Rethinking Risk Assessments in the Food Industry: Moving Beyond Likelihood vs. Severity

The Flawed Traditional Approach

Risk assessment is a critical tool in decision-making, but many food industry professionals rely on an oversimplified method — assessing risk based solely on the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of consequences.

While this approach may be effective for OPERATIONAL risks, such as assessing food safety hazards, it is inadequate for analyzing ORGANIZATIONAL risks in food manufacturing (see ISO 22000:2018, Clause 0.3.3: Risk-Based Thinking). Moreover, it is entirely ineffective for identifying and capitalizing on opportunities.

Unlike operational risks, organizational risks are interconnected and dynamic, involving multiple stakeholders, regulatory obligations, supply chain interdependence, and long-term strategic consequences. A simple likelihood-severity matrix cannot adequately capture these complexities, leading to incomplete or misleading outcomes.

A More Effective Approach to Risk Assessment

Traditional risk assessments often fail because they do not fully consider how risks evolve over time or how multiple risks interact. To improve risk management in food manufacturing, organizations should focus on the following four key aspects:

1. The Type of Consequences
Food industry risks go beyond food safety concerns and can impact regulatory compliance, brand reputation, financial stability, and long-term business viability. Each consequence must be analyzed in relation to broader strategic goals.

2. The Magnitude and Timing of Consequences
Many risk assessments overlook the fact that some risks unfold gradually rather than presenting an immediate threat. A supplier’s non-compliance, for example, might not seem critical in the short term but could lead to significant reputational damage if left unaddressed. This failure to consider long-term consequences is, in my opinion, one of the most common blind spots in risk management.

3. Domino and Knock-On Effects
Risks do not exist in isolation. A seemingly minor issue — such as a high turnover rate in key positions — can trigger a cascade of failures, eventually affecting food safety, and operational efficiency. Understanding how risks compound over time allows for better prevention and mitigation strategies.

4. Multiple Exposures and Synergistic Effects
Rarely does a single factor create a major risk event. Instead, multiple stressors — such as aging infrastructure, shifting regulations, and workforce challenges — combine to create hidden vulnerabilities that can escalate into major crises. A proper risk assessment must account for these overlapping risks instead of treating them as isolated incidents.

Risk Management as a Strategic Enabler

Organizations that view risk management proactively — rather than as a compliance requirement — are better equipped to adapt, achieve objectives, and sustain long-term success.

One of the most effective ways to conduct risk assessments is through brainstorming. It is flexible, creative, and highly adaptable. It encourages collaboration among key stakeholders, ensuring that risks are assessed from multiple viewpoints rather than relying solely on static models.

Personally, I find brainstorming particularly engaging. It transforms risk assessment from a mechanical activity into an interactive and dynamic experience. I’ve seen firsthand how a well-facilitated brainstorming session can unlock hidden risks, challenge assumptions, and generate innovative solutions that traditional models often overlook.

Brainstorming not only helps manage risks more effectively but also keeps teams engaged. When discussions are open and collaborative, teams are more likely to challenge perspectives, explore new ideas, and identify vulnerabilities that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Facilitating brainstorming will definitely be a topic for a future post!