ISO 22000 clause 7.2: demonstrate competence for food safety decisions

What clause 7.2 requires in practice

Clause 7.2 asks the organisation to work out what competence is needed for the people whose work affects food safety performance and the effectiveness of the management system, and to include external providers who work under its control. It is about capability for specific work, not attendance at courses.

The organisation has to make sure these people are competent on the basis of suitable education, training or experience. For the food safety team and for those operating the hazard control plan this carries extra weight, and the team as a whole needs a mix of disciplines and experience covering the organisation's products, processes, equipment and the food safety hazards in scope.

Where competence is missing, the organisation takes action to acquire it and then evaluates whether the action worked. The standard's own note lists training, mentoring, reassignment, hiring or contracting as possible routes. Finally, appropriate documented information is kept as evidence of competence.

The result is a judgement, supported by evidence, that each role can do what it is trusted to do.

Define competence around the decision

Start with the tasks that influence food safety. Identify what the person needs to understand, perform, recognise and escalate. A monitoring role may require correct use of an instrument, interpretation of the result, appropriate recording and timely action when a criterion is not met.

Different roles need different evidence. A food safety team member contributing to hazard analysis needs relevant knowledge and experience. Someone controlling affected product needs to understand authority, identification and escalation. A single training matrix with identical courses for everyone can conceal these differences.

Education, training and experience can all contribute. Assess them against the actual work rather than assuming that a qualification title establishes every capability. Consider language, literacy, familiarity with equipment and the conditions in which the work must be completed.

Build a multidisciplinary food safety team

The team needs an appropriate combination of knowledge and experience relating to the organisation's products, processes, equipment and food safety hazards. Multidisciplinary competence concerns the team's collective capability; it does not require every member to be an expert in every subject.

Identify gaps before relying on the team for significant decisions. External expertise can help where needed, with clear responsibilities and suitable competence. The organisation should understand the expert contribution sufficiently to apply and maintain the resulting arrangements.

Connect team competence with roles and responsibilities. A well-qualified team can still be ineffective if members lack access to information or if responsibility for an unresolved issue is unclear.

Develop capability and evaluate the action

Where action is needed to acquire competence, choose an approach that fits the gap. Training, supervised practice, coaching, reassignment or engaging competent personnel can be appropriate. Evaluate the effectiveness of the action rather than recording only its completion.

An evaluation can involve observed performance, review of actual work or a relevant scenario. Use a method capable of revealing the weakness you intended to address. Retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence, and revisit capability when work or equipment changes.

Why competence matters to the business

Food safety controls ultimately depend on people: the operator who reads a measurement correctly, the supervisor who knows when to stop a line, the technical lead who spots a weak hazard assumption. A well-written plan in the hands of people who cannot apply it gives little protection, and the failure often shows up only after product has shipped.

Demonstrable competence also gives customers confidence when they review your site, shortens induction for new starters, and lets management allocate authority knowing it is backed by evidence. It is a cheaper way to prevent incidents than repeating retraining after problems, because the investment is aimed at the tasks where mistakes carry the greatest consequences.

How to implement clause 7.2

Build competence around the decisions people make, then check it in the place where the work happens. A simple structure works for most operations.

1. List the roles that influence food safety, including agency staff and contractors, and describe what each must do, recognise and escalate.
2. Set the competence needed for each role in terms of education, training and experience, adding any legal qualification requirements that apply.
3. Review the food safety team's collective knowledge against your products, equipment and hazards, and note gaps to fill internally or with outside expertise.
4. Assess each person against the real task, for example by observation, questioning or review of work, before authorising independent operation of a control.
5. Choose a development action that matches the gap, such as supervised practice, mentoring, formal training or reassignment.
6. Check afterwards whether performance has improved, and keep the evidence in a proportionate form.
7. Re-assess when equipment, products or responsibilities change, or when monitoring and audit results suggest a skills problem.

Illustrative food-manufacturing example

Illustrative food-logistics example

A distributor uses agency personnel to check incoming consignments. The organisation defines the relevant checks and escalation requirements, confirms capability before unsupervised work and observes performance after induction. External employment does not remove the organisation's responsibility for work under its control.

When a new product category introduces different handling information, the supervisor reassesses the affected role. The existing induction record does not automatically cover the changed task.

Evidence and common mistakes