| Comment on the Cadbury recall
On Friday 23rd June Cadbury Schweppes Plc announced a major recall of seven of its chocolate products. This was the result of potential salmonella contamination caused by a leaking pipe in a production factory. Initially a decision was taken not to recall, but this was reversed last week with the result that a million chocolate products are being removed from retailers’ shelves. This is a classic case of a business needing to consider all the reputational and brand-protection aspects of a possible food safety, technical problem before deciding whether or not to recall. The logical, technical facts are often not enough on their own to influence a decision on recall or no-recall. Emotional, brand associations are also vital to assess. In the case of Cadbury’s, the brand carries such extraordinarily strong trust and heritage associations: even after the scientific case was analysed around the time of the pipe leaking and causing the low levels of salmonella, there was possibly still a good case for reconsidering the longer-term brand damage should the no-recall decision subsequently escape into the public domain. It is the apparent lack of transparency that is now attracting most criticism in media and expert commentary. Razor’s risk assessment and management work often means we find ourselves in a position of advising boards facing such decisions to work their way through a comprehensive checklist of strategy questions and filters – spanning technical, operational and reputation (brand) areas – before deciding if a recall is necessary. Technical managers have a hugely important input to make here but the scientific facts – in this case that the salmonella was at very low levels – may not be the only decisive elements. Of course, there are two types of product recall – a voluntary one, where a requirement of law has been contravened but that contravention does not cause the product to be unsafe for consumers, and a mandatory one, where the product is unsafe. In this case, although we do not yet know the full details of the decision-making process, one might argue that the producer should have more carefully considered various points: - Was the chocolate potentially unsafe and unfit for human consumption – now or later? There is still great scope, under the law and the Foods Standards Authority’s stipulations, for debate in deciding whether a product is safe. Yet, by virtue of the more stringent standards imposed at the beginning of 2005 in EU Regulation EC/178/2002, the balance of responsibility and accountability now falls to the manufacturer: the authorities are increasingly expecting a manufacturer to err on the side of caution and do all in their power to maintain a `high level of health protection’. If in doubt, the FSA will always appreciate consultation sooner rather than later, it seems. Chris Woodcock is managing director, Razor Cadbury’s recall / crisis communications statement reads as follows: Cadbury Product Recall 23 June 2006 Cadbury is conducting a recall of seven of its products in the UK and two in Ireland. This is being done purely as a precautionary measure, as some of these products may contain minute traces of salmonella. Cadbury has identified the source of the problem and rectified it, and is taking steps to ensure these particular products are no longer available for sale. Cadbury expects to have fresh stocks of these products back on the market in the near future. The decision was made in consultation with the Food Standards Agency with whom Cadbury has worked closely. “We’ve been making chocolate for over 100 years and quality has always come first”, said Simon Baldry, the UK Managing Director of Cadbury, “We have taken this precautionary step because our consumers are our highest priority. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.” Cadbury is inviting consumers to return the products to: For a full refund or ring our helpline number 0800 818181. Food Standards Authority statement:
•Date: 27th June 2006• Region: UK •Type: Article •Topic: Crisis communications |
