind. The old ways of training (reading manuals, on-the-job) are not as effective due to changing demographics and learning styles. Best practice companies are using interactive training, redesigned onboarding, e-learning kiosks, supervisor huddles, digital signage, and other tools to engage today s frontline employees and ensure knowledge retention.

25 Conclusion & Methodology 25 Research Methodology The Global Food Safety Training Survey was designed in partnership with the study sponsors: Alchemy Systems, Campden BRI, Safe Quality Food Institute, British Retail Consortium, Grocery Manufacturer s Association Science & Education Foundation, NSF Latin America, SGS, and TSI. The survey was administered electronically. 1,422 respondents completed the survey. Below are details on survey respondents by company size, location, and industry sector. 1,001-5,000 Europe - European Union Asia (Including China & India) Africa/Middle East Central/South America Australia/Oceania Europe - NON European Union Number of Fulltime Equivalent Staff < % ,000 > 5,000 Survey Respondent by Location Canada UK Mexico 8% 7% 6% 14% USA 56% 16% 12% 12% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Processed Meats, Fish & Poultry Processed Fruits & Vegetables Catering/Restaurants/Hospitality Survey Respondent by Industry Sector Cereal & Bakery 18% Ingredients/Flavors/Colors Warehouse, Distribution Fruits & Vegetables Meats Fish & Poultry Packaging Beverages Dairy Snacks Sauces & Dressings Ready Meals Sugar Confectionary Retail Fats & Oils Feed Sandwiches Other 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 3% 2% 16% 15% 13% 13% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

26 About Alchemy Systems Alchemy Systems in the industry leader of innovative solutions that help food industry companies, engage with their workforces to increase safety and productivity. Over 3 million frontline workers at 50,000 locations worldwide use Alchemy s learning, communications, and performance programs to safeguard food, reduce workplace incidents, and improve operations. Alchemy works across all industry sectors, food growers, manufacturers, processors, packagers, distributors, restaurant, and retailers to build positive safety and operations cultures. 1. Meyer, R. The Positive Impact of Behavioral Change on Food Safety & Productivity 2. Shah, R. The Mind of the Food Worker: Behaviors and Perceptions that Impact Safety and Operations.