Brussels “Using traceability in the supply chain to meet consumer safety expectations”
-
Upload
albert-byrd -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of Brussels “Using traceability in the supply chain to meet consumer safety expectations”
Agenda
Introduction– ECR Europe work: context and facts– Summary on content of the ECR Blue book
Manufacturer and Retailer positioning Concrete examples of implementation of
good practices– Kraft International Commercial– Cora
Example of collaboration between a manufacturer and a retailer
Panel discussion and Question & Answers Conclusions
Introduction - Context and facts
Business requirements Legal requirements: General Product Safety Directive and
General Food Law March 2003: ECR Europe Board launched a core team
under the initiative of ECR D-A-CH, France, Spain May 2003: Presentation of core team mission at the
ECR Europe Conference in Berlin June 2003 - January 2004: Blue Book developed and
validated 15th January 2004: Blue Book officially endorsed by 21
ECR National Organisations End January 2004: Blue Book as ECR Europe
publication Today: Breakout session at ECR Europe Conference in
Brussels
Content of the Blue Book: main aspects addressed
Chapter 4: Business needs – Ensure consumer safety and confidence – Protect brands, companies, product categories and the
entire industry life– Limit the impacts of crisis by a joint efficient management– Efficiency comes from collaboration and common practices
Chapter 5: Legal requirements– Traceability and flow of information (as a tool to protect
consumer safety) – Product withdrawal and recall and therefore crisis
management procedures
Chapter 6: Traceability & Technology: Process and solutions
Chapter 7: Incident / crisis management, withdrawal and recall processes
Key business rules along the Blue Book
As a manufacturer
Nestle supports Blue Book
– Pragmatic approach to a European and even Global Process
– Common framework and guidance to all companies
– Promotes collaboration
The Blue Book enables the “one step down, one step up”
approach for all companies independently of their size
Carrefour and food safety vs EU
Food safety is non negociable, the precautionary principle must be applied where it is necessary for consumer safety and health
Traceability is a fundamental tool for food safety but it is also used to improve daily operational performances
Carrefour supports legal obligation of results and pledges for a voluntary approach of liberty
of means
Carrefour and traceability systems
Traceability must be seen in an evolutionary, voluntary context in partnership with every players involved, taking into account management and/or administrative and/or logistics and/or economics and public health objectives
Carrefour develops systems of products specifications management, of logistics management, of crisis management which have proved their global efficiency. SSCC and EAN-128 are pragmatic examples Carrefour supports Blue Book in a voluntary
context in technological development, taking into account, according to food safety
requirements, specific objectives of the different sectors of activities involved
Carrefour for its consumers with its business partners
Traceability applied today by Carrefour allows us to guarantee to our consumers fast and efficient quarantines, withdrawals and recalls
Carrefour develops with its business partners targeted quarantines, withdrawals and recalls taking into account public health (precautionary principle), business and economical criteria Carrefour guarantees first and foremost food safety for its consumers, then Carrefour takes into account the business context and partners economical concerns (contractual)
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Practical case profileThe object: Plant buffer whs. and Distribution Center in Disena
Storage equipment: conventional rack storage & block
storage
Material type stored: FG,RM,PM,PoS Capacity data: 10.000 pallets available capacity
The mission: implement efficient traceability procedures that
fit perfectly into our global supply network and sensitise the traceability aspect
The challenge: consider different technological levels at
different sites
The tools: ECR Standard solutions based on EAN.UCC Standards
Migration plan: The 8 important steps
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
SCOPE
Assessment
Scorecard
Identification
Lot Codes
Labels
EDI
Test Run!
implementation
analysis
The scope: a question of interfaces . . .
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Warehouse
Plants
Co- Manufacturers
Trade
Co- Packers
other Warehouse
INBOUND
OUTBOUND
RETURNS PICKING COPACKING
STORAGE
Assess a micro-cosmos: your warehouse!
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Unique identification Data communication Data capture Data link management
EDI Infrastructure . . .
For every flow:
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Use scorecards to measure the degree of implementation achieved and compliance
Identify and document the steps required to implement a change programme and achieve best practice with the following possible impacts:
– Organisational changes
– Investment in technology
Key learning: Scorecards are useful
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Scorecard results: the “initial situation”
Traceability is based on manual procedures (e.g filing delivery notes)
We need: fast reliable answers to
– What has been received and send out ?
