WHO THIS GUIDE IS FOR Food Safety Managers, QA Managers, HACCP team leaders and operations managers at FSSC 22000 and BRCGS-certified sites in South Africa — especially anyone who suspects their culture plan is better at satisfying an auditor than changing what happens on the floor. |
Food safety culture used to be the part of the audit everyone skimmed past. Not anymore. FSSC 22000 and BRCGS have both built it into core certification requirements, and GFSI just released a substantially refreshed framework for what culture actually means — the first real update since 2018. [1] [4]
The evidence keeps telling the same story, though. Most EU member states are still struggling to implement a food safety culture in any meaningful way. [7] A global survey of more than 170 food processors found the same gap between management’s KPI dashboard and what’s actually happening on the floor. [8] In South Africa, that gap widens further — language diversity, constant staff turnover, and an electricity supply that can take down a cold chain without warning.
This guide walks through what FSSC 22000 and BRCGS actually require, what GFSI’s updated model says good culture looks like, and six struggles that recur on South African sites — with fixes grounded in real evidence, not guesswork.
For years, food safety culture was the soft side of the audit — mentioned at induction, then forgotten until the next visit. FSSC 22000 and BRCGS changed that by embedding it in certification requirements with real consequences.
FSSC’s Additional Requirement 2.5.8 makes senior management responsible for a documented culture objective covering four elements: communication, training, employee feedback and engagement, and performance measurement across the business. [2] BRCGS goes further: the policy must commit to continual culture improvement, and senior management must maintain an actual working plan — with defined activities, a timeline, and a review of whether it worked. [6] BRCGS even built a dedicated tool for this, the Food Safety Culture Excellence programme, developed with organisational culture specialists Taylor Shannon International. [4] [5]
Why now? BRCGS Issue 10 is in consultation and looks set to push culture even harder. [14] GFSI’s revised position paper draws on more than 180 academic and industry sources. [1] [9] And there’s a financial case here too, not just a compliance one. A 2024 study found that food companies with less mature cultures incurred dramatically higher failure costs — the weakest performer in that study spent close to 16 times the standard benchmark on scrap alone. [15] Separately, a 2025 review of foodborne illness recalls and outbreaks dating back to 2001 found organisational culture factors running through most cases, with food manufacturers the most commonly implicated group. [16] This isn’t decorative. It’s a real, evidence-based shift in how the industry believes food safety is actually delivered.
In Chapter 1, we discussed why culture now influences audits; here’s what it is compared to. GFSI’s 2026 report offers a straightforward definition: food safety culture comprises the core beliefs, behaviours, values, and assumptions learned and shared by everyone in an organisation, collectively determining food safety. [1] It’s not just a poster or a policy; it’s the aggregate of people’s actions. The model is divided into two tiers:
FSSC and BRCGS map onto this closely — part of why GFSI’s model works as shared language between them:
Element | FSSC 22000 — Requirement 2.5.8 | BRCGS — Clause 1.1 |
Foundation | Senior management establishes and maintains a documented culture objective. [2] | The policy must commit to the continual improvement of the food safety and quality culture. [6] |
Communication | Required minimum element. | Activities must include clear, open communication on product safety. [6] |
Training | Required minimum element. | Activities are linked to the behaviour change the plan is meant to achieve. |
Feedback & engagement | Required minimum element. | Feedback from employees is required within the documented plan. [6] |
Measurement & review | Performance measurement across all sections impacting food safety. | An action plan must include measurement plus an annual review. [5] |
Worth noting: GFSI’s own paper admits that two of the five dimensions — Consistency and Adaptability — are the least researched, even though they’re arguably what determine whether culture holds up under real pressure. [1] The rest of this guide is about that exact gap, as seen in the South African context.
