Vulnerability Management Initiatives: Survey of Industry

Vulnerability Management Initiatives: Survey of Industry

Dr Alan Sloane

Department of Food Business & Development, UCC

[email protected]

Format of today’s presentation …

• To encourage discussion … • … not to give definitive answers

• … to hear your questions

• “Finding the question is often more important than finding the answer” (Tukey, 1977)

• Won’t cover all that’s in the data • Full report will be published by safefood • Research continuing • Survey may be repeated ...

• Future years • Other places

• Happy to discuss further today or later …

Approach •Compare perceptions with realities

• Relatively little incidence reported • to authorities • to peers?

• But quite a lot encountered • see later in this presentation

• Incidents – caution! • Not all is dangerous • Not all is clear malfeasance

70%

84%

19%

75%

4%

58%

1%

32%

1%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

#1 Top 3

Food safety dangers to human consumer

Direct economic consequences in lost business, product recallsetc.

Indirect economic consequences in lost contracts, reputationetc.

Legal criminal consequences for the company e.g. prosecution,fines etc.

Legal criminal consequences for directors or employees e.g.prosecution, custodial sentences etc.

Most Important Dangers & Costs?

04/12/2018

Most important role in prevention?

5

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

#1 Top 3

Management

Food Safety and Quality Team

Individual producer or processor businesses

Employees

Regulators (FSAI,FSA-NI)

National Government

EU Commission & Legislators

Accreditation/Certification bodies (eg GFSI, BRC)

Auditors

Industry representative bodies (eg NIFDA, IBEC)

6

Answer: Firms and Employees

Structure of Survey Questionnaire

•Main themes: • Prevalence (perception) • Incidents (reality) • Awareness & Practices/Strategies (reality) • Expectations (perception)

Prevalence: Frequency? • Both adulteration and

misrepresentation are considered infrequent

• But misrepresentation is thought to be the more likely

9

Prevalence: Perpetrators?

• While terrorists are the most likely to act for non-economic reasons … • … “Insiders” may also be

similarly motivated • If suppliers are involved, it’s

most likely for economic reasons

10

Prevalence: Products?

Low Risk Products: Fruits & Vegetables Nuts & Nut Products

High Risk Products: Honey Olive Oil Organic Special Claims

Incidents: Frequency

04/12/2018

• The majority of companies hadn’t experienced any incident

in the past 3 years • 61% (excluding “Don’t Know”)

• But 39% had experienced at least one incident of

adulteration or misrepresentation in their business • 59 out of 152

• And 12% had experienced incidents “more than once a

year” • 18 out of 152

12

Incidents: Larger Companies?

13

Incidents: Location of Perpetrators?

04/12/2018

Incidents: Motivation of Perpetrators?

15

Incidents: How Detected?

16

Delistingsupplier

Enhancedaudit or

inspection of

suppliers

Enhancedproducttesting

Other(please

describe):

Recalledproduct

Alertedauthoritie

s

Undertook public-relations

orreputatio

n-managem

entexercise

Respondents (%) 53% 36% 29% 22% 20% 9% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

How did you respond? • Most common action by far

was delist supplier (54%) • Also 4% of “Other”

penalise the supplier

• Next: increase supplier

auditing (36%) or enhance

product testing (28%)

• Only 10% alerted authorities • in only 1 case did they

register it in an info-sharing

system

• Do affected firms prefer to

“silently delist” an offending

supplier?

Incidents: Response?

17

Awareness: Notorious Incidents

• Horsemeat is almost universally known • Melamine also well-known

18

Practices: Systems in Place? • 74% had systems in

place to deal specifically with adulteration and/or misrepresentation

• Another 13% were currently putting in a system or actively considering doing so

Practices: Certification

20

Practices: Databases

Expectations: New Processes?

Testing, testing, testing?

Expectations: New Technologies?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Highly promising Not at all promising

How do you rate each of the following new technologies as aids in fighting food fraud and threats?

Handheld rapid testing devices (e.g.Raman spectrometers)

DNA barcoding

RFID (traceability)

Blockchain (distributed ledgertechnology)

Active and intelligent packaging

"Big Data" and other computationaltools for data analysis

Smart contracts

3D-printed smart caps

Edible tags

Testing!

Key Finding: Proactive or Reactive Strategies?

Proactive Reactive Incident

Investigate

Analyse

Reflect Information Feedback Loop

Incorporate

Strengthen

Conclusion

•What can we do for you? •More research?

• On what? • What angles?

•More details public? • Website with interactive graphs? • Practical summaries or guides?