– From whom goods were received and to whom had they been delivered ?
To consider: risk of mistakes for initial situation is high and even increasing with a higher shipping volume
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
GLN GTIN for CU GTIN for SKU
Unique identification of locations and products
GLN identifies legal, functional and physical entities with a unique identifier and is key concept in EDI
GTIN must be allocated to each product GTIN changing based on GCI allocation rules
Implement the linkage of unique product identification with a lot code
Consumer Unit
Traded Unit
Pallet
4012345123456
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
A lot code is necessary at any point in the supply chain
A lot code should never be manipulated or changed
Example of lot code structure
I P D SID LINE DATE PLANT
alphabetical numerical numerical alphabetical ...I = Internal
E = ExternalPackaging Line
NumberProduction year Plant code
Any pallet needs to carry an SSCC
Implement EAN.UCC pallet label toguarantee common design
Ensure product identification integrity
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Uniform mono-lot pallet
SSCC
3 76 10100 912 568 763 3
ECR Company Ltd.
Premium Product 12x100g
CONTENT
5000243720517
COUNT
48LAYERS
4
Lot Code
MYAUI235BEST BEFORE END (MM YYYY)
03 2002
(00)376101009125687633
(02)05000243720517(15)020331(37)48(10)MYAUI235
SSCC
Lot code
GTIN of SKU
Logistics label: the serial shipping container code (SSCC)
The edge: electronic data interchange
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Pallet with SSCC
SSCC scanned
Message
Applicable EAN.UCC standards are EANCOM® and EAN.UCC XML messages
EANCOM® Despatch advice EDI message is the enabler for efficient traceability
Each physical movement of a product is linked to a transactional flow
Logistics op. Logistics op. Plant Warehouse
Buy Consumer unit in Outlet
Allocate Plant Data transfer Record lot charge ,
BBE, EAN 13 Generate SSCC list incl. # cases delivered to which
consignee
Generate Customer drop point list sorted by SSCC, lot code , #
cases delivered
Tracking information
Transfer information
Verify customer list and drop point
SUCCESS
Yes
Recall successful
No Data check Data check Data check
Test run (the “mock- recall”)
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
Example of a sequence diagramm visualising a test run
Can your warehouse tell you exactly and on time for a randomly chosen product:
- how much was delivered to the warehouse and when?
- how much is still remaining in the warehouse?
- how much and to which customer has it been dispatched?
The figures:
Planning time: 4 months
Time needed to migrate: 6 months
Implementation core team: 4 – 6 FTE
Investment: 10 – 20 % of WMS project cost
Traceability and Technology: Process and Solution
The efficiency of the traceability network is determined by its weakest link.
Every single component of your supply chain must be in line with defined traceability
processes and solutions - do not forget the
„THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL“
ECR France and Cora support the Blue book
AUCHAN, BONGRAIN SA, Brasseries KRONENBOURG,CARREFOUR France, CASINO, COCA COLA, COGESAL MIKO,COLGATE PALMOLIVE, CORA, DANONE (EVIAN VOLVIC),DANONE Groupe, DECATHLON, DUCROS SA, EASYDIS, ELVIR, Fromageries BEL, GENCOD EAN France, GEORGIA-PACIFIC France, Gilbert LEMELLE, KELLOGG'S Produits Alimentaires, KRAFT FOODS France, LACTALIS, LEVERFABERGE France, L'OREAL, METRO, NESTLE ProduitsLaitiers Frais SA, NESTLE WATERS France, PANZANI,PEPSICO France, PROCTER & GAMBLE, SOLINEST, SYSTEMEU, SYSTEME U OUEST, UNILEVER BESTFOODS France,YOPLAIT.
