Until now, food safety audits, also called internal and external verification inspections, seemed to be the ideal tool to prevent health risks. However, for food service and distribution companies, these audits are costly and not very effective. Their limits are clearly known and are becoming a problem for managers who must guarantee the quality and safety of their products, as much for the health of their consumers as for the sustainability of their business.
The limitations of traditional physical audits
Significant resources mobilized
Physical audits require significant human and material resources. Whether they are carried out internally or by an external organization, they require the presence of people on the field, involving travel, sometimes accommodation, as well as time-consuming organization for the teams.
The ecological impact of travel
Having people travel for short periods of time or for tasks that could be done remotely has a significant negative environmental impact. Such travel can also have negative health consequences for individuals, due to the fatigue, stress and risks associated with travel.
A high cost
The difficulty of managing these audits across a multi-site network is a major issue for large companies, and is even more complex and costly on an international scale. For multi-site brands, these inspections represent a cost that can range from 59,000 to 1.8 million dollars per year, for an efficiency that is more and more contested.
A low attendance rate on site
A verification audit lasts on average between 1 and 3 hours and is generally performed 4 to 6 times per year per site. Despite the investments made by companies, the system based on physical inspection represents a very low average site audit attendance rate of 0.17%1. This very insignificant presence on site, put in relation to its cost, does not actually allow for the detection of a sudden degradation of the site's practices.
Questioning the usefulness of certain audits
The results of the audits show that some sites do not present any major food safety risks. In fact, 60% of supplier food audits do not include any major non-compliance 2. The systematic inspection of all sites can be questioned. It proves to be useless and costly when it is carried out on sites that respect good practices on a daily basis.
The consequences of an unstable environment
The current unstable environment, including shortages of personnel, rising wages, scarcity of supplies, tension over the availability of raw materials, and rising prices, has brought additional challenges for companies to ensure the food safety of their products.
The hospitality industry, for example, suffered a loss of nearly 10% of its employees, or 230,000 people, between 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic3.
Audit actors in difficulty to carry out inspections
Salary inflation in recent years has made it difficult for auditors to maintain competitive rates while providing quality service. Not only are they forced to increase their fees, but they are also unable to recruit and train competent auditors and inspectors. This model of systematically and blindly sending inspectors into the field doesn't work anymore.
Risks with important consequences
Physical audits rarely identify risks in real time, which can leave some of your sites with unseen risks or risks identified too late. Bad practices identified too late can lead to consequences such as fines, administrative closures, food-borne illnesses and even major health crises.
The cost of fines is an important factor to consider. Fines for non-compliance food safety regulations can be very high, depending on the country and the industry. In France, for example, the total amount of fines imposed by the DGCCRF for violations related to food safety and incorrect food labeling was approximately 21.7 million euros in France for the year 20195.
The consequences for your company can be direct and indirect, with significant financial losses in all cases. Indirect costs can result in reduced productivity, loss of customer confidence and damage to your company's reputation.
In conclusion
Food safety is a major issue for the food industry, but physical audits have significant limitations that reduce the effectiveness of the systems in place. It is therefore essential to find solutions to improve the efficiency, as well as the financial and ecological cost of food safety monitoring systems in large retailers. In this context, innovative technologies are currently the best solution to continuously monitor sites, automatically identify risks and react instantly in case of danger. By using digital and data science, it is possible to automatically identify sites at risk and reduce the costs of physical inspections, while ensuring the quality and safety of food products. Contact one of our experts to learn more.
1 Based on a site open 12.5 hours a day, 340 days a year, 1.5 hours of inspection, 5 times a year
2 Survey conducted by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) in 2019 based on more than 5,000 audits conducted in 90 countries.
3https://www.lightspeedhq.fr/blog/ouvrir-un-restaurant-manque-personnel/#
4 2019 survey conducted by Lloyd's Register Foundation
5 Data published by the DGCCRF in 2020
6https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/controles-officiels-alimentation-etat-des-lieux
7 Top 11 restaurant foodborne illness outbreaks (1977-2018)
8 Bartsch et al. (2018). Public Health Rep 133(3): 274-286
Published on:
March 16, 2023
To go further in risk management, download our step-by-step guide of 36 pages. (Available in English soon)
