Local Supply Initiatives

Risk Management Mentors

National grocery chains are creatively supporting small produce growers and packers.
By: | October 1, 2014 • 7 min read

Small is beautiful in terms of locally produced food. It is also big business, and grocery-store chains are making their supply chain and risk management process more flexible and innovative as they compete against street-corner markets and local retailers.

A report from the Food Marketing Institute indicates that between 2012 and 2013, three-quarters (76 percent) of all supermarkets added more locally supplied items. Interestingly, for independent grocers an even greater percentage, 92 percent, said they did so.

Advertisement




It was several years ago, said Rod Parker, general manager for E.A. Parker & Sons in Oak Grove, Va., that big grocery chains began “the push” to have local produce in their stores. Parker Farms processes, inspects and ships fresh-grown produce to major retail and wholesale outlets.

At that time, he said, “there was a big question about who would be able to play and who would not among growers. We decided early that we wanted to play, so we did what we had to [related to insurance and risk management programs]. It was expensive and difficult, but we did it.

“Our liability insurance has gone up from $2 million to $5 million to $10 million,” he said, noting that the organization did not need much help in attaining the insurance it needed.

“Grocery stores and the big-box retailers, especially those with a house brand, want to push the recall exposure down as far as possible.” — Florian Beerli, senior vice president of product recall, ACE Westchester

Citing competitive reasons, Safeway — widely considered a pioneer in this area — declined to talk about its local supply initiatives or the risk management programs behind them.

So, too, have other large grocery companies.

Industry experts said that Publix and Kroger have also made strides in this area, but both companies did not respond to inquiries. Whole Foods, another heavy promoter of local supply, has a policy of not talking to the trade press.

Walmart, in contrast, is considered a laggard in local-supplier outreach. That company made reference to an in-store merchandise-tracking device, but refused to discuss its supply or risk management.

The irony of the official reticence is that supply-chain and risk managers at several of those chains are reportedly exceedingly proud of how their companies have retooled after their initial efforts met mixed results.

“When we and other groups first wanted to stock local products, the supply-chain methodology at the time led us to say ‘no’ a lot,” said a food industry risk manager who asked to remain anonymous.

“Now, our methodology and those of a few others is to find a way to say ‘yes.’ ”

Formalizing Procedures

Sam Lefore Fruit Farms, a family owned farm in Milton-Freewater, Oregon, has been supplying tree fruit to Safeway grocery stores for more than half a century.

10012014_12_supply_chain_chart_1“We also work with some independent buyers, but mostly Safeway,” says farm owner Sam Lefore. “We have always had a very low rejection rate, and we carry all the levels of insurance that they prefer.”

Over the past few years, Safeway has formalized its insurance and safety practice requirements, he said. “They got very serious and very organized. We pay for the auditors that they send, and meet with them annually and go over the score sheet.”

Safeway’s website provides some details about its local produce initiative as well as some supplier profiles.

In April, the company released its “Supplier Sustainability Guidelines and Expectations For Safeway Consumer Branded Items.” Those guidelines require, in part, that suppliers will:

• Favor domestic/local production where feasible;

• Implement measures to secure the supply chain;

• Comply with all applicable environmental regulations and laws in the areas they operate;

• Practice humane treatment of animals;

• Strive for “grass-fed,” “cage-free,” “no antibiotics administered,” certifications; and

• Focus on environmental health and safety internally and externally.

Advertisement




Initially, experts said, most big chains demanded the same high levels of insurance coverage and third-party auditing that they did for their major suppliers. Few local suppliers had the time, money, or staff to comply, and were shut out.

At the other extreme, some chains took local suppliers at face value, and accepted any liability as their own.

Neither situation made anyone happy, so a new collaborative approach evolved.

“Some products are inherently safer than others,” said the risk manager. “Salsa is one thing, spinach is entirely another. We first determine what is the inherent risk, then see what insurance and risk management the supplier already has. Sometimes, they are good and sometimes they are short.

“Next, we see what would it take to bring the supplier up to the proper levels, and if it is worth our while to work for that. If so, we consult on their processes, and may even recommend them to a broker to place additional coverage. It’s all very individualized,” the risk manager said.

Product Recall

Florian Beerli, senior vice president of product recall, ACE Westchester

Florian Beerli, senior vice president of product recall, ACE Westchester

“We are starting to see more of a thought-out approval process that includes insurance minimums, in which we have been helping the suppliers or co-packers,” said Florian Beerli, senior vice president of product recall at ACE Westchester, the company’s U.S.-based wholesale business.

While he couldn’t discuss specific grocery-chain referrals of suppliers, he said that product recall was a big emphasis and that “business in the recall market [is] being more and more contractually driven.”

“Grocery stores and the big-box retailers, especially those with a house brand, want to push the recall exposure down as far as possible,” but he noted there are practical limits to such an approach.

“There are various solutions. The most common recall limit is $5 million, although some stores do require $10 million regardless of the size of the supply contract. Some of the well-known brands buy their own coverage and require their co-packers to buy coverage to the self-insured retention (SIR).

“Others buy coverage on behalf of the co-packers, then have them cover the SIR. And recently, some big brands are trying to put together group coverage for their suppliers,” he said.10012014_12_supply_chain_chart_2

For its own part, ACE focuses on the first-time buyers, so it is at a good vantage point to see the quick evolution of this sector.

