The GFSI Rewrote Its Food Safety Culture Paper. Did Anyone Need That?
On March 26, at the GFSI Conference in Vancouver, the Global Food Safety Initiative launched A Culture of Food Safety, Version 2.0. Eight years after the first edition, which had become a reference for anyone working on food safety culture, we now have an update. More academic sources (180+, up from the original bibliography). New vocabulary.
A reorganized framework. And a few things quietly removed: focussing on the what, deleting the what and not thinking about the Why.
Let me share what struck me, as someone who trains on this topic and works with companies trying to make culture a real thing on the shop floor.
What actually changed?
The five dimensions from the 2018 paper are still there,
2018 5 Food Safety Culture Dimensions
more or less. But they’ve been reshuffled into a two-tier structure: “Organisational Foundations” (values, vision, mission, people) and “Manifested Practices” (risk awareness, consistency, adaptability). That’s the new dual-layered model.
2026 5 Food Safety Culture Dimensions
The definition has been reworked too. In 2018, the paper defined food safety culture as “shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mindset and behaviour towards food safety across and throughout the organisation”.
According to Version 2.0 definition, Food Safety Culture is now “a concept existing in all food businesses relating to the deeply rooted beliefs, behaviours, values and assumptions that are learned and shared by all employees, and which integrate to impact the food safety performance of the organisation.” , but in doing so, makes it even more abstract, more removed from what a quality manager on a production line or the CEO of a food company can actually do something with. Food Safety Culture is a concept.
And perhaps the most telling change: the “maturity model” and the “Things to look for” are gone.
What disappeared, and why it matters
The 2018 version included a maturity grid. For each of the five dimensions, you had stages of progression, concrete descriptions of what a low-maturity culture looks like versus a high-maturity one. It wasn’t perfect. But it was the one part of the document that companies could actually use to self-assess. Many practitioners, consultants, and even auditors had built tools around it.
That grid has been removed. In its place: a more theoretical framework, supported by more literature, but with less practical grip.
The paper itself acknowledges this trade-off. GFSI positions itself as a benchmarking body, defining the “what” of food safety culture, not the “how.” Fine. But by removing the maturity model, they also removed the closest thing the paper had to a usable tool. They replaced “here’s where you might stand and where you could go” with “here are the dimensions you should care about.”
That’s a step backward for the companies on the ground, particularly SMEs that don’t have a team of consultants to translate abstract frameworks into daily reality.
The “what” without the “how” or the “why”
GFSI is clear about its scope: we tell you what to focus on, not how to implement it. That boundary makes sense from a governance perspective. They’re not a standard body, they’re not writing requirements.
But the question nobody seems to be asking is: what about the why?
Why should a food business invest in culture rather than just check the compliance boxes? The paper says culture must be “measurable, actionable, and continuously improved.” It says food safety should “live within the culture of an organisation.” But where is the business case? Where is the evidence that companies with stronger food safety cultures have fewer incidents, fewer recalls, lower costs of non-quality?
Some of that research exists. The academic literature on cost of quality and culture maturity is starting to produce results. But the position paper, despite its 180+ sources, remains in the descriptive lane. It describes what food safety culture is and what it consists of. It doesn’t make the case for why a CEO or an operations director should put money and time into it.
And that’s a missed opportunity. Because the people who already believe in food safety culture don’t need another framework. They need ammunition to convince the people who don’t.
A paper for academics, not for operations
Let’s be honest about the audience here. Version 2.0 reads like it was written by researchers for researchers. The language is careful, layered, and hedged in the way academic papers tend to be. The recommendations are addressed to “industry, regulators and certification bodies,” and they include things like “adopt an integrated systems-and-culture approach” and “assess food safety culture through multiple indicators rather than a single metric.”
Who, concretely, is going to do something different on Monday morning after reading this?
Certification scheme owners might adjust a few requirements. Auditors might look at a new checklist. But the quality manager at a mid-sized food company, the one dealing with turnover, with language barriers on the line, with a CEO who sees food safety as a cost center? That person got less from Version 2.0 than from Version 1.0.
What I would have liked to see
Instead of removing the maturity model, the paper could have improved it. Made it more granular. Connected it to the new dual-layered framework. Given companies a way to say: “We are here, in these dimensions, and here is what moving forward looks like.”
Instead of staying in the “what” lane, the paper could have included a section on outcomes. Case studies, data, or at least a structured argument about what happens when food safety culture improves. Not as prescriptive guidance, but as motivation.
And instead of simply calling for “further research into underexplored areas like consistency and adaptability,” it could have offered a clearer signal to scheme owners about how to translate these dimensions into auditable expectations, without waiting another eight years.
Bottom line
The GFSI Position Paper V2.0 is a well-researched, well-structured academic document. It organizes the literature. It refines the vocabulary. It will serve as a reference for people designing standards and training programs.
But for the practitioners in the field, the trainers, the quality managers, the small and mid-sized companies trying to turn “culture” from a buzzword into something real, it feels like a lateral move at best, and a step back at worst. More theory, less practical value, and a missing argument for the one audience that matters most: the leaders who still don’t see food safety culture as their problem.
What do you think?
Bruno Séchet is the founder of Integralim, a training and consulting firm specializing in food safety risk management and AI implementation for the agri-food industry. He works with companies seeking to improve their culture, to build resilient Food Integrity Management System and to prevent risks for their customers and consumers.