ISO 22000 clause 6.2: set food safety objectives that support decisions

What clause 6.2 requires in practice

Clause 6.2.1 asks for objectives for the FSMS at the relevant functions and levels. The objectives fit the food safety policy, are measurable where that is practicable, take account of legal and customer requirements, are monitored and verified, are communicated and are kept current as appropriate. The organisation also retains documented information on them.

Clause 6.2.2 deals with planning to achieve them. For each objective the organisation works out what will be done, which resources are needed, who is responsible, when it will be finished and how results will be evaluated.

The two parts together produce objectives that can be pursued and judged. They differ from critical limits or action criteria, which govern operations. An objective is a management result, such as better reliability of a handover, and it can never justify releasing a product that fails a safety criterion. The outputs are documented objectives and credible plans.

6.2.1: choose objectives that follow policy and requirements

Objectives need to be consistent with the food safety policy and take account of applicable food safety requirements, including relevant statutory, regulatory and customer requirements. They are measurable where practicable, monitored and verified, communicated, and maintained or updated as appropriate. Documented information on the objectives must be retained.

Start with a real need. A traceability exercise may reveal missing relationships in one process, or repeated verification findings may identify a weak handover. An objective should describe the intended improvement without replacing mandatory food safety criteria with a voluntary performance target.

For example, an objective about timely corrective-action evaluation should not imply that an unsafe product can be released if the monthly target is otherwise met. Distinguish management measures from the critical limits, action criteria and product decisions governing operations.

Define the measure before reporting a percentage

Specify the population, relevant period and interpretation. A reported completion rate can be misleading when the denominator excludes the difficult sites or records. If a measure changes, explain the effect before comparing the new result with an earlier trend.

Qualitative assessment may be appropriate where measurement is not practicable, but the intended result and basis for judgement still need to be clear. Avoid using vague labels such as “excellent food safety” without an explanation of what evidence management will consider.

6.2.2: plan how the objective will be achieved

Determine the work, required resources, responsible person, completion timing and method for evaluating results. Check dependencies on providers, maintenance, technical competence or other functions. An ambitious objective with no available owner or resources is unlikely to change performance.

Separate action completion from achievement. Installing a workflow can be one action; dependable use of the workflow is a different result. Evaluation should address the intended benefit and any unintended effects. Communicate progress to the people who need to act on it.

Why well-chosen objectives matter to the business

Objectives turn a policy into direction people can follow and managers can review. Poorly chosen ones produce activity without improvement, or reward the wrong behaviour, such as a target that encourages staff to avoid recording problems. Well-chosen ones help a business focus limited technical time on the weaknesses that actually affect customers, such as unreliable traceability or late reviews of supplier changes. They also give management review something concrete to discuss and give customers evidence that the business is improving deliberately. The discipline of defining a measure before reporting a result protects the organisation from comfortable but meaningless numbers.

How to set objectives that support decisions

Begin with a real need, then define the measure, the plan and the review. Keep the set small enough that managers can remember it, and make sure every objective has a measure that someone would be willing to explain to a customer. Objectives that cannot be explained simply are rarely managed well, so refine wording before approval.

1. Draw candidate needs from audit findings, complaints, verification results and the risks identified under clause 6.1.
2. Check each against the policy commitments and the applicable requirements.
3. Define the measure precisely: what is counted, which sites or records are included, over what period and how it will be interpreted.
4. Where numbers are not practicable, state the intended result and the evidence that will be judged.
5. Complete the plan: actions, resources, owner, completion timing and evaluation method.
6. Communicate the objective to the people who can influence it, and report progress to them.
7. At review, investigate misses accurately before changing the target.

Evidence an auditor expects for clause 6.2

The clause names documented information on objectives, so the auditor expects to see them, and then looks for signs that they drive action rather than sit unread in a file or a management review pack once a year.

• The retained objectives, with a visible link to the food safety policy.
• Plans showing owner, resources, timing and the way results will be judged.
• Monitoring and verification information showing progress, with a clearly defined population.
• Management review discussions where results led to decisions.
• Interviews showing that responsible people know the objectives that apply to them.

Common nonconformities with clause 6.2

Findings usually describe objectives that exist but do not work, because the measure is unclear or unstable, the owner is missing or nobody uses the result to decide anything at all.

• Objectives with no connection to the policy or to any identified need.
• Indicators whose population is undefined, so results cannot be compared over time.
• Plans with no resources or owner assigned.
• Targets quietly rewritten after being missed, with no analysis of cause.
• Training or activity completion reported as achievement of the objective.

Illustrative food-manufacturing example

Illustrative food-distribution example

A distributor sets an objective to improve the completeness of traceability relationships during split-lot transactions. It defines the transaction population and tests representative exceptions as well as the routine route. The plan includes software configuration review and user competence where needed.

Success is evaluated against the ability to reconstruct the required relationships. A faster search time would not compensate for missing lots. This prevents an attractive speed metric from hiding an incomplete system.

Review objectives accurately

A missed target calls for evaluation of the cause, the plan and the measure. It does not automatically justify rewriting the target retrospectively. Keep the distinction between a changed business need and an attempt to conceal poor performance.

Common mistakes include objectives detached from policy, indicators with no defined population and actions recorded as achievements without verification. Feed meaningful results into management review, where resources and priorities can be reconsidered.