Public opinion research to identify segments of industry reachable through compliance promotion campaigns – Final report

Prepared for:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Communications and Public Affairs Branch
Engagement, Corporate, and e-Communications Directorate

Supplier name: Patterson, Langlois Consultants
Standing offer number: EP363-140002/014/CY
Call up number: 39903-210666/001/CY
Contract value: $169,478.01
Award date: December 22, 2020
Delivery date: March 31, 2021

Registration number: POR 088-20
For any further questions, please contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at
cfia.enquiriesarchive-archivedemandederenseignements.acia@inspection.gc.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français

Public opinion research to identify segments of industry reachable through compliance promotion campaigns

Final report

Prepared for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Supplier name: Patterson, Langlois Consultants
March 31, 2021

This public opinion research report presents the results of a survey conducted by Patterson, Langlois Consultants on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The research study was conducted with 1,167 Canadian businesses between February 18 and March 12, 2021.

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Recherche sur l'opinion publique pour déterminer les segments de l'industrie qu'on peut atteindre au moyen de campagnes de promotion de la conformité

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. For more information on this report, please contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at: cfia.enquiriesarchive-archivedemandederenseignements.acia@inspection.gc.ca or at:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y9

Catalogue Number: A104-207/2021E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN): 978-0-660-38877-9

Related publications (registration number): POR 088-20

A104-207/2021F-PDF (Final Report, French)

978-0-660-38878-6

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2021

Table of contents

• 1.0 Executive summary
  • 1.1 Background and objectives
  • 1.2 Methodology
  • 1.3 Results
  • 1.4 Discussion and next steps
• 2.0 Background and objectives
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 Objectives
• 3.0 Methodology
  • 3.1 Survey specifications and sample profile
  • 3.2 Sampling results
• 4.0 Segmentation
  • 4.1 Segmentation approach in detail
  • 4.2 Segmentation results
  • 4.3 Segment profiles
• 5.0 Drivers and barriers to compliance
• 6.0 CFIA communication effectiveness
• 7.0 Appendices
  • 7.1 Top drivers and barriers to compliance by segments
  • 7.2 Response rate
  • 7.3 Sample profile (s2, x1-x13)
  • 7.4 Survey instrument

1.0 Executive summary

1.1 Background and objectives

The CFIA regularly develops or amends regulations, and an important part of this process is communicating with regulated parties to ensure understanding and compliance. This often requires different communications delivered to the regulated parties based on their different needs and goals. For example, the CFIA needs to understand which types of businesses have the highest risk to become non-compliant and how best to influence a change in behaviour. The Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) in particular affect a large number of companies that previously had minimal exposure to the CFIA and are therefore likely to not be aware of the requirements as well as the services and tools the Agency makes available to aid compliance.

This public opinion research initiative was designed to group businesses into categories that can be individually described, identified, and influenced to assist CFIA communication activities in compliance promotion and program development. The study collected behavioural, attitudinal and opinion data and then used this data to segment businesses according to compliance-related issues.

This research aimed to:

• identify common barriers to compliance and motivations for compliance
• identify sources of information and influence that can be used to assist in compliance promotion
• identify and describe key attributes that assist in understanding and predicting compliance and non-compliance
• identify a profile for companies that are likely to not comply either intentionally or unintentionally
• identify and describe corporate characteristics that can be used to predict areas of non-compliance (such as a weak culture of compliance or financial challenges)
• create a model that segments companies into identifiable groups based on level of risk of non-compliance, corporate characteristics and attitudinal data of key corporate decision makers
• examine effectiveness of certain message types in promoting compliance to possible segments

1.2 Methodology

The research consisted of a quantitative online survey of N = 1,167 businesses. The survey took approximately 20 to 25 minutes to complete and explored company attitudes, culture, structure, and behaviours with regard to food safety compliance. Businesses belonged to one or more of the following categories: food businesses conducting activities related to importing, exporting or interprovincial trade of food products (n = 1,042), businesses regulated by federal plant health regulations (n = 204), and businesses regulated by federal animal health regulations (n = 210).

Recruitment was done using e-mail and phone-to-web methods. E-mail recruitment made use of the CFIA Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database, while phone-to-web recruitment made use of a business sample list based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes provided by the CFIA.

