33 replies to this topic

[Simon]

Senior management commitment is an essential ingredient for an effective food safety management system and that is why it is a requirement of GFSI standards.

 

Please answer the August/September 2014 member poll and add your comments below.

 

[cazyncymru]

If I say it's not going, then no questions asked, it's not going!

[fgjuadi]

My CEO is down right obsessed with Quality - the quality side of it.  He flys across country to visit every month and hounds me with was to improve end user experience & recipes, wrapping, shipping.  He doesn't want to kill any one, be he doesn't understand food safety in quite the same way - he thinks it's very unlikely, so doesn't quite place the same importance on it.  But they listen to me if I say something is dangerous (the fools, bawahahahaha). 

[Setanta]

I didn't vote, because I don't feel consistantly supported. Sometimes I am supported, sometimes I am a hinderance.

 

Like Magenta, there is a belief here that nothing could go wrong, and I need to bludgeon them into recognizing that's the worst mind set. (like with business continuity) But no one here wants a cost savings to make anyone ill.

[Mr. Incognito]

I have both worlds.  Top corporate management is all about food safety... in poker terms "They're all in".

 

However plant managers, while they do care and support food safety, don't completely buy into the entire idea.  However they will do what they need to do to make sure the food is safe.

Edited by Mr. Incognito, 27 August 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[cazyncymru]

I think where I'm lucky is that in recent weeks there have been at least 2 product recalls, which both contain a Dairy ingredient that we use.

 

After each recall, and in keeping with BRC, we've had a HACCP meeting, so their all aware of the risks and what we're doing as a company.

 

As an aside, I frightened the buggers ops senior managers a couple of weeks back by circulating what our biosecurity plans were if Ebola was to prevail in the UK. Helps them take you seriously. (plans probably useless, but then you never know, at least I've thought about it!)

 

Caz x

[debaduttajayaprakash]

I voted NO , because senior management only loves to do what is  minimum requirement . they never support on other things which is not critical to BRC or retailers and that really makes me feel sad sometime so my answer NO is justified 

[Snookie]

The owner of our company sees GFSI as a socialist plot.  Seriously.  While they are overall very good at doing the right things and understand the need to document, the document side is particularly tough on him.  Which is very stressful for me.    So my answer is not only NO....But Hell NO. 

Edited by Snookie, 28 August 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[MCIAN]

They now do because they had a sampler of what happened when they did not do what i told them to do - we failed in a costly customer qualifying audit. I was new then and they did not believe when i told them that the auditors who were flying from UK will use the checksheet i downloaded from the site. After that, they just approve what i present to them as a necessary requirement but oftentimes wince at the associated cost.

 

Regards.

 

 

[fgjuadi]

The owner of our company sees GFSI as a socialist plot.  Seriously.  While they are overall very good at doing the right things and understand the need to document, the document side is particularly tough on him.  Which is very stressful for me.    So my answer is not only NO....But Hell NO. 

Better hope they don't hear the news sound clips where ISIS is being called ISO.... I turned on the radio this morning and heard "ISO is much further advanced than we originally thought, they are very organized"...etc.  It was a pretty hilarious interview, because every thing they were saying applied equally to ISIS and the ISO Standards...

[Setanta]

Better hope they don't hear the news sound clips where ISIS is being called ISO.... I turned on the radio this morning and heard "ISO is much further advanced than we originally thought, they are very organized"...etc.  It was a pretty hilarious interview, because every thing they were saying applied equally to ISIS and the ISO Standards...

 

Except for the beheading part... <cringe>

 

I think there is a toss up between ISIS and ISIL  (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) 

Edited by Setanta, 29 August 2014 - 06:42 PM.

[Fat Cat]

I voted No because when it comes to costs the answer is No. Top management only interested in obtaining certification in order to obtain / facilitate sales. They just hope that all these standards are nothing but a massive documentation exercise!

[fgjuadi]

Except for the beheading part... <cringe>

 

I think there is a toss up between ISIS and ISIL  (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) 

Yes!  It was ISIL...not ISO I heard.  They probably aren't even Socialists! 

