What should you measure, and with which tools?
The five GFSI dimensions, plus the elements your standard requires. Version 2024 of the GFSI requirements calls for a food safety culture assessment plan that identifies areas for improvement and covers at a minimum communication, training, feedback from employees and performance measurement. Version 2.0 of the GFSI position paper recommends assessing culture across all its dimensions, rather than with a single indicator or tool.
Each tool answers a different question. The table below doubles as a measurement plan; the survey statements and interview questions are examples written by ACG, not taken from any published tool.
GFSI dimension | Survey (example statement) | Interview (open question) | Observation | Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Company values, vision and mission | “Management talks about food safety as much as about output.” | “What does management do when an order is late and a check is holding it up?” | Does the director follow the hygiene rules in the workshop? | Management walks carried out versus planned |
People | “I can stop my line if I see a danger, without being punished.” | “Tell me about the last time someone stopped the line.” | Does an operator correct a colleague? | Reports received and response time |
Hazard and risk awareness | “I know which hazard my workstation must control.” | “What could make a customer ill at your workstation?” | Reaction to a product dropped on the floor or a foreign body | Results of workstation knowledge tests |
Consistency | “When production is under pressure, cleaning is sometimes cut short.” (negative statement) | “What changes at night or at the weekend?” | Records filled in in real time or after the event | Hygiene deviations by shift, non-conforming cleans |
Adaptability and continuous improvement | “After an incident, we look for the cause rather than for someone to blame.” | “What suggestion have you made, and what became of it?” | Display of the actions arising from reports | Near misses reported, actions closed on time |
BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 points the same way: its culture plan includes performance measurement of activities and a review of the effectiveness of completed activities (1.1.2). The Foundation FSSC guidance document on culture lists a periodic staff survey among the ways of assessing performance, alongside the dashboard and trends.
How do you build the survey?
In six steps, before anyone fills it in. A questionnaire imported and translated in a hurry mostly measures how well respondents master the author’s language.
- Set the scope. Every department that touches the product, every shift, every status: permanent, seasonal and agency staff, cleaning and maintenance contractors. BRCGS (1.1.2) calls for defined activities involving all sections of the site that have an impact on product safety.
- Write twenty to thirty statements. Four to six per dimension, one idea per sentence, in the first person (“I” or “we”), about concrete situations on the shop floor. Replace jargon: “the critical check at my workstation” rather than “the CCP”. Slip in a few negative statements to spot mechanical answers.
- Choose the scale. Four or five levels of agreement, plus “I don’t know”. When the survey is read aloud, an illustrated scale (faces or thumbs) can be understood without reading.
- Translate, then check. Arabic and French in writing, Darija (Moroccan Arabic) orally, Amazigh (Berber) if that is the team’s language. Have someone else translate it back to check the meaning, then test it with five operators by asking them to rephrase each sentence.
- Protect anonymity. Three identification questions at most: department, shift, length-of-service band. No result published for a group too small to stay anonymous. Data collected by someone outside the direct line of management, with a sealed box or a tablet without identifiers.
- Plan the sessions. During paid working time, in small groups, during a peak in activity and during a quiet period, with the same statements from one year to the next to follow trends.
Our article on FSSC 22000 food safety culture in Version 7 explains why language, season and anonymity so often distort the results. The GFSI says so too: communication must take account of language, and safe, confidential channels are needed.
How do you run the interviews and observations?
With a short guide and a fixed grid, so that teams can be compared. Interviews explain the scores; observations check that answers match what people actually do.
Interviews. Fifteen to twenty minutes, one or two people at a time, at every level: senior management, department heads, team leaders, operators, agency workers. Six open questions are enough:
- What matters most here, judging by what you see every day?
- Tell me about a food safety problem you have seen, and what happened next.
- What do you do when a check is out of limits and production is under pressure?
- How did you learn your job?
- How do you report a problem without going through your supervisor?
- If you ran the plant, what would you change first?
Take notes without names or identifiable job titles. Look for stories: a real example is worth more than a general opinion.
Observations. A grid of ten to fifteen behaviours, observed at different times: start of shift, product changeover, night, weekend, peak in activity. Handwashing at entry, workwear, change of zone, reaction to a drift, records filled in in real time, cleaning time respected. Observe supervisors and visitors too: the GFSI points out that leaders shape culture through the example they set.
Which indicators should you track for culture?
A small number of indicators that the site already produces, mixing leading and lagging measures. The GFSI recommends this mix: lagging indicators record a result, leading ones show what is being done to achieve it.
Indicator | Type | Source | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
Reports received and average response time | Leading | Confidential reporting system (BRCGS 1.1.6) | Monthly |
Near misses reported and actions closed | Leading | Incident register | Monthly |
Management shop-floor walks carried out | Leading | Management schedule | Monthly |
On-the-job training completed before starting work, non-permanent staff included | Leading | Training register | Monthly |
Hygiene deviations found in inspections, by shift | Lagging | Internal inspections | Monthly |
Repeat nonconformities in internal audit | Lagging | Internal audit programme | Quarterly |
Customer complaints linked to product safety | Lagging | Complaints register | Quarterly |
BRCGS requires objectives to be monitored and their results reported at least quarterly to site senior management and all staff (1.1.3). Link the culture indicators to existing objectives, rather than creating a separate dashboard.
How do you move from results to an improvement plan?
By cross-checking sources, feeding results back to the teams, and then choosing few priorities. The plan is the document the auditor will read first.
Cross-check. Keep a finding when at least two sources agree: a low score on reporting, confirmed by interviews and by an almost empty register, is solid. An isolated score is a lead, not a conclusion.
Compare groups. Day and night, permanent and agency staff, supervisors and operators. When supervisors rate the culture much better than operators do, the gap is a priority in itself.
Feed back. Present the results to the teams within the following weeks, in Arabic and French, with the actions chosen. This is also a communication activity that the plan can claim.
Plan. Three to five priorities, no more. BRCGS requires an action plan indicating how the activities will be undertaken and measured, and the intended timescales (1.1.2).
Finding | Action | Owner | Target | Deadline | Measure of effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agency workers do not know how to report | Channel presented at induction, card in Arabic and French | HR manager | All newcomers informed | Before the next peak | Question asked in interviews with ten agency workers |
The night shift cuts cleaning short | Cleaning time blocked in the schedule, checked by the night supervisor | Production manager | No shortened clean | Three months | Night cleaning verifications |
Operators do not know the hazard at their workstation | Illustrated job sheet, five-minute reminder at the briefing | Quality manager | Correct answer in the workstation test | Six months | Workstation knowledge test |
Review. The plan goes back to the management review. BRCGS requires a review of the effectiveness of completed activities and an update at least annually; IFS Food Version 8 includes the elements of food safety culture in the management review (1.3.1). The next measurement will show whether the actions have worked.
Which measurement mistakes should you avoid?
They are predictable, and the auditor spots them quickly: a survey run in the low season, in French only, by the department head; results never fed back; an overall score with no analysis by team; a plan of twenty actions without owners; no new measurement to check the effect.
To place measurement within the overall approach, read our food safety culture guide. The case study of an industrial bakery shows a first measurement applied before an IFS Food audit.