Prepared for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Supplier Name: Environics Research
Contract Number: 01B68-220934/001/CY
Contract Value: $89,937.04
Contract Award Date: December 20, 2021
Delivery Date: March 29, 2022
Registration Number: POR 075-21
For more information on this report, please contact Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at: aafc.info.aac@agr.gc.ca.
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
2021-2022 Strategic Issues Survey of Food and Beverage Processors (Wave III)
Final report
Prepared for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Supplier name: Environics Research
March, 2022
This public opinion research report presents the results of a survey conducted by Environics Research on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The research was conducted from February to March 2022.
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. For more information on this report, please contact Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at: aafc.info.aac@agr.gc.ca.
Public Affairs Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
1341 Baseline Road
Ottawa, ON K1A0C5
Catalogue Number: A22-625/1-2022E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN): 978-0-660-42926-7
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Number: 13120E
Related publications [registration number: POR 075-21):
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Sondage 2021-2022 sur des enjeux stratégiques touchant les transformateurs d’aliments et de boissons (Vague III) - Rapport final.
Catalogue Number A22-625/1-2022F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-42928-1
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2022.
Environics Research (Environics) is pleased to present this report to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with findings from the third wave of the Strategic Issues Survey of Food and Beverage Processors.
The food and beverage processing industry is the second largest manufacturing industry in Canada and is one of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) key stakeholder groups. Overall, this sector accounts for 2 percent of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), providing employment to almost 250,000 Canadians.
This is the third wave of AAFC’s Strategic Issues Survey of Food and Beverage Processors; previous waves were conducted in 2017 and 2018. The survey is intended to gain critical insights on the opinions, issues and challenges faced by Canadian processors. The findings will be used in the development of policies, programs and initiatives to better serve the sector.
This wave of the survey builds on tracking questions from previous waves on issues to identify trends over time; this includes public trust and evaluating the Canadian Agricultural Partnership using AAFC's performance indicators. This wave also provides insights on new and evolving areas of interest to AAFC including processor priorities, challenges and barriers, environmental sustainability, and food waste. This wave’s questionnaire was also designed to gather firmographic information on company characteristics like company size, revenue, ownership, automation, and organic certification. The contract value for this project was $89,937.04 including HST.
To meet these objectives, Environics conducted a 15 minute telephone survey with 501 Canadian food or beverage processors or manufacturers, drawn from a sample list of 6,553 companies. The survey was conducted in English and French from February 10 to March 4, 2022. Specifically, the survey was conducted with Canadian adults, aged 18 and older, who are food or beverage processors and have responsibility for business strategy and/or operations. No quotas were set for any business characteristics. The final survey data were weighted to match company size and region proportions in the source list. The margin of error for this sample is +/-4.1%.
More information about the methodology for research is included in Appendix A of the full report.
Research Firm:
Environics Research (Environics)
Contract Number: 01B68-220934/001/CY
Contract Award Date: December 20, 2021
I hereby certify as a senior officer of Environics Research that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed:
Date: March 29, 2022
Stephanie Coulter
Senior Research Associate, Corporate and Public Affairs
Environics Research
Environics Research (Environics) is pleased to present this report to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with findings from the third wave of the Strategic Issues Survey of Food and Beverage Processors.
The food and beverage processing industry is the second largest manufacturing industry in Canada and is one of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) key stakeholder groups. About 6,500 food and beverage processing establishments exist in Canada. Many of these establishments (90%) have less than 100 employees, 9% have between 100 and 500 employees, while only 1% of establishments have more than 500 employees. According to the 2016 Canadian Employer-Employee Dynamics Database (CEEDD), 15% of food and beverage processing enterprises were (majority) owned by women, another 14% were equally-owned by women and men, and 44% were (majority) owned by men. Overall, this sector accounts for 2 percent of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), providing employment to almost 250,000 Canadians.
AAFC has been conducting the Strategic Issues Survey, a survey of producers since 2007, to gain critical insights on the opinions, issues and challenges facing agricultural producers in Canada. In its last iteration in 2017, the scope was broadened to capture the views of food and beverage processors in Canada. Given the different methodological challenges reaching these two audiences, the Survey of Food and Beverage Processors was conducted separately from the producer survey beginning with the 2017 survey.
The third wave of AAFC’s Strategic Issues Survey of Food and Beverage Processors is intended to gain critical insights on the opinions, issues and challenges faced by Canadian processors. The findings will be used in the development of policies, programs and initiatives to better serve the sector. This survey builds on tracking questions from previous waves to identify trends over time but also provides insights on new and evolving areas of interest to AAFC. More specifically, the research sought to provide AAFC with insights on:
This report begins with an executive summary outlining key findings and conclusions, followed by detailed analysis of the quantitative results. A detailed set of “banner tables” is provided under separate cover; this presents results for all survey questions by company segments such as location of headquarters, business size, and type of business as well as individual respondent characteristics like gender and language.