1.3 Results

Segmentation

Segmentation analysis used 9 dimensions of differentiation, the most important of which were the degree of embrace of regulation, the concern for compliance with regulations, the perception of the relevance of regulations to the business and its customers, and the "progressiveness" of the company. The analysis found that CFIA-regulated businesses could be segmented into 4 distinctive groups, each with its own differentiated dispositions and opinions: Regulation Embracers, Emerging Businesses, Conventional Corporate Utilitarians, and Regulation Resisters.

Regulation Embracers tend to be larger, future-oriented businesses with several hundred employees and consistent year-round business. These businesses score highly on all 4 major dimensions and have an overall positive disposition toward the CFIA and its regulatory mandate. These businesses are more likely to have organization structure related to food safety procedures, training, and compliance, and because of this they generally have a good understanding of CFIA regulations. As frequent communicators with the CFIA, this segment is more likely to receive information from the CFIA through My CFIA portal notices, and were much more likely to report that these communications were effective: 56% considered them "effective" or "highly effective", compared to only 30% across the other 3 segments.

Emerging Businesses tend to be young businesses with around 100 employees and they are more likely to have weekend or seasonal peaks in business. These businesses are also more likely to be female-led (42%). They rate high on degree of embrace but low on concern for compliance and perception of relevance, and are less likely to have formal food safety training or distinct food safety divisions set up. Despite this, 54% consider themselves at least "somewhat confident" that they understand CFIA regulations. These businesses have confidence in the CFIA and generally consider regulations fair and sensible, but also have little concern with their own regulatory compliance. One reason this segment might be unconcerned is that few have faced a sanction or regulatory response, likely because these businesses are inspected infrequently: only 2% reported being inspected more often than monthly, and 29% reported "not applicable" as their inspection frequency. This segment also tends to communicate with the CFIA much less frequently.

Emerging Businesses are more likely to prioritize online business channels and to have started/increased selling through online channels since COVID.

Conventional Corporate Utilitarians skew towards large, long-standing businesses with several hundred employees. About 1/3 of these businesses also have operations in the United States. These businesses rate low on embrace of regulation but high on concern about compliance. The nature of these businesses means that they are more likely to have a department dedicated to formal processes for food safety compliance, so they are familiar with the CFIA, its mandate, and how it operates. They may feel like CFIA regulations are 'too complicated' and not always based on 'common sense', but they also understand why CFIA regulations are in place and are very aware that compliance is in their best interest. They also believe that their customers care about food safety, so they are dedicated to preserving their good records. They are "highly engaged" stakeholders who will often be members of industry associations, and they know how to communicate their questions and concerns to the CFIA.

Conventional Corporate Utilitarians generally think the pandemic has impacted them negatively but do not feel like they are at a disadvantage compared to their competitors. Perhaps as a function of their longstanding nature, they have largely not switched focus to online sales.

Regulation Resisters tend to be smaller, domestically-focused businesses with less than 100 employees. These businesses score relatively low on all 4 major dimensions. They are much less likely to have divisions or departments dedicated to food safety or to formal processes to stay up-to-date with compliance standards. These businesses have very low familiarity with the CFIA, and do not believe the CFIA to be a helpful regulatory agency. They believe that food safety regulations are too extensive, complicated, and expensive to implement. They do not perceive complying with CFIA regulations to be very important to them or their customers, and therefore have low concern about compliance. These businesses are less likely to communicate with the CFIA and are especially unlikely to access the CFIA website or My CFIA portal notices.

Interestingly, businesses that belong to this segment are more likely to feel like they have been put at a disadvantage versus competitors when it comes to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, perhaps pointing towards broader attitudes of feeling that their business is under pressure.

Drivers and barriers to compliance

The study also examined overall drivers and barriers to compliance. The most significant drivers of compliance are related to organizational culture: wanting to set the standard for the industry, having a reputation for food safety, and having a company culture that prioritizes food safety were all ranked in the top 5 drivers of compliance, and this is generally consistent across food, animal, and plant lines of business. The CFIA should emphasize to its regulated parties that building an organizational culture around compliance is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the business needs to be committed to setting the standard for its industry and building a reputation as a part of its broader commitment to nourishing this "compliance culture".

The most significant barrier to compliance is a lack of understanding: almost 25% of businesses indicate that there is a lack of understanding about the changes to CFIA regulations. This presents a clear opportunity for the CFIA to focus messaging on "what has changed".

