Sudan 1 revisited
It’s almost a year ago that the UK food industry was forced to enter into a huge product recall, following the discovery of the illegal food dye and known-carcinogen, Sudan 1, in the supply chain. Recalls continue to this day, as the food industry’s ever-more stringent testing procedures continue to reveal contamination in far flung outreaches of an incredibly complex supply chain. So what impact did the crisis have on the UK’s beleaguered food manufacturers, businesses that, in the past, have been faced with issues ranging from salmonella and eColi to CJD and foot and mouth disease? And can lessons be learned that will protect such manufacturers in the future? Although the industry is certainly emerging from the Sudan 1 incident, a lot more could still be done to get its reputation back on track. Arguments in some quarters continue to rage over whether the consumer recall of hundreds of well-known food brands was even necessary, but to some extent this is missing the point – that consumer confidence in the food industry was yet again undermined and that even many months on it remains shaky at best. Beyond that, the latest wrangles between the government and the industry over issues such as labelling, fat, sugar and salt content of processed foods, and forthcoming tussles with OFCOM over whether certain food products should be advertised to children, all add up to mounting pressure for food manufacturers and diminishing respect from consumers. Within this context, it’s vital now, more than at any other time, that the industry ensures that its crisis and business continuity plans are up to scratch so that when – you’d be over-optimistic to say ‘if’ – the next issue hits, the industry can act as swiftly as it possibly can to minimise the damage. More could also be done to rebuild the tarnished reputation of the industry by celebrating its successes and putting its activities in context. This is an industry which operates within some of the strictest hygiene and product testing regulation faced by business and yet it still manages to be highly innovative and creative, as well as a major UK employer. It’s the reason that we can enjoy strawberries in December and whip up a family meal in minutes, but how many times does the consumer hear from celebrity chefs and strident women’s magazines that’s it better for health to ‘grow you own’ and stick to unprocessed foods if you want to be healthy? This is not just a ‘nice to do’ – our (Razor Public Relations Limited) own research shows that public perception of the food industry is not favourable, and that cannot be good for its future. In a national survey carried out post Sudan 1, we found that almost a third of consumers considered food to be more risky now, compared with a year ago. The survey also revealed that people see the presence of additives in food products (25 percent) as the food-related risk that worries them most. How concerned should the industry be that people are increasingly turning to organic foods and farmers’ markets because they don’t trust the processed food they can buy from the supermarket? Is it a worry that popular chefs such as Jamie Oliver are attacking some processed foods on national television, potentially leading to a halo effect on other manufactured products (and, according to some sources, the recent downfall of Canterbury Foods, a supplier of processed foods to schools)? Since January 1st 2006, a raft of new EU legislation relating to food hygiene, microbiological criteria, feed hygiene and food and feed production has come into force, with the aim of tightening and harmonising EU food safety measures. Markos Kyprianou, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, believes that such legislation will lead to increased consumer confidence in the food they eat ‘from farm to fork’. However, in a climate of distrust, mere regulatory compliance will no longer be enough: for a future unburdened with ever more stringent regulations, proactive, empathetic communication with a variety of audiences, not just consumers, will be vital. It is Razor’s belief that now, more than ever, food businesses need to compensate for the fear and suspicion that surrounds them. Only those who diligently and consistently communicate and demonstrate ultra-transparency can hope to succeed in such a negative climate. Supporting that more open approach must be a fundamental, honest review of all crisis and business continuity procedures, driven by joined-up thinking across different parts of the organisation to address issues and threats from every possible aspect. Risky business Rather than seeing such concerns only as a threat, the most enlightened companies will view them as real opportunities to review and tighten procedures, and to turn recent negative publicity into positive action, not simply by ‘demonstrating’ they are following best practice in food safety but by being ‘perceived’ by their customer and supplier base to be going beyond the call of duty. In our experience, those companies who turn out to be best placed to deal with an incident will use a combination of proactive and targeted communication as well as risk and crisis management strategies that are clearly understood by all levels of an organisation, and across all departments. We therefore advocate a pro-active approach to reviewing risk and developing business strategies for food companies of all sizes and sectors, starting with an audit of current procedures, through in-depth scenario planning, through to risk and opportunity assessments tackling every area of the business. Testing and training of personnel from the MD to the security guard on the frontline is also vital, as is reviewing business continuity procedures and crisis plans. To help structure what can at first sight be an overwhelming prospect, Razor often uses a three-phase approach to addressing such wholesale reviews: prevent/prepare, handle, and finally repair, a system that can be applied to SMEs as well as huge conglomerates. Prevent/prepare In terms of being better prepared should a crisis hit, scenario planning workshops to predict market scenarios that could impact on the business, training of individuals and development of appropriate materials to help a crisis team perform to the best of its abilities are vital. It also helps to create materials, for example holding statements on issues that can be easily and quickly adapted to any situation, a Q&A on a wide range of subjects and a ‘dark’ website which has been prepared in advance but would only be switched on in the event of a crisis. Creating such resources in advance will save valuable time in the event of a crisis and ensure a business is on the right track from the start. Finally, plans, people or process must be tested with training such as simulations. Simulation exercises can be anything from a two-hour desktop exercise to full-scale tests lasting several days, as long as they are as realistic and practical as possible. Get a handle on it… One of the key lessons from the Sudan 1 incident was the challenges faced by the thousands of small retailers who were left confused in the early stages because they had no central point of contact, and no way of getting up to date information quickly. Whilst the situation improved, such issues could have been foreseen in advance and prepared for by agreeing lines of clear lines of communication and mechanics. Similarly, during an incident or crisis period, key spokespeople will need to rehearse messages and develop a positioning. Saying nothing is rarely, if ever, an option. Even if the crisis is not yet full blown, the story must be clear and representatives must be prepared to take questions on it and to welcome dialogue. Finally, resources should be put in place to help the crisis team think through the key issues, gain clarity and decide on priorities for action during periods of great stress. And then last, but definitely not least, repair… In summary, if Sudan 1 demonstrated anything it made it clear that preparation, regular dialogue and swift action are key in a crisis. It has also highlighted the need for a sustained period of restorative action once any incident is over. Even though it may be tempting to sigh with relief once such a major incident is over, the ripples will continue to have an impact for some time… By Kirsten Davies, associate director at UK-based crisis and issues management consultancy, Razor. Kirsten.Davies@razor-pr.com Razor Public Relations Limited
•Date: 11th Jan 2006 • Region: UK • Type: Article •Topic: Crisis management |