The results are expressed as percentages unless otherwise noted. Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding or multiple responses. Net results cited in the text may not exactly match individual results shown in the charts due to rounding. Statistical differences between sub-groups or between waves are determined based on Z-test testing at 95% confidence.
Findings in this report are based on the telephone sample of 501 Canadian businesses, conducted from February 10 to March 4, 2022. This sample was drawn from a list of food and beverage processors from Dun & Bradstreet Canada; after cleaning the list to remove duplicates and defunct entries, the list contained 6,553 eligible records. Unless otherwise noted, all sub-group comparisons (for example, region, revenue, business size) are based on this sample.
Tracking results, where shown, are based on previous waves of the survey conducted in 2017 (n=376) and 2018 (n=400).
Additional details about the methodology can be found in the Methodology section at the end of this report.
Notes on sub-group analysis
Companies implementing two or more environmental initiatives in question 7 (Which of the following programs or initiatives has your company implemented?) are defined as environmentally leaning for sub-group analysis.
Organic certified companies are combined with those currently in the process of seeking an organic certification for sub-group analysis, due to the limited sample in the latter group.
For the purposes of sub-group analysis, companies are organized into six broad categories by type of product. This grouping creates larger sample sizes that allow for some comparisons between the following groups:
Company priorities over the past two years
Supply chain issues and public trust are the top two priorities for companies over the past two years.
When asked to consider six broad priorities, companies most often say supply chain issues and public trust are high priorities for food and beverage processors over the past two years; two-thirds (66%) of companies name each of these as a high priority. Labour issues (60%) and food waste (59%) are also considered a high priority for most businesses.
Environment (47%) and workplace equity (43%) ranked lowest of the six issues. This ranking suggests companies may see these two priorities as low-level concerns rather than urgencies, despite potentially acting as a high priority for others.
| Priority | High priority | Medium priority | Low priority | Don't know / Prefer not to say |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Addressing supply chain issues | 66% | 21% | 11% | 2% |
| Addressing public perception, image, and trust | 66% | 23% | 10% | 1% |
| Addressing labour issues, such as capacity and retention | 60% | 22% | 16% | 2% |
| Reducing food loss and waste created during processing | 59% | 21% | 19% | 2% |
| Improving environmental sustainability | 47% | 40% | 11% | 2% |
| Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion | 43% | 36% | 17% | 4% |
Q6. Thinking about the past two years, please tell me if each of the following has been a high, medium or low priority for your company?
Some sub-groups place more emphasis on some priorities compared to others:
Programs and initiatives - tracking
Nearly all companies (94%) report implementing programs to enhance public trust, most often traceability systems. Eight in ten (83%) have implemented at least one type of environmentally-related initiative.
When asked if their company has implemented a list of different programs and initiatives, traceability systems (80%), food waste reduction measures (63%), enhanced nutritional content (59%), labour retention policies (58%), and sustainable packaging (57%) are the most frequent individual measures selected by food and beverage processors.
Grouped by topic, public trust measures overall are most common, with a vast majority of companies (94%) saying they have implemented at least one of these measures. Smaller majorities report implementing at least one measure in the other areas of environment (83%), labour (71%), and food waste (63%).
Companies implementing two or more environmental initiatives are defined as “environmentally –leaning" and discussed as a sub-group throughout this report; this group comprises over six in ten (65%) of companies.
Iterations of this question were asked previously in the 2017 and 2018 waves of the survey, however, the list has expanded to include more initiatives and in some instances, wording of list items has been revised. Differences in tracking data from previous waves reflects these methodological changes.
| Programs / initiatives | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n=400) |
2017 (n=376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Trust | 94% | - | - |
| Traceability system | 80% | - | - |
| Enhanced nutritional content/healthy ingredients | 59% | 75% | - |
| Assurance systems like organic, kosher, or sustainably sourced | 54% | - | - |
| Enhanced animal welfare practices* | 24% | 64% | 26% |
| Environment | 83% | - | - |
| Sustainable packaging programs | 57% | 58% | 49% |
| Water conservation measures | 48% | 62% | 40% |
| Installing energy efficient technology, such as energy efficient chillers** | 43% | 60% | 49% |
| Environmental stewardship programs | 40% | 60% | 39% |
| Climate adaptation strategy*** | 22% | 30% | 22% |
| Sustainable transportation programs | 22% | 34% | 27% |
| Using clean energy, like wind or solar, to power your operations | 9% | - | - |
| Labour Issues | 71% | - | - |
| Policies to address employee retention and absenteeism | 58% | - | - |
| Workforce diversity and inclusion program | 49% | - | - |
| Food Waste | 63% | - | - |
| Food loss and waste reduction programs**** | 63% | 58% | 49% |
|
* Asked as “humane animal welfare practices” in 2017-2018.
|
|||
Q7. Which of the following programs or initiatives has your company implemented? If something doesn’t apply to your company, please say so.