THE STANDARD SAYS BRCGS Clause 1.1.2 wants a working plan, not a policy statement: defined activities, a realistic timeline, and a review of whether it actually worked. [6] |
The easiest way to tick this box is to write a good document. Plenty of QA teams do exactly that — and then an auditor walks the floor, asks a line worker about it, and finds nobody downstairs has heard of it. GFSI’s own research backs this up: culture work lands far better when it’s built into the food safety management system itself, not bolted on beside it as a separate paperwork exercise. [1]
SOUTH AFRICAN REALITY CHECK A peer-reviewed case study of a large South African food service complex — cited in GFSI’s own evidence base — found the basics missing despite frequent inspections: no real working policy, inconsistent food handling. The researchers blamed a lack of practical, on-the-job training, not a lack of paperwork. [1] [10] |
Tried-and-tested fix:
THE STANDARD SAYS BRCGS Clause 1.1.1 wants senior management to actually demonstrate commitment — not just sign off on a document once a year. [6] |
In group structures and multi-site operations — common across South African food manufacturing — the people making decisions are often nowhere near the site where the plan has to live. GFSI’s research found leadership engagement to be one of the strongest success factors, but also found it’s often patchy in small and micro businesses, even where everyone agrees it matters. [1]
SOUTH AFRICAN REALITY CHECK The same South African case study found board-level governance disconnected from frontline reality, even at a site under regular inspection — a gap the researchers linked partly to weak enforcement follow-through. South Africa’s regulatory landscape doesn’t help: research describes it as fragmented across several government departments, with many municipalities short on resources for consistent enforcement. [10] [11] |
Tried-and-tested fix:
THE STANDARD SAYS FSSC’s 2.5.8 names communication as one of four required elements. [2] BRCGS wants the same — clear, open, two-way. [6] |
GFSI requires that real communication has to account for language, the right channels, and the practical barriers that impede two-way understanding. [1] If the policy is written in English and that isn’t your line workers’ first language, that’s not a footnote — it’s the entire mechanism by which culture is supposed to travel, broken from the start.
SOUTH AFRICAN REALITY CHECK South Africa’s linguistic diversity makes this a genuine operational risk, not an HR nicety. GFSI’s own evidence shows multicultural teams have noticeably different morale and retention outcomes depending on how hierarchical or collaborative the culture is. [1] South Africa’s own labour research adds another layer: real gaps in foundational and soft skills nationally, on top of unemployment above 32 per cent, which makes training built around written English-language material even harder going. [12] |
Tried-and-tested fix:
THE STANDARD SAYS FSSC’s 2.5.8 names training as a required element — ongoing, not a once-off induction. [2] |
Culture takes time to build, and South Africa’s labour market doesn’t give you much of it. The Department of Higher Education and Training’s own research describes real shortfalls in foundational skills, on top of unemployment above 32 per cent — a combination that drives both genuine scarcity and high churn in entry-level roles. [12] Recent academic research in the Western Cape found structural issues — in healthcare, childcare, and transport access — driving absenteeism and turnover regardless of training investment. [13]
SOUTH AFRICAN REALITY CHECK Every time a culture-aligned worker leaves, the clock resets for that role. GFSI’s model treats training and knowledge as both indicators and drivers of cultural maturity — so high turnover doesn’t just cost recruitment time; it caps how good your culture can ever be. [1] |
Tried-and-tested fix:
THE STANDARD SAYS Neither standard exempts a site from food safety requirements because the power’s out — both expect the HACCP plan to hold up under real conditions, not ideal ones. |
This is where GFSI’s model gets unusually relevant to South Africa. Its Work Pressure component flags pressure as a real barrier to culture and behaviour — high-pressure conditions lead to shortcuts and can even suppress people’s willingness to report problems. [1] An unexpected power outage turns that from an occasional spike into a real, on-the-spot test of culture.
SOUTH AFRICAN REALITY CHECK South African sites know that power supply can be unpredictable, and an unexpected outage poses a direct threat to cold chain integrity, disrupting the temperature control food safety depends on. The real test isn’t whether a procedure exists for a power cut — it’s whether, two hours behind schedule, a shift worker still escalates a temperature breach instead of hoping it’s fine. |
Tried-and-tested fix:
THE STANDARD SAYS FSSC wants performance measurement across the business. [2] BRCGS wants the same, reviewed at least annually. [5] [6] |
Measurement is the element most sites already attempt — and the one delivering the least value. A 2025 survey of more than 170 processors found culture KPIs mostly function as report cards for auditors, not tools that change behaviour on the floor. [8] The EU’s own 2025 survey of member states found something similar: a lack of clear assessment criteria and a real risk that culture work is seen as admin rather than as something useful. [7]
SOUTH AFRICAN REALITY CHECK For a South African site already juggling multiple certifications amid a fragmented regulatory backdrop, [11] piling a heavy new measurement system on top of existing reporting is exactly how culture turns into resentment rather than improvement. |
BRCGS’s own Culture Excellence programme — built with Taylor Shannon International — is a useful reference point. One early-adopter site said the real value wasn’t the score itself, but having an external benchmark to measure against, which drove an actual cycle of change and re-measurement rather than a number filed away once a year. [4]
Tried-and-tested fix:
Most of what’s in this guide doesn’t need a bigger budget — it needs a rhythm. BRCGS already expects the plan to be reviewed at least annually; [5] this calendar turns that into a quarterly habit so it never becomes a once-a-year scramble before an audit.
