In the December/January Food Safety Insights column,¹ we reported on the results of our September 2025 survey of more than 170 food processors worldwide and their views on their company's food safety culture. In a positive development, 76 percent of respondents indicated that their company has a good food safety culture. That is good news.

It is important to recognize that food safety culture encompasses more than the traditional framework of compliance testing and tracking of metrics. It represents a shift in how organizations think about and prioritize food safety in their day-to-day operations. The evolution from a narrow, compliance-based approach to a comprehensive cultural framework reflects recognition that sustainable food safety emerges when organizations cultivate an environment where safety principles become deeply embedded in how "things are done" internally, supported by visible leadership commitment, clear communication, and ongoing behavioral reinforcement across all levels.

While food safety culture is more than metrics, measurable performance indicators that drive accountability and continuous improvement are still an essential part of a food safety program that supports that culture. In Part 2 of this series, we review what you told us about how you measure and manage your overall food safety program through the key performance indicators (KPIs) you have selected and use in your program. 

The results from our survey show that most companies have food safety KPIs in place and are using them regularly to manage their programs. We also heard which categories of indicators are most common and how those KPIs are communicated and reviewed.

How Frequently are Food Safety KPIs Used?

When asked if you and your department regularly track and use specific food safety KPIs, about three‑quarters (76 percent) indicated that you do, while roughly one‑quarter (24 percent) indicated otherwise (Figure 1). This is a good sign that formal metrics are a key part of the normal toolkit being used by most companies. In the comments we heard, people described the KPIs that they use as essential for demonstrating performance to senior management, certification bodies, and customers, as well as for driving internal accountability and continuous improvement.

The one‑quarter without defined KPIs, however, still represents a meaningful segment of the industry that is potentially managing food safety performance reactively through audits, regulatory compliance, and incident‑based responses rather than a structured, preventive, routine set of metrics. Some respondents indicated that they do use performance metrics, but they are more related to overall quality, tracking customer complaints, and product damage in production and costs rather than food safety. Many in this category also mentioned that these metrics are set and tracked at the "senior management level," or a "corporate/headquarters level," with little or no visibility at the plant level. 

Still others indicated that they have a lack of metrics, but they also recognize that this needs to change. This group shared responses like, "This is something being discussed," "We don't yet know how to measure for KPIs," or "No, but we need to set this up."

Measure What You Manage

To understand what food safety KPIs mean in practice, we asked you to identify the most impactful KPIs that you track. The specific answers were diverse and included many specific metrics, but most fell into one of five major categories:

1. Environmental monitoring results
2. Customer complaints
3. Sanitation scores
4. HACCP/GMP deviations
5. Corrective actions close rates/times.

KPIs based on environmental monitoring program (EMP) data were the most frequently mentioned. Tracking EMP test results was cited as a key part of a plant's quality control program and the most impactful indicator of the overall success of a quality program. Several respondents also said they had experienced trouble and non-conformances in this area in the past, and KPIs had been put in place to prevent recurrences. Some mentioned specific metrics that they track in their program, such as the results of daily ATP tests or the number of (or lack of) pathogen positive tests. Others mentioned tracking sanitation scores and linking the achievement of passing scores—especially passing sanitation inspections the first time ("first-time pass scores")—to successful outcomes in their EMPs. 

There was also close attention to the tracking of HACCP/GMP deviations—specifically, measuring and reducing the time needed to formally close out each instance. There was, of course, emphasis on effectively containing and correcting the problem, identifying root causes, implementing corrective actions, preventing recurrence, and documenting the full closure. However, many respondents mentioned that the metric they tracked—second only to the actual number of non-conformances—was the time to closure. Working to reduce that time was a frequently mentioned KPI. 

Respondents are also paying close attention to the complaints they receive from their direct customers and/or final consumers. Unsurprisingly, people indicated that their goal was to have zero complaints, although their KPI was geared to show continuous reductions in the number of complaints received. Several respondents also admitted that while a KPI to reduce consumer complaints has a connection to food safety, it is more often viewed as being an overall indicator of product quality and more closely tied to financial outcomes. 

Other KPIs frequently mentioned included maintenance schedules, audit results, safety incidents, training records and compliance, production data and sales volumes, foreign object incidents, pest control, and employee personal hygiene inspections.

“KPIs must 'matter' at multiple levels of the organization in order to drive behavior—that is, they must be visible and understandable to operators while also being credible and relevant to senior management.”

Why These KPIs?

When we asked why the KPIs selected were seen as impactful, respondents pointed to three main reasons:

1. The metrics are directly connected to food safety risk
2. They align with regulatory demands, certification requirements, and customer expectations
3. They can be trended and communicated in a straightforward way. 

Several respondents noted that KPIs must "matter" at multiple levels of the organization in order to drive behavior—that is, they must be visible and understandable to operators while also being credible and relevant to senior management. This reflects recognized best practices seen throughout food safety literature that effective KPIs should be measurable, quantifiable, risk‑based, tied to specific and achievable goals, and used to drive both accountability and learning (not just compliance). Many other respondents confirmed that they have not yet achieved this optimum level of communication and accountability at all levels of their organization but are hoping to make progress.