Several programs and initiatives differ by company revenue, with lower revenue companies least likely to implement them. This includes traceability systems, assurance systems, sustainable transportation, employee retention, and workforce diversity programs. Additionally, companies with 50 or more employees are more likely than smaller companies (by a margin of 13 to 35 points) to say they have implemented nearly all measures in the list; the exceptions are traceability systems, clean energy, and food waste where companies do not differ by size. These patterns speak to the ability of larger companies to invest resources into these initiatives, but also their capacity to focus on issues that go beyond day-to-day operations.
Implementation of programs or initiatives differed by sub-group in some other instances:
Reasons for initiatives - tracking
While most companies rate all of the given reasons as important to some degree, meeting regulatory requirements and reducing costs are the reasons most often noted as “very important.”
When asked to consider a list of reasons for implementing initiatives like the ones mentioned in question 7, a majority of companies rate each reason as important to some degree (that is very or moderately important).
Looking specifically at those rating each reason as very important, there is more differentiation between reasons. Simply meeting regulatory requirements is the top reason in the list, with almost eight in ten companies (79%) saying it is very important. Cost also rates highly, with almost three in four companies (73%) calling it very important. Other reasons noted to be very important by a majority of companies include being the right thing to do (65%), to respond to buyer demands (63%), for market access (58%), and to mitigate environmental impacts (50%).
| Reasons | NET: Important | Very important | Moderately important | Not very important | Not important at all | Don't know / no response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To meet regulatory requirements | 93% | 79% | 14% | 5% | 1% | 1% |
| To reduce cost | 94% | 73% | 21% | 5% | 1% | 0% |
| Because it’s the right thing to do | 96% | 65% | 31% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| To respond to demands from the buyers you supply | 88% | 63% | 26% | 7% | 3% | 2% |
| To gain or maintain market access | 88% | 58% | 30% | 7% | 3% | 2% |
| To mitigate environmental impact | 91% | 50% | 41% | 7% | 1% | 1% |
| To avoid backlash / negative media / harmful public exposure | 81% | 48% | 34% | 11% | 5% | 3% |
| To respond to consumer demands or public pressure | 86% | 45% | 41% | 9% | 3% | 2% |
| To gain an advantage over competitors in your sector | 81% | 43% | 38% | 14% | 4% | 1% |
| To reduce likelihood of tighter regulations being imposed | 72% | 34% | 38% | 15% | 8% | 5% |
Q8. There are many reasons why a company might decide to implement the types of initiatives I asked you about. I'm going to read you a number of reasons, and for each one, I'd like you to tell me how important a reason it would be to your company.
Looking at each reason across different sub-groups, some types of companies are more likely to list some reasons as very important to them:
Through tracking of the past three waves of the survey, the results show that the reasons for implementing initiatives are generally stable compared to past figures. Note that the list of reasons was expanded and the wording of some items revised compared to previous waves.
| Reasons | 2022 (n=501) |
2018 (n=400) |
2017 (n=376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Because it’s the right thing to do | 96% | 93% | 82% |
| To reduce cost | 94% | - | - |
| To meet regulatory requirements | 93% | - | - |
| To mitigate environmental impact | 91% | - | - |
| To respond to demands from the buyers you supply* | 88% | 87% | 81% |
| To gain or maintain market access** | 88% | 88% | 85% |
| To avoid backlash / negative media / harmful public exposure | 81% | 81% | - |
| To respond to consumer demands or public pressure | 86% | 88% | 77% |
| To gain an advantage over competitors in your sector | 81% | 85% | - |
| To reduce likelihood of tighter regulations being imposed | 72% | 76% | 66% |
|
*Asked as “To respond to demands from the businesses you supply” in 2017-2018.
|
|||
Q8. There are many reasons why a company might decide to implement the types of initiatives I asked you about. I'm going to read you a number of reasons, and for each one, I'd like you to tell me how important a reason it would be to your company.
Barriers to environmental sustainability measures
When asked to name barriers to implementing environment initiatives, businesses mention cost most often on an open-ended basis.
In an open-ended question, cost (51%) is the most widely identified barrier to implementing environmental sustainability measures. Other barriers are mentioned considerably less frequent overall, and almost one in five (18%) say there are not any barriers for them.
| Barriers | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| Financial barriers / not enough money | 51% |
| Lack of infrastructure | 15% |
| Lack of corporate expertise / lack of knowledge / don’t know how | 7% |
| Lack of alternative options for packaging | 6% |
| Lack of time / takes too long / no time to learn | 6% |
| Regulatory barriers (for example, labelling) | 4% |
| Lack of workers/ staffing issues | 4% |
| Need of government support | 3% |
| Return on investment is poor | 3% |
| It’s just not a priority at this time | 1% |
| Pandemic has made everything hard / pandemic is a priority right now | <1% |
| Other | 4% |
| Don’t know/no response | 10% |
| No barriers | 18% |
Q11. What, if any, are the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability measures for your company?