Quarter | Focus | Key Actions | Standard Reference |
Q1 | Reset and brief | Refresh the one-page plan with last year’s real incidents, not generic content. Brief your MD on three things: one KPI trend, one floor-level win, and one fix still needed. | BRCGS 1.1.1 / 1.1.2 |
Q2 | Floor-test it | Run a toolbox talk on a real near-miss from your own site, not a stock topic. Ask three line workers, in their own words, what the plan means for their shift. Check training records against who’s actually left in the last six months. | FSSC 2.5.8 (Training) |
Q3 | Measure what matters | Mid-year check on the one-KPI-per-dimension set from Chapter 8. Confirm visual and translated materials are still accurate — and still in the right languages. Check in on new-starter mentoring pairs from the last two quarters. | FSSC 2.5.8 (Measurement) |
Q4 | Review and renew | Run the annual effectiveness review BRCGS expects, and write down what it actually changed. Update next year’s plan and feed it into the management review. Thank the person behind your best “stopped and escalated” moment — by name. | BRCGS 1.1.2 (Annual Review) |
WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN PRACTICE |
None of this needs a new system or a new budget line. It needs the existing management meeting, the existing toolbox talk slot, and an honest answer when you ask the floor what’s actually happening.
Most sites do not need a larger compliance budget. They need to redirect effort from polished documentation to what genuinely changes behaviour: visible leadership, language-aware communication, training that withstands turnover, and measurement that matters to the people being measured. [1]
When that happens, the audit result usually follows — because the plan and the shop floor are finally telling the same story.
WHERE ENTECOM CAN HELP If you’d like support building or auditing a culture plan that holds up to more than a once-a-year inspection, Entecom’s training programmes, EO compliance software, and consulting services are available to help. Contact us at info@entecom.co.za |
Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). A Culture of Food Safety — Position Paper, Version 2.0. https://mygfsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GFSI-Food-Safety-Culture-Position-Paper-March-2026.pdf
Foundation FSSC. FSSC 22000 Scheme Version 6, Part 2, Additional Requirement 2.5.8 — Food Safety and Quality Culture. https://www.fssc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/FSSC-22000-Scheme-Version-6-.pdf
Foundation FSSC. Guidance Document: Food Safety and Quality Culture, FSSC 22000 Version 6. https://www.fssc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Guidance-Document-Food-Safety-and-Quality-Culture-V6.pdf
BRCGS. Food Safety Culture Excellence. https://www.brcgs.com/digital-solutions/food-safety-culture-excellence/
BRCGS. Food Safety Culture Excellence — Action Plan Template (Clause 1.1.2). https://www.brcgs.com/product/food-safety-culture-excellence-action-plan-template/p-839/
BRCGS. Position Statement F837 — Clause 1.1.2, Food Safety Culture Plan.
Food Safety Magazine. EU Member States Report Challenges in Implementing Food Safety Culture Official Controls. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11512-eu-member-states-report-challenges-in-implementing-food-safety-culture-official-controls
Food Safety Magazine. Column — Food Safety Insights, February/March 2026 issue. https://digitaledition.food-safety.com/february-march-2026/column-food-safety-insights/
Food Safety Magazine. GFSI Unveils Updated Food Safety Culture Framework. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11285-gfsi-unveils-updated-food-safety-culture-framework
Griffith, C.J., Jackson, L.M. and Lues, R. (2017). The food safety culture in a large South African food service complex: Perspectives on a case study. British Food Journal, 119(4), pp.729–743.
Unlocking food safety: a comprehensive review of South Africa’s food control and safety landscape from an environmental health perspective. PMC (National Library of Medicine). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11289970/
South African Department of Higher Education and Training. Identification of Skills Gaps in South Africa: A Popular Research Report, 2023. https://www.dhet.gov.za/Planning%20Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation%20Coordination/Identification%20of%20Skill%20Gaps%20in%20South%20Africa-2023.pdf
Bridging the skills gap in South Africa: evaluating workforce readiness in Western Cape’s business environment. Development Southern Africa (Taylor & Francis), 2025. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0376835X.2025.2595145
LRQA. Top BRCGS Food Safety Non-Conformities 2025–2026 (datasheet). https://www.lrqa.com/en/resources/brcgs-food-safety-non-conformities-2026/
Spagnoli, P., Defalchidu, L., Vlerick, P. and Jacxsens, L. (2024). The Relationship between Food Safety Culture Maturity and Cost of Quality: An Empirical Pilot Study in the Food Industry. Foods, 13(4), 571. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10887550/
Wu, S.T. and Wallace, C.A. (2025). Food safety culture contributory factors in foodborne illness recalls and outbreaks, 2001–2022. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 163, 105132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105132