As a comment, many readers will recognize that these most frequent KPIs show a blend of "lagging indicators" (i.e., outcome‑based metrics that show what has already happened, such as test results, nonconformances, and complaints) and "leading indicators" (i.e., proactive, prevention‑focused metrics that predict future performance, such as sanitation scores, EMP performance, training compliance, and equipment maintenance). While food safety needs to be preventive, it is clear that most respondents are using both types of indicators.

Making KPIs Visible

An important cultural dimension of metrics is visibility, so we asked whether these KPIs are clearly communicated and posted for all employees to see. Almost two‑thirds (63 percent) of respondents said "Yes," (Figure 2) indicating that their metrics are shared beyond management through dashboards, production‑area boards, digital displays, employee meetings, and other means. The other one‑third said that KPI data remained largely within management reports or relegated to occasional presentations.

Those who do post KPIs described using simple visuals—trend lines, color‑coded charts, and plain language—to help teams see how they are performing against targets. Many respondents indicated that visual displays of EMP data, audit scores, and nonconformance trends are placed in production areas or break rooms to reinforce that food safety performance is everyone's responsibility. Many also mentioned that using languages other than English made the metrics more understandable to their employees, alongside visual displays of KPI data. As we heard in one comment, "[Our KPIs] are communicated in monthly process review meetings and also posted in local language, using visual formats, and posted on employees' notice boards." 

Several respondents indicated that they have a specific communication frequency or method depending on the position of the person to which the report is directed. Many said KPIs were, as one respondent described, "reported more frequently to the mid-managers who have control, monthly to the managers one step up, and front-line employees have real-time visibility." Others admitted that they have a disconnect, with one respondent saying, "Managers and supervisors get the 'report card' daily, but we still have a lack of regular communication to the floor employees."

Others indicated that their process was even less effective, with one quality assurance manager saying, "Very rarely do I see any information provided to the employees about throughput and loss. They will post cGMPs and do trainings, but the challenge is doing enough to keep employees focused on food safety and the impact of their individual performance. I have also never seen the company share a customer complaint with the employees." 

Respondents who indicated that their company does not share KPIs said this stems from concerns that the numbers could be misunderstood, the effort required to keep displays up to date is too much, or the belief that these measures are primarily for managers, auditors, and customers rather than for employees on the floor. 

How Often are KPIs Reviewed?

We also asked how often food safety KPIs are formally reviewed. Most respondents (47 percent) indicated that key KPIs are reviewed on an annual basis, while roughly one-quarter indicated that they are reviewed monthly (Figure 3). Others indicated that they conduct a review either quarterly or monthly, with about the same number saying that they do not have a defined schedule but review KPIs "as needed," "continuously," or " in response to incidences or failures," with a few indicating "not really ever" or something similar. 

One quality assurance manager captured a more deliberate version of an "as-needed" review process, commenting, "The KPIs are established after a very deep study of the specific process, so they are not changed frequently. Reports of any non-conformances are evaluated, and conclusions are implemented among the managers and related personnel … if it is considered that our program is not under control, we re-evaluate if our KPIs are still valid."

What we have heard in this series about food safety culture and KPIs is that most companies have (or at least believe they have) a good food safety culture and a suitable set of KPIs to measure and manage their daily operations. We also saw, however, that a significant number of companies in our survey understand that they do not have a solid culture of food safety, a suitable set of food safety-centric KPIs, or in some cases neither of these. 

Ultimately, the survey findings highlight that the widespread adoption of food safety KPIs and the recognition of the importance of food safety culture are positive indicators for our industry. The survey data also suggests that we must do more to expand the recognition that food safety culture goes beyond tracking performance metrics. The most effective programs go further by bridging the gap between management data and frontline awareness. 

The challenge for many companies will be to transform KPIs from static report cards for auditors or senior management into more visible tools that drive behavior and accountability at every level. Companies must ensure that metrics are not just measured but also meaningfully communicated and regularly reviewed throughout the organization. By doing this, organizations can turn raw and unfocused data into shared responsibility and continuous improvement that define a robust food safety culture.

References

1. Ferguson, B. "What Food Safety KPIs Say About Food Safety Culture—Part 1." Food Safety Magazine December 2025/January 2026. https://www.food-safety.com/articles/10980-what-food-safety-kpis-say-about-food-safety-culturepart-1. 

Notes

^a For chicken, the serotypes are Salmonella Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium and S. 4,[5],12:i.

^b For turkey, the serotypes are Salmonella Hadar, S. Typhimurium, and S. Muenchen.

^c These were the terms of the proposal at the time of our survey and the writing of this article. The comment period for the proposal was scheduled to end on January 17, 2025, and changes to these terms and the proposed regulation may be in process.

^d In the survey, we specifically asked the question, "If you could ask any question or make a request to USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety Sandra Eskin, what would that be?" Since the time of our survey, Sandra Eskin has left her position at USDA and, as of this writing, a successor has not yet been named.