Barriers to environmental measures are relatively consistent between sub-groups:
Food waste causes
Quality and equipment issues are the most common reasons for food waste in processing, with six in ten companies (60%) saying each contributes a lot or a little.
When asked to consider eight common causes of food waste that can occur in processing, quality (61%), equipment issues (59%), and inaccurate forecasting (49%) are seen to contribute to food waste (a lot or a little) by a majority of companies. These results suggest that quality, breakdowns, and forecasting issues are common in food and beverage processing, while other items on the list vary in relevance depending on the type of processing a company does.
Focusing on food waste causes that are seen to contribute a lot, inadequate labour capacity caps the list at 22 percent, though it ranks much lower when a lot or a little responses are combined. Shipping delays also rank highly among causes that are seen to contribute a lot (19%).
| Causes of food waste | NET: Contributes a lot / a little |
Contributes a lot | Contributes a little | Does not contribute | Don't know / prefer not to say |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor quality item / rejection due to quality standards | 60% | 16% | 45% | 39% | 1% |
| Equipment issues or breakdowns | 58% | 18% | 41% | 41% | 1% |
| Inaccurate supply and demand forecasting | 49% | 19% | 31% | 50% | 1% |
| Inability to repurpose or reincorporate off-spec products | 45% | 14% | 31% | 51% | 4% |
| Shipping delays | 45% | 19% | 26% | 55% | 1% |
| Inadequate labour capacity due to COVID 19 or other issues | 44% | 22% | 23% | 54% | 1% |
| Production line changes | 39% | 9% | 30% | 59% | 3% |
| Trimming and culling | 36% | 9% | 27% | 54% | 9% |
Q12. I’m going to name some different causes of food waste that can occur in processing. For each one, tell me if it contributes a lot, contributes a little, or does not contribute to food waste in your company’s operations.
Looking at causes that contribute a lot to food waste by sub-groups shows areas where some types of processors feel these causes more acutely:
Practices to reduce food loss and waste
Process optimization or waste assessments are the most common food waste reduction strategies mentioned by companies.
Nearly half of companies (48%) say they use process optimization or waste assessments, when asked on an open-ended basis how they manage and reduce food waste in their operations. Other solutions, like diversion to animal feed or developing new products, are mentioned less often. Just over one in five (21%) say they have not done anything to manage or reduce food waste.
| Practices | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| Process optimization and/or waste assessments | 48% |
| Diversion to animal feed products | 8% |
| Development of new food products | 7% |
| Implemented new technology (such as, food traceability) | 6% |
| Composting | 6% |
| Enhanced employee training | 5% |
| Donate extra food or product (for example, to shelters) | 5% |
| Optimizing supply chain (for example, reducing transportation time) | 4% |
| Improved cold storage | 4% |
| Sustainable packaging | 3% |
| Biofuels, biochemicals and biomaterial | <1% |
| Other | 2% |
| Have not done anything to manage or reduce food waste | 21% |
| Don’t know/Prefer not to say | 7% |
Q13. What, if any, practices does your company have in place to manage or reduce food loss and waste?
Feasibility and specific methods for managing food waste vary; notable sub-group differences in food waste management are listed below:
Barriers to food waste reduction measures
The top barrier to further efforts to reduce food waste is financial, but many companies say they have no barriers (22%) or are unable to identify any concrete barriers (28%) to further food waste reduction or prevention.
Financial barriers (23%) and staffing issues (11%) are the barriers mentioned most often by companies when asked an open-ended question about what prevents them from implementing further practices to manage food waste. Other barriers like lack of infrastructure (8%), lack of knowledge (5%), and lack of time (4%) are mentioned less often. Over one in five (22%) say they have no barriers, and almost three in ten (28%) could not answer the question.
| Barriers | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| Financial barriers / not enough money | 23% |
| Lack of workers / staffing issues | 11% |
| Lack of infrastructure | 8% |
| Lack of corporate expertise / lack of knowledge / don’t know how | 5% |
| Lack of time / takes too long / no time to learn | 4% |
| Regulatory barriers | 3% |
| It’s just not a priority at this time | 3% |
| Pandemic has made everything hard / pandemic is a priority right now | 2% |
| Other | 8% |
| No barriers | 22% |
| Don’t know/Prefer not to say | 28% |
Q14. What, if any, are the barriers to implementing further practices in your company to manage and reduce food loss and waste?
While mentions of barriers to food waste management were relatively uniform across sub-groups, there are some noteworthy differences:
Awareness and impression of Canadian Agricultural Partnership - tracking
Awareness of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership is somewhat lower in 2022 compared to the 2018 wave; however, those aware of the program are now more likely to express positive impressions of it.
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership is a five year investment by federal, provincial and territorial governments to strengthen and grow Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. One in five companies (20%) say they are aware of the partnership, a decline compared to the 2018 to 2019 wave of the study when more than one in four (26%) recalled hearing about it. This question was not asked in the 2017 wave.