Coordination with the following French organisations: FCD, ANIA, Gencod EAN France, AFNOR, AFISE, CFA, CFCA, … and public agencies
Definition of an incident
An incident is any situation, that might imply a real, presumed or perceived product safety or serious quality deviation from legal requirements and / or internal quality norms
Definition of a crisis
It is any “incident situation” where there is reason to believe that a product distributed in the supply chain or placed on the market may be injurious to human or animal health and /or to environment protection, and / or have serious negative impact on the business organisation and / or image of the company
Definitions (1)
Withdrawal«shall mean any measure aimed at preventing the distribution, display and offer of a product dangerous to the consumer»
Recall«shall mean any measure aimed at achieving the return of a dangerous product that has already been supplied or made available to consumers by the producer or distributor»
from Directive 2001/95/EC
Definitions (2)
Recommendations on organisation, documentation and training
Organisation to have in place to efficiently withdraw/recall a product– Defined responsibilities– Contact list (internal/external)– Documentation
Internal documentation
Personal skills
Training
Self assessment
Procedures, roles and responsibilities are to be documented in prevention of an incident,
not in reaction to an incident
Recommendations on responsibilities at each organisational level
Crisis management at company level is coordinated by a crisis management group
This group is headed by one central crisis coordinator
The crisis management group is the committee responsible for deciding and controlling the actions
At the start of a crisis, the organisational requirements for dealing with incident
management in the firm's organisational hierarchy must be in place
Recommendations on contact list (internal/external)
Contact list must always be complete and up-to-date
The list must include– all contact options both during and outside office
hours– substitutes in case one of the people responsible is
not available
The list must be made available– at a suitable place (e.g. the firm's intranet,
posters)– to enable access mainly outside office hours
If the product in question has already left the firm's own organisation, the external
partners involved must be contacted
Recommendations on ethical code
Four principles– Co-operation and co-ordinated action– Provision resources throughout the chain– Non-use of crisis situations as support to
marketing actions– Communication
Apply the “golden rules”
Companies are committed not to deliver communication to the media that refer to
third party companies without having previously co-ordinated it
Is your company ready? Self assessment scorecard
Incident /crisis management
Requirements / actions Score
Incident /crisis management team has been appointed with clear definition of roles and responsibilities
Internal guide on incident/crisis management with clear definition of withdrawal & recall procedures, incident evaluation … has been fully documented
Contact lists have been documented and distributed
Contact lists have been made available to key trading partners
Each person involved in incident/crisis management, product withdrawal/recall procedures understands their role and scope of actions
Training material has been developed
Training of people is performed regularly
Regular exercises are run to test the crisis management team, incident and crisis management plans, checklists and to update the self assessment scorecard
Regular exercises are run with key trading partners
0: No action taken1: Plans have been established but the work has not started2: Implementation has started with a limited scope (e.g. some product categories)3: Roll-out of full implementation has started4: Plans fully implemented
Cora experiences
More than 250 alerts and withdrawals per year, around one per day
2 to 5 recalls per year (food and non- food)
Avoiding Quality
Preventing/anticipating
TraceabilityContacts listCrisis team
configuration
How to manage a crisis? Cora’s vision
Notification in the trade terms (selling and buying) of the companies
Preventing crisis
Four recommendations
– Implementation of a (cheap) phone number (ie n° azur)– Updating names of the people to contact in case of crisis– Permanence of email addresses and phone numbers– Commitment to insure products quality and traceability
Avoiding Quality
Preventing/anticipating
TraceabilityContacts listCrisis team
configuration
Alert
Crisis No
Yes
How to manage a crisis? Cora’s vision
Alert: crisis or incident?
Could the problem stop production/ distribution for a long moment?
Does the problem have effects on the environment?
Is the problem media covered or on the way to be?
Does the problem overstep an individual framework?
So it’s a false alert!
No
No
No
No So it’s a crisis!
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Does the problem concern several family of products?
Does the problem have consequences on consumer health or safety?
Does the problem affect high risk population? (child, elderly people…)
Is the product still useable (edible) (not destruct/eaten)?
No
No
No
No
Does the problem exist?
Is it a crisis or a false alert?
Yes
Avoiding Quality
Preventing/anticipating
TraceabilityContacts listCrisis team
configuration
Alert
Crisis No
Yes
Managing
Withdrawal, recall, quarantine,
Information flows, Communication, …
Crisis settling
How to manage a crisis? Cora’s vision
Managing crisis
Withdrawal
Recall
Freezing (quarantine)«shall mean any temporary measure aimed at freezing the products shipment in the supply chain and not to deliver them to the consumer during an agreed time period. After analysis, the following choices can be taken : the product de-freezing (put back for sale) or its withdrawal » (ECR France proposal)
How to inform rapidly and effectively our partner?