“We have adopted a tailor-made approach in which we have base wording in the contract, and then everything else is added by endorsement,” Beerli said.

Advertisement




That puts the onus on the carrier’s underwriters, but “holding hands with the first-time buyers” is what Beerli said his firm does.

It also enables the company to conduct the education that he believes is also necessary.

“There is still work to do about recall protection,” he said.

Reputational Risk

Balance is the word used most often by Thomas Pegg, deputy director of casualty risk control at the Willis Group.

“Grocery stores are attempting to work more closely with local suppliers,” he said.

“They have found they need a bit more flexibility on contractual risk transfer, but that is very product specific.”

The need for balance in risk management is not just external, based on what is feasible with small suppliers, it is also an internal challenge, he said.

“I know of no other area of concern to these companies above brand protection from reputational risk,” Pegg said. “They have very high standards.”

10012014_12_supply_chain_chart_3That mandate could be most easily met with heavily processed, hermetically sealed products from other large corporations.

But consumer buying habits prove that they want knobby heirloom tomatoes and corn with clods of dirt still on the stalks.

More to the point, they are willing to pay more for local produce. Hence, the need for a nuanced approach.

Pegg said that some grocery-store clients have supported their local suppliers in Pennsylvania to achieve the food-handling certifications offered by the state department of agriculture for workers and suppliers.

Advertisement




He also noted two other factors that play into the local produce trend: “Some of this is being driven, literally, by transportation costs.” Less expensive logistics are important to businesses with razor-thin margins.

At the other end, more customer loyalty programs make it easier to track purchases, which greatly aids in recalls or at least tracing and isolating problems.

“That is a very important development,” said Pegg, “and a critical piece of the supply chain.”

Gregory DL Morris is an independent business journalist based in New York with 25 years’ experience in industry, energy, finance and transportation. He can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

4 Companies That Rocked It by Treating Injured Workers as Equals; Not Adversaries

The 2018 Teddy Award winners built their programs around people, not claims, and offer proof that a worker-centric approach is a smarter way to operate.
By: | October 30, 2018 • 3 min read

Across the workers’ compensation industry, the concept of a worker advocacy model has been around for a while, but has only seen notable adoption in recent years.

Even among those not adopting a formal advocacy approach, mindsets are shifting. Formerly claims-centric programs are becoming worker-centric and it’s a win all around: better outcomes; greater productivity; safer, healthier employees and a stronger bottom line.

Advertisement




That’s what you’ll see in this month’s issue of Risk & Insurance® when you read the profiles of the four recipients of the 2018 Theodore Roosevelt Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Award, sponsored by PMA Companies. These four programs put workers front and center in everything they do.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top,” said Steve Legg, director of risk management for Starbucks.

Starbucks put claims reporting in the hands of its partners, an exemplary act of trust. The coffee company also put itself in workers’ shoes to identify and remove points of friction.

That led to a call center run by Starbucks’ TPA and a dedicated telephonic case management team so that partners can speak to a live person without the frustration of ‘phone tag’ and unanswered questions.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top.” — Steve Legg, director of risk management, Starbucks

Starbucks also implemented direct deposit for lost-time pay, eliminating stressful wait times for injured partners, and allowing them to focus on healing.

For Starbucks, as for all of the 2018 Teddy Award winners, the approach is netting measurable results. With higher partner satisfaction, it has seen a 50 percent decrease in litigation.

Teddy winner Main Line Health (MLH) adopted worker advocacy in a way that goes far beyond claims.

Employees who identify and report safety hazards can take credit for their actions by sending out a formal “Employee Safety Message” to nearly 11,000 mailboxes across the organization.

“The recognition is pretty cool,” said Steve Besack, system director, claims management and workers’ compensation for the health system.

MLH also takes a non-adversarial approach to workers with repeat injuries, seeing them as a resource for identifying areas of improvement.

“When you look at ‘repeat offenders’ in an unconventional way, they’re a great asset to the program, not a liability,” said Mike Miller, manager, workers’ compensation and employee safety for MLH.

Teddy winner Monmouth County, N.J. utilizes high-tech motion capture technology to reduce the chance of placing new hires in jobs that are likely to hurt them.

Monmouth County also adopted numerous wellness initiatives that help workers manage their weight and improve their wellbeing overall.

“You should see the looks on their faces when their cholesterol is down, they’ve lost weight and their blood sugar is better. We’ve had people lose 30 and 40 pounds,” said William McGuane, the county’s manager of benefits and workers’ compensation.

Advertisement




Do these sound like minor program elements? The math says otherwise: Claims severity has plunged from $5.5 million in 2009 to $1.3 million in 2017.

At the University of Pennsylvania, putting workers first means getting out from behind the desk and finding out what each one of them is tasked with, day in, day out — and looking for ways to make each of those tasks safer.

Regular observations across the sprawling campus have resulted in a phenomenal number of process and equipment changes that seem simple on their own, but in combination have created a substantially safer, healthier campus and improved employee morale.

UPenn’s workers’ comp costs, in the seven-digit figures in 2009, have been virtually cut in half.

Risk & Insurance® is proud to honor the work of these four organizations. We hope their stories inspire other organizations to be true partners with the employees they depend on. &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]