Though awareness is somewhat lower, impressions of the program are strong among those who recall it; three in four (75%) say their impression is very or somewhat positive. This is a notable increase compared to the previous wave, when just over four in ten (42%) said their impression of the partnership was positive. A hypothesis for this shift in awareness and impressions is that the Partnership was subject to more discussion at its outset in 2018, but may have faded from view in the time since. It is also possible that the program is being mistaken for assistance programs that have been created to help companies cope with pandemic-related challenges.
| Aware of Canadian Agricultural Partnership | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 20% | 26% |
| No | 80% | 74% |
Q15. Have you seen, heard or read anything about the Canadian Agricultural Partnership?
Note: Don’t know responses have been removed for comparison with past data.
| Impression of Canadian Agricultural Partnership | 2022 (n = 84) |
2018 (n = 101) |
|---|---|---|
| NET: Positive | 75% | 42% |
| Very positive | 29% | 16% |
| Somewhat positive | 46% | 26% |
| Neither positive or negative | 20% | 37% |
| Somewhat negative | 5% | 15% |
| Very negative | 0% | 6% |
Q16. What’s your overall impression of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership?
Awareness of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership is lower in Quebec (8%), among companies in business for 5 to 20 years (12%), in those that are not automated (10%), companies that are not environmentally leaning (11%), and companies in the other category of processing (9%). Among companies aware of the program, sample sizes preclude meaningful comparison of impressions between sub-groups.
Company location and size - tracking
About six in ten (61%) of companies have their headquarters in Ontario or Quebec, and most are small operations, almost three in four (73%) have less than 25 full-time employees (or equivalent).
Region and company size are generally consistent; additional categories were added this wave to see more nuance in the <100 category.
| Location of headquarters | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
2017 (n = 376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| British Columbia | 17% | 17% | 17% |
| Alberta | 8% | 6% | 8% |
| Saskatchewan | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Manitoba | 3% | 2% | 3% |
| Ontario | 36% | 36% | 36% |
| Quebec | 25% | 27% | 25% |
| Prince Edward Island | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| New Brunswick | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Nova Scotia | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Newfoundland | 1% | 1% | 2% |
Q1. To start, in which province or territory is your company´s headquarters located?
| Employees in Canada | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
2017 (n = 376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Under 100 | 94% | 91% | 86% |
| Up to 24 | 73% | - | - |
| 25 to 49 | 15% | - | - |
| 50 to 74 | 4% | - | - |
| 75 to 99 | 2% | - | - |
| 100 to 249 | 3% | 5% | 3% |
| NET: 250+ | 1% | 2% | 11% |
| 250 to 499 | 1% | 2% | - |
| 500 to 999 | <1% | <1% | - |
| 1000 or more | <1% | <1% | - |
| Don’t know/no response | 2% | <1% | <1% |
|
|||
Q17. How many employees work for your company in Canada? Please include part-time employees as full-time equivalents.
Revenue and time in business - tracking
More than two in three companies (67%) have operated for 10 years or more and most earn less than $5M per year.
In terms of revenue, food and beverage processors are diverse. Nearly half (47%) earn less than $1M per year, and about one in four (24%) earn between $1M and $5M. About half of companies (49%) have been in business for 20 years or longer; and newcomers with less than 5 years (15%).
Revenue break-downs are generally similar to 2018 and 2017 where comparable; the previous waves of the survey had fewer categories for revenue. The 2022 wave of the survey had somewhat higher proportions of newer companies compared to 2018.
| Total revenues in last fiscal year | 2022 (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| Less than $250K | 18% |
| $250K to less than $500K | 12% |
| $500K to less than $750K | 10% |
| $750K to less than $1 million | 7% |
| $1 million to less than $5 million | 24% |
| $5 million to less than $10 million | 5% |
| $10 million to less than $25 million | 4% |
| $25 million to less than $50 million | 2% |
| $50 million to less than $100 million | 1% |
| $100 million or more | 1% |
| Don’t know/no response | 17% |
Q18. In your last fiscal year, what were your company’s total revenues?
| Total revenues in last fiscal year | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
2017 (n = 376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than $10 million | 90% | 86% | 82% |
| $10 million or more | 10% | 15% | 19% |
Q18. In your last fiscal year, what were your company’s total revenues?
| Years in business | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
2017 (n = 376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 year | 1% | <1% | <1% |
| 1 year to less than 5 years | 15% | 11% | 9% |
| 5 years to less than 10 years | 17% | 14% | 11% |
| 10 years to less than 20 years | 18% | 23% | 21% |
| 20 years to less than 30 years | 19% | 23% | 25% |
| 30+ years | 30% | 29% | 35% |
| Don’t know/no response | <1% | 1% | - |
|
|||
Q3. Approximately how long has your company been in the food or beverage processing business?
Type of processing facility - tracking
One in four companies are in alcoholic beverage manufacturing.