From ? manufacturer or ? retailer ? owner or ? non owner of the brand EMERGENCY-WARNING
File n° ………………… Update on :………………….. N° …… for …… concerned EAN N°……. for …… concerned points of delivery
Departement or category of product : Brand : ( 1 reflex form per product)
? Quarantine of the product (without any instructions of de-freezing, withdrawal of the product from : dd/mm/yy hh:mm)
? Withdrawal of the product (without any re-sale possible)
? Recall of the product
Samples to keep : ? yes, quantities : ? No
From : Company : Name of the interlocutory : J ob title : Telephone : Mobile : Fax : Email : Global Location Number (GLN) :
Destinataire habilité Company : Name of the interlocutory : J ob title : Telephone : Mobile : Fax : Email : Global Location Number (GLN) :
Concerned point of delivery
EAN Code of
consumer unit Brand Denomination Size Flavour,
shade, … Lot numbers concerned
Expiry date SSCC Quantities (CU)
Transport reference Delivery order reference Delivery date
Reasons of the alert and potential risks: Is there any message for consumers? ? Yes (see enclosures)
? No Alert source : ? Manufacturer ? Retailer ? Consumer ? Administration ? Other :
I f withdrawal or recall : way of destruction or return :
Quantities ascent / evaluation
Comments :
Receipt advice : Point of sale / delivery centre informed on :
Products flow «reverse logistics»
Possible site of destruction
PoS by DSD
Delivery
Ascents of incriminated products
Avoiding Quality
Preventing/anticipating
TraceabilityContacts listCrisis team
configuration
Alert
Crisis No
Yes
Managing
Withdrawal, recall, quarantine,
Information flows, Communication, …
Crisis settling
Con
tinu
ou
s im
pro
vem
en
t pro
cess
How to manage a crisis? Cora’s vision
Experience in 2003 in France
Nestlé Quality Management detected a "plastic foreign body" in a product already distributed to the Trade
Crisis Team alerted – Assessment
• What is it?• Is it dangerous to consumers? (NO)• Who received the product?• Should we alert our Customers? (YES)• Communication developed
– Customers contacted• Not serious issue but Nestlé decision to withdraw the product• No need to remove the product from the shelves, only DCs• Product, Batch number, pallet numbers (SSCC), Distribution
Centres
Experience in 2003 in France - 2
Dialogue between Cora and Nestlé Teams– Better understand the issue– Further information sharing
Cora Internal assessment of the issue reported– Withdraw the product from the distribution centres
only ?– Cora's usual way of dealing with incidents
Common Cora / Nestlé decision – Withdraw the product from distribution centres and
shelves
Common agreement on: the event is now over Archive
Experience in 2003 in France - 3
Key learning and recommendations Even if minor issue, do not underestimate it and
treat it as an incident The experience shows:
– Each retailers is different in terms of organisation and internal process
– Need for regular discussions / meetings in order to understand each other ways of working and align as much as possible the approach
– at least one meeting per year where information is shared: what's new? proposals for improvement, etc.
– The absolute need for regular joint exercises – The absolute need to take stock of the way each issue / alert
/ incident was managed in order to improve
Nothing really new: It is documented in the ECR Europe Blue Book
ECR Europe Core Team's Key message
As a Project Team, we have done our very best
Help us to ensure the implementation of this European best practice:
– In your own company– By your trading partners (co-
manufacturers, co-packers, suppliers, third party logistics & solution providers…)
This blue book has been developed for all of us, with
one objectiveBusiness Excellence
ECR Europe [email protected]
ECR D-A-CH - CCG
Ruediger HAGEDORN
Email: [email protected]
ECR France
Olivier LABASSE
Email: [email protected]
ECR Spain - AECOC Jordi MUR
Email: [email protected]
Just contact...
Many thanks to ...
ECR Europe Core and Validation Teams
And to the 84 companies, which have contributed to the Blue Book
Saliha BARLATEY NESTLE Europe, ChairmanPhilipp BOTZENHARDT ECR D-A-CHHugo BYRNES CIESGéraldine FOUQUE ECR FRANCERonald GRUBE KRAFT FOODSRuediger HAGEDORN ECR D-A-CHIngemar HANSSON ECR SWEDENOlivier LABASSE ECR FRANCEJürgen MATERN METROMiodrag MITIC EAN INTERNATIONALJordi MUR AECOC, ECR Spain
ECR Europe Traceability Core Team