Change Country
-or-
In this article, I explain why root cause analysis should be treated as a learning tool, not just a customer response or paperwork exercise. You will learn:
By Denis Kiely
Root cause analysis matters because we all make mistakes. The real question is what we do with them. We can bury mistakes, or we can learn from them. In food safety, that difference matters because small issues can develop into incidents and incidents can develop into crises if we do not understand what is really happening early enough.
A crisis might be a product recall. Before that, there may have been an incident such as unacceptable microbiological results on product. Before that again, there may have been an issue such as a factory not being cleaned effectively. These things are connected. An issue can lead to an incident and an incident can lead to a crisis.
That is why root cause analysis should never be seen as just another form to complete. When it is done well, it helps a food business learn from what has happened, strengthen its controls and prevent the same problem from reoccurring.
One of the most useful ways to think about root cause analysis is to understand the difference between an issue, an incident and a crisis. An issue might be a weakness in cleaning standards. An incident might be unacceptable microbiological results on product. A crisis might be a product recall because a serious pathogen has been found.
The earlier you understand the source of the issue, the better chance you have of preventing escalation. That does not mean doing a full root cause analysis for every small thing that goes wrong. If you do that, the process loses its impact. The important point is that the business must define what an incident is. Once something meets that definition, that is when a thorough root cause analysis is needed.
Issues can often be handled at factory floor level. Incidents need deeper investigation. Crises demand urgent learning. The mistake is waiting until something has become a crisis before asking the hard questions.
One of the common reasons root cause analysis fails is that people use words loosely. Problem, source, symptom and cause are not the same thing. If those words are confused, the investigation becomes confused.
A simple example is a cough. The cough is the problem. The source might be cigarettes. The solution may be to stop smoking. That is a very simple example, but the same thinking applies in food safety. If there is Listeria on a product, the question is not just “what happened?” The question is “where did it come from?”
When you get to the source, you have something useful to work with. In food safety, hazards generally come from three broad sources: raw material, the factory environment or people. That simple source-based thinking helps teams focus the investigation and avoid getting lost in unnecessary complexity.
There are many recognised root cause analysis tools. People talk about 5 Whys, fishbone diagrams, DMAIC and other methods. Each can have value, but the tool must suit the business and the people using it.
For many food businesses, complexity is the enemy. If you want line leaders and floor supervisors to contribute to root cause analysis, the tool must be simple enough to use at floor level. If it is too academic, or too complex it will not work for the people who need to use it.
That is why I believe in the KISS principle: keep it simple stupid. The simplicity is not aimed at the people on the factory floor. It is aimed at the people designing the methodology. If the people designing the tool make it too complicated, it will not work at floor level.
A food business should choose a root cause analysis tool that works for its people and then stick with it. Constantly moving between tools creates inconsistency. Whether the business is looking at an issue, an incident or a crisis, the team needs a method it understands and trusts.
Do not stop at “retraining”
One of the weakest outcomes in root cause analysis is when everything ends with “retraining”. Sometimes training is needed, but it should not be the automatic answer.
When every corrective action becomes retraining, the business may simply be blaming its people, generally people at floor level. That is often the easy way out. If a person did not wash their hands, that may be the cause of contamination, but it is not necessarily the root cause. The deeper question is why they did not wash their hands. Did they understand the requirement? Was the training effective? Was the procedure practical? Was the supervision good enough? Was the culture strong enough?
A proper investigation should keep drilling down until the business understands why the failure actually happened. With the 5 Whys, you do not always need to get to the fifth why. Sometimes the answer becomes clear earlier. But you do need someone in the room who understands the tool, believes in it and can help the team get to the real source of the problem.
Root cause analysis is not successful because a form has been completed. It is successful when something changes.
That change is usually seen in behaviour. Behaviour is the ultimate measurement of culture. It is also the ultimate measurement of whether a root cause analysis has been productive. If the process does not change behaviour, strengthen controls or improve how people work, then it has not delivered its full value.
This is where root cause analysis connects directly to food safety culture. A business may have values, processes and leaders, but the real measure is how people behave when food safety is under pressure. If the same issue comes back again and again, the investigation may have dealt with the paperwork but not the behaviour.
Root cause analysis should be evidence based, but it should also allow people to express their views. In a product recall, the data may clearly show that there is Listeria in the product. That is the evidence. How it got there may require discussion, judgement and opinion from the people who understand the process.
That is why a root cause analysis team needs strong leadership. Everyone should be able to contribute, but the outputs must be interrogated. If the business does not interrogate its own root cause analysis, the customer may do it instead. Customers are often very interested in root cause analysis because they may be directly affected by the failure. Their product, brand or consumer relationship may have been impacted.
There is a very practical reason to do RCA properly. A weak investigation does not just create internal problems, it can damage customer confidence.
When a serious event happens, it can be difficult to see anything positive in it. But every root cause analysis and every recall should leave the business with learning. The question is: what have we learned and how can we make our food safety management system better as a result?
Sometimes an event changes what the industry sees as reasonable. Before something happens, it may be considered unlikely. Once it has happened, it becomes something the business must consider. That may mean looking again at the supply chain, the factory environment or the mitigation measures in place.
This is where RCA becomes part of continuous improvement. It is not just about explaining what went wrong. It is about strengthening the system so the business is better prepared in future.
Good root cause analysis needs leadership. The leader of the RCA team needs knowledge, confidence and wisdom. Data leads to information, information provides knowledge and knowledge develops into wisdom. That wisdom helps the leader guide the team through the process and mentor others so they become comfortable with the tools.
Leadership also matters because culture can either support honest investigation or prevent it. If people feel the purpose is blame, they will protect themselves. If they understand that the purpose is learning and consumer protection, the conversation becomes more useful.
In food safety, everything ultimately comes back to the consumer. A business must understand the nature of its food, its position in the supply chain and the responsibility it carries. A ready-to-eat product places a different responsibility on the business because the consumer does not have the same opportunity to protect themselves through cooking. That must influence the level of care, the culture and the seriousness with which root cause analysis is approached.
Root cause analysis is not about producing a document for a customer or closing off a corrective action in a system. It is about learning from what happened, finding the source of the problem and changing the conditions that allowed it to happen.
If RCA stops at symptoms, defaults to retraining or becomes too complex for people to use, it will not deliver the value the business needs. But when it is simple, well led and focused on behaviour change, it becomes one of the most powerful learning tools in a food safety management system.
A good root cause analysis should answer three questions clearly:
If the business can answer those questions honestly, it is not just fixing a problem. It is building a stronger food safety culture.
At SQT, we help food industry teams develop practical root cause analysis skills that work in real food business settings. That means helping people choose tools they can use, separate symptoms from causes, identify the real source of problems and build the leadership capability needed to turn investigation into learning.
For food businesses, root cause analysis is not just a compliance requirement. It is a way to protect consumers, strengthen systems, improve culture and reduce the chance of repeat failures. If you have a requirement for training in this area, contact us for a tailored In-Company programme..
Categories
ArchiveSign up to receive the latest industry and company news direct to your inbox.
2026