Companies responding to the survey operate in a wide range of areas, with alcoholic beverage manufacturing (25%) and bakery and tortilla manufacturing (11%) as the most common.
In the 2018 wave, half of all companies (50%) were in an unspecified “Other” category. In the 2022 wave, categories were expanded, and companies saying “Other” were asked to specify what type of facility they operate. The relatively high proportion of companies in the alcoholic beverage category in 2022 were likely contained within the unspecified “Other” category in 2018. This question was not asked in 2017.
| Type of facility | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
|---|---|---|
| Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing | 25% | - |
| Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing | 11% | 11% |
| Sugar and Confectionary Product Manufacturing | 8% | 8% |
| Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging | 6% | 4% |
| Animal (except poultry) Slaughtering | 6% | 4% |
| Animal Food Manufacturing | 6% | 5% |
| Dairy Product Manufacturing | 5% | 6% |
| Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty food manufacturing | 5% | - |
| Grain and Oilseed Milling | 5% | 9% |
| Non-alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing | 5% | - |
| Rendering and Meat Processing from Carcasses | 4% | 3% |
| Food processing or manufacturing (general) | 4% | - |
| Maple syrup | 3% | - |
| Poultry Processing | 2% | 1% |
| Sauce manufacturing | 1% | - |
| Noodle and pasta manufacturing | 1% | - |
| Other | 9% | 50% |
| Don’t know/no response | 1% | - |
|
||
Q4. What type of processing facility does your company operate?
Processor type is, predictably, dependent on geography, with grain products and animal feed largely processed in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, seafood handled in the Atlantic provinces, and other types of manufacturing more concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.
For the purposes of sub-group analysis, these categories were combined into six broader categories: grain-based, fruit and vegetable, beverage, dairy, protein, and other products. These are defined in the about section of the report.
Automation - tracking
A majority of companies are partially automated.
More than six in ten (62%) companies are partially automated, while few say they are fully automated (2%) and about three in ten (34%) are not automated. This is consistent with 2018.
| Level of automation | 2022 (n = 501) |
2018 (n = 400) |
2017* (n = 376) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not automated | 34% | 33% | 20% |
| Partially automated | 62% | 62% | 75% |
| Fully automated | 2% | 6% | 4% |
| Don’t know/no response | 1% | 2% | 1% |
|
* 2017 questionnaire had additional categories for “Mostly” and “Minimally” automated that have been combined with “Partially automated” for comparison. | |||
Q5. How would you describe your company’s manufacturing in terms of the current level of automation?
Automation is more common in companies that have more than 100 employees (86%), that have annual revenue exceeding $5M (88%), and in companies that are certified organic (85%).
Organic certification
Four in five (80%) companies are not organic certified or seeking certification.
Most companies are not organic certified (80%); few are in the process of getting that certification (3%) and under one in five (16%) are organic certified.
| Organic certified or in process of obtaining certification | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| Yes – organic certified | 16% |
| Yes – in process of obtaining organic certification | 3% |
| No | 80% |
| Don’t Know/Prefer not to say | 1% |
Q19. Is your processing operation organic certified or in the process of receiving organic certification?
Organic certification is more common in high revenue companies earning $5M or more (34%) and in companies that are automated (22%). Alberta-based companies are less likely to be certified (8%).
Company ownership by members of equity-seeking groups
More than one in three (35%) Canadian food and beverage processors are majority owned by members of equity-seeking groups, most often women.
In total, about over in three businesses (35%) are majority-owned by an individual or individuals who identify as a member of at least one equity-seeking group. This includes companies owned by women (29%), members of visible minorities (8%), individuals who identify as LGBTQ2+ (2%), Indigenous people (1%) and people with disabilities (1%).
| Ownership identity | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| NET: Owned by a member of at least one equity-seeking group | 35% |
| Indigenous peoples, that is, First Nations, Metis, or Inuit | 1% |
| People with disabilities | 1% |
| Visible minorities | 8% |
| Women | 29% |
| Individuals who identify as LGBTQ2+ | 2% |
| None of the above | 60% |
| Don’t Know/Prefer not to say | 5% |
Q20. Is this company majority-owned (51 percent or more) by an individual or individuals in any of the following groups?
Ownership by members of equity-seeking groups is more common in small companies with fewer than 100 employees (36%), and less common in companies with annual revenues exceeding $5 million (19%).
Characteristics of the individuals who responded to the survey are outlined below.
| Gender | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| Male | 61% |
| Female | 39% |
Q22. Gender (assigned by interviewer based on voice)
| Language of survey | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| English | 76% |
| French | 24% |
Q21. Language of interview
| Position | Food & beverage processors (n = 501) |
|---|---|
| CEO/Owner/President (NET) | 56% |
| CEO | 4% |
| Owner/Operator | 38% |
| President | 13% |
| VP Level (NET) | 3% |
| VP, Operations | 3% |
| VP, Business Strategy | <1% |
| VP, Marketing | <1% |
| Director/Operations/Other (NET) | 41% |
| Director (for example, finance and marketing) | 11% |
| Operations (for example, supervisor and manager) | 28% |
| Other | 2% |
| Don’t know/no response | <1% |
Q2. What is your position within the company?