[SarahM]

We are a very small company...so cost is always an issue BUT I get what we need when required.  They would like to do more but sometimes their hands are tied.  I guess that I am one of the lucky ones :)

[fcchoi]

Hello friends,

Must acquire and learn the skills to how to sell/deliver ideas to Management....TQ 

[fcchoi]

This is a good article for all of you.

[tsmith7858]

Seems to be down the middle so far and I would guess that if you added a "Sometimes" category it would split in three.  Support often comes down to costs, as noted by some, and convenience, as noted by others. 

 

I would like to say I have support all of the time but there will also be a point based on cost where support may decrease.  There are also equal amounts of time where using food safety to get a point across becomes a convenience. 

 

Sometimes it is just easier to scare people into doing what is right as in the e-bola example.

[Simon]

Seems to be down the middle so far and I would guess that if you added a "Sometimes" category it would split in three.  Support often comes down to costs, as noted by some, and convenience, as noted by others. 

 

I would like to say I have support all of the time but there will also be a point based on cost where support may decrease.  There are also equal amounts of time where using food safety to get a point across becomes a convenience. 

 

Sometimes it is just easier to scare people into doing what is right as in the e-bola example.

 

Hi Tsmith, I think it can never be always or never or very rarely.   I suppose the poll is limited, but one can answer on balance. To me being supported means the boss shows an interest, attempts to understand and enters into a dialogue to arrive at a solution that meets requirements; it may not be the ultimate solution as it must always be a balance of time, effort, cost and quality of solution with the goal of reducing risk to an acceptable level.

[Raimiigais]

I voted No because our CEO is interested in obtaining certification in order to obtain / facilitate sales. He thinks that all these standards are nothing but a massive documentation exercise!

[RG3]

It does at times comes down to, "How much is this going to cost" for management. However, I never go empty handed and show why it is justified with literature, be it a GFSI program or an article from the FDA website or from what I've seen here on this website. If the answer is still "No", then I ask for justification, it helps understand both playing fields. Of course that conversation gets documented that I notified management, be it on an internal audit or management meeting.

[Kelly S]

Rarely if ever. It's only when I start explaining that it's illegal to do something (had some labelling issues) that's they even try to listen. In all honesty, they don't really know what I do and they don't really care, as long as we don't lose our HACCP certification 

 

On the flip side the place I was at was very supportive of Quality Assurance so I guess it just depends on where you are.

[Jim E.]

 

 

Saying no, for the most part production is more interested in the pounds of finished product going out the door.  Food safety is on thiers minds but down the ladder to other things.  HACCP meetings poorly attended and drivers not considered overly important.  From me they expect passing grades on audits and inspections with out having to get personnaly involved.  frustrating.....

[ladytygrr]

I voted No because when it comes to costs the answer is No. Top management only interested in obtaining certification in order to obtain / facilitate sales. They just hope that all these standards are nothing but a massive documentation exercise!I

I'm finding myself in the middle of a similar situation. So, yes, they are generally supportive because it's a means to an end. I've answered "No" because I don't see that the desire for safety and/or quality is any deeper than that. 

[Simon]

I'm finding myself in the middle of a similar situation. So, yes, they are generally supportive because it's a means to an end. I've answered "No" because I don't see that the desire for safety and/or quality is any deeper than that. 

 

That's a shame Emily, but a frequent situation.

As with all change in time it may become more and you have to drive that culture change...if you have the energy.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards,

Simon

[JohnWheat]

What's become apparent with our BRC audit finishing yesterday is that senior team see the certification only as a means to an end.

None of them really backed up our findings in the weeks and months leading up to it.

 

Every week I gently reminded engineering about things we need to get on top of, and every week came away slightly deflated.

(I'm working on the premise of perseverance beats resistance though!) 

 

4 of our 6 minors came from engineering (+1 for out of date organogram and 1 for film batch codes not always recorded)

 

Feeling a bit of 'I told you so' doesn't feel right; SMT intervention earlier could have had a potential of 4 less non-cons.......