The results of this survey demonstrate that Canada’s food and beverage processors are facing a range of challenges and managing a number of different, and potentially competing priorities. Some of these, like supply chain issues and labour concerns, have been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, and are affecting businesses across many industry sectors.
Other priorities and concerns are more long-standing. Processors continue trying to monitor, build, and protect public trust in their products and their operations over the long term, even while other imminent needs command their attention.
Though most processors indicate they have taken some action to bolster their public trust, improve their impact on the environment, strengthen their workforces, and reduce food waste, they have difficulty elaborating on the barriers that prevent them from taking more action, and most often name cost as the factor standing in their way. This lack of insight on the part of the processors poses a challenge to AAFC in its mandate to support processors in these goals.
While the survey results indicate in some detail what processors are prioritizing and why, the telephone survey methodology has limitations for exploring these issues in depth. AAFC’s understanding of food and beverage processors could be strengthened through additional qualitative research. In-depth interviews with a cross-section of processors would give deeper insight into the priorities, initiatives, and barriers explored in this survey. This type of qualitative research could also uncover other issues not readily apparent in survey results and, if done in tandem with future survey waves, it could lead to new lines of questioning for the quantitative research.
Environics Research conducted a telephone survey with 501 Canadian food or beverage processors or manufacturers, drawn from a sample list of 6,553 companies. Specifically, the survey was conducted with adults (18+) at these companies who have responsibility for business strategy and/or operations. The response rate for the survey was 10.8% and the margin of error for this sample is +/-4.1%.
Sample design, weighting and respondent profile
Environics conducted a 15 minute telephone survey from February 10 to March 4, 2022. The sampling method was designed to attain interviews with at least 400 companies based on predicted response rates; due to strong response rates, the final sample achieved was 501 companies.
The sample frame for this study was a list of food and beverage processors from Dun & Bradstreet Canada. Eligible processors were defined as companies with headquarters in Canada, operating under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 20. After cleaning the list to remove duplicates and defunct entries, the list contained 6,553 eligible records. A complete list of eligible SIC codes is shown below:
| SIC Code | Description | SIC Code | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Meat Packing Plants | 2062 | Cane Sugar Refining |
| 2013 | Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products | 2063 | Beet Sugar |
| 2015 | Poultry Slaughtering and Processing | 2064 | Candy and Other Confectionary Products |
| 2021 | Creamery Butter | 2066 | Chocolate and Cocoa Products |
| 2022 | Natural, Processed, and Imitation Cheese | 2067 | Chewing Gum |
| 2023 | Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Products | 2068 | Salted and Roasted Nuts and Seeds |
| 2024 | Ice Cream and Frozen Desserts | 2074 | Cottonseed Oil Mills |
| 2026 | Fluid Milk | 2075 | Soybean Oil Mills |
| 2032 | Canned Specialties | 2076 | Vegetable Oil Mills, |
| 2033 | Canned Food Stuff | 2077 | Animal and Marine Fats and Oils |
| 2034 | Dried and Dehydrated Fruits | 2079 | Shortening, Table Oils, Margarine, Edible Fats |
| 2035 | Pickled Food Stuff | 2082 | Malt Beverages |
| 2037 | Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables | 2083 | Malt |
| 2038 | Frozen Specialties, Not Elsewhere Classified | 2084 | Wines, Brandy, and Brandy Spirits |
| 2041 | Flour and Other Grain Mill Products | 2085 | Distilled and Blended Liquors |
| 2043 | Cereal Breakfast Foods | 2086 | Bottled and Canned Carbonated Drinks |
| 2044 | Rice Milling | 2087 | Flavoring Extracts and Flavoring Syrups |
| 2045 | Prepared Flour Mixes and Doughs | 2091 | Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods |
| 2046 | Wet Corn Milling | 2092 | Prepared Fresh or Frozen Fish and Seafoods |
| 2047 | Dog and Cat Food | 2095 | Roasted Coffee |
| 2048 | Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients | 2096 | Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks |
| 2051 | Bread and Other Bakery Products | 2097 | Manufactured Ice |
| 2052 | Cookies and Crackers | 2098 | Macaroni, Spaghetti, Vermicelli, and Noodles |
| 2053 | Frozen Bakery Products, Except Bread | 2099 | Food Preparations, Not Elsewhere Classified |
| 2061 | Cane Sugar, Except Refining |
No quotas were set for any business characteristics or region. While the survey was open to respondents from all regions of Canada, the sample did not obtain any respondents from the territories.
The final survey data were weighted to match company size and region proportions in the source list. Note that in the original list, the proportion of companies with no size data was over 15 percent, while the unweighted sample was 2 percent. For weighting purposes, the “no data” proportion was kept at 2 percent and other proportions were adjusted accordingly.
| Variable | Percent of population (source list) |
Percent of sample | Actual Unweighted |
Actual Weighted* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headquarters location | ||||
| Atlantic | 8 | 9 | 43 | 40 |
| Quebec | 25 | 40 | 199 | 125 |
| Ontario | 36 | 28 | 140 | 179 |
| Manitoba / Saskatchewan | 6 | 8 | 39 | 28 |
| Alberta | 8 | 6 | 29 | 41 |
| British Columbia | 17 | 10 | 51 | 86 |
| Canada | 100 | 100 | 501 | 501 |
| Company Size (number of employees) | ||||
| Under 100 | 81 | 90 | 450 | 467 |
| 100 to 249 | 2 | 4 | 20 | 13 |
| 250 to 499 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 4 |
| 500 to 999 | <1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 1000+ | <1 | 2 | 8 | 2 |
| No Data | 15 | 2 | 10 | 12 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 501 | 501 |
|
* Results are weighted by region and company size to source list of 6,553 food and beverage manufacturers. | ||||
Questionnaire design
AAFC provided Environics with desired topic areas and questions that addressed the research objectives. Environics then designed a questionnaire that incorporated these questions, advising on best practices in question design, particularly for telephone and B2B surveys. Upon approval of the English questionnaire, Environics arranged for the questionnaire to be translated into French by professional translators.
Environics’ data analysts programmed the questionnaires, then performed thorough testing to ensure accuracy in set-up and data collection. This validation ensured that the data entry process conformed to the surveys’ basic logic. The data collection system handles sampling invitations, quotas and questionnaire completion (skip patterns, branching, and valid ranges).
Prior to finalizing the survey for fieldwork, a pre-test (soft launch) was conducted in English and French. The pre-test assessed the questionnaires in terms of question wording and sequencing, respondent sensitivity to specific questions and to the survey overall, and survey length. Standard Government of Canada pre-testing questions were also asked. As no changes were required following the pre-test, the ten responses have been included in the final data set.
The final survey questionnaire is included in Appendix B.
Fieldwork
The survey was conducted by Environics using a secure, fully featured Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) environment. The average interview length was 14.9 minutes.
All respondents were offered the opportunity to complete the surveys in their official language of choice. All research work was conducted in accordance with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Telephone Surveys and recognized industry standards, as well as applicable federal legislation (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA).
Following data collection, the data from this survey were statistically weighted by region and company size, to match proportions in the original source list.
Completion results
The completion results are presented in the following table.
| Total Numbers Attempted | 6553 |
|---|---|
| Out-of-scope - Invalid | 858 |
| Unresolved (U) | 2281 |
| No answer/answering machine | 2281 |
| In-scope - Non-responding (IS) | 1594 |
| Language barrier | 40 |
| Incapable of completing | 105 |
| Callback (Respondent not available) | 1449 |
| Total Asked | 1820 |
| Refusal | 1161 |
| Termination | 42 |
| In-scope – Responding | 617 |
| Completed interview | 501 |
| NQ - Not a company in the business of food or beverage processing | 116 |
| Refusal Rate | 66.10% |
| Response Rate | 10.83% |
| Incidence (Overall) | 81.20% |
2021-22 Food & Beverage Processors Strategic Issues Survey (Wave III)
Hello/Bonjour, my name is [Interviewer's name]. I’m calling on behalf of Environics, a public opinion research company. Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? Préférez-vous que je continue en français ou en anglais? We’re conducting a survey with food and beverage processors about important issues facing the Canadian agriculture and food sector, on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Just to confirm, is this company in the business of food or beverage processing?
May I speak to the person in your company responsible for business strategy and/or operations. Would this be you or someone else?
The survey takes up to 15 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and your decision to participate or not will not affect any dealings you may have with the Government of Canada in any way. Your identity and individual answers will be kept strictly confidential. Any information you provide will be administered in accordance with the Privacy Act and other applicable privacy laws.
May I continue?
Interviewer Notes:
Note: If a respondent asks you about the legitimacy of this project or if the respondent wants to make a complaint or a comment about this project, they may call 1- 613-230-5089.
Note: If a respondent requests to speak with a study leader at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, please take his / her name and phone number and mention that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will contact them.
To start,
Environment [Do not read]
[If asked: Climate change adaptation refers to actions that reduce the negative impact of climate change, while taking advantage of potential new opportunities. It involves adjusting policies and actions because of observed or expected changes in climate.]
Food Waste [Do not read]
Labour Issues [Do not read]
Public Trust [Do not read]
We’d like to know a bit about how your company thinks about and addresses food waste issues.
Changing topics,
Lastly, we have a few questions about your company.
Thank you very much for your time and participation. The results of the research will be available to the general public, on the Library and Archives website, in the coming months.