CFIA communication effectiveness

The study also examined the overall effectiveness of CFIA communication methods. Most respondents (82%) reported receiving information from the CFIA through email, and roughly 2/3 of those who communicated with the CFIA through email reported that this method was effective for understanding regulation and driving compliance. The second most common method of receiving information from the CFIA was through the CFIA website, and about half of those who accessed the site found it effective. Telephone calls and in-person visits from a CFIA representative were both infrequently used as methods of communication but resulted in higher levels of understanding and compliance than many other methods.

1.4 Discussion and next steps

These findings may be extrapolated to the broader population of CFIA-regulated businesses because of the broad recruitment process and the large sample size. However, non-response bias is a possible confound, since certain types of businesses may be more willing to respond to a survey request than others. Self-report bias is also a possible confound, since businesses might want to place themselves higher or lower on certain scales than where more objective measurements would place them.

The results of this research will be used to improve the targeting of Agency messaging promoting awareness of and compliance with CFIA regulations. Different types of businesses will be more receptive to different kinds of messaging based on their attitudes, opinions, circumstances, and goals. Based on the analysis that we have provided, there are some considerations which are intended to stimulate constructive dialogue with the goal of improved compliance across industry stakeholders and improving CFIA efficiency.

First and most importantly, compliance enforcement efforts should focus on further understanding Regulation Resisters, since these businesses have much less confidence about their own compliance and generally have an adversarial view of the CFIA. Some of the indicators that a business would fall in with Regulation Resisters would be low organizational structure related to compliance, negative attitudes towards the CFIA, self-identification as "less progressive", and less of a focus on environmentalism. To help these businesses improve compliance once they have been identified, the CFIA should focus on educating them on the usefulness of the CFIA website and My CFIA portal notifications. These businesses tend to not use these tools, perhaps contributing to their lack of understanding and their compliance difficulties.

With regard to Emerging Businesses and Conventional Corporate Utilitarians, only small adjustments to current approaches are recommended. Emerging Businesses are often quite "young" and have relatively little experience with the CFIA, and are much less likely to be inspected than other businesses. There is an opportunity to visit these businesses more often but to apply a distinctly "educational" approach during these interactions, focusing on teaching these businesses the regulations that are relevant to them and providing them with better understanding on how to access information. Furthermore, the CFIA can emphasize to these businesses that their food safety compliance supports their broader progressive positioning to the outside world. Conventional Corporate Utilitarians, on the other hand, are already highly engaged with the CFIA and very protective of their self-interests. To maximize the efficiency of engagements with this group, focus on engaging with industry associations to help cascade information and compliance strategies.

Finally, we have identified that Regulation Embracers are strongly supportive of the CFIA mandate and are highly confident in their compliance. The CFIA can likely reduce their interactions with these businesses without impacting their strong rates of compliance. These businesses are defined by an organizational "culture of compliance" that is often very apparent in their structure, and the CFIA can likely improve its efficiency by investing less resources in this segment. Streamlining communications with these businesses towards more automated options such as, email, the CFIA website, and My CFIA portal notices is also recommended, since the various methods of communication lead most often to improved understanding and compliance in this segment.

This Public Opinion Research was conducted by Patterson, Langlois Consultants. The contract value was $169,478.01.

Political neutrality statement

I hereby certify as a Representative of Patterson, Langlois Consultants that the final deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity 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: March 31, 2021

Principal,
Patterson, Langlois Consultants

2.0 Background and objectives

2.1 Background

As with many regulators, the CFIA is regularly developing or amending regulations under their mandate. The new approach often requires different communications and education programs delivered to the regulated parties.

As part of the CFIA's commitment to delivering timely information and guidance to regulated parties, the Agency has developed compliance promotion tools and services to help industry in meeting food safety regulations. The Safe Food for Canadians Regulations are expected to affect a large number of companies that previously had minimal exposure to the CFIA, so they are even more likely to not be aware of the services and tools the Agency makes available to industry to help them comply with their regulatory obligations.

The CFIA understands that increasing awareness and understanding of regulatory requirements is essential in promoting compliance. In order to develop a more consistent, strategic and effective compliance promotion approach, the CFIA needs to understand which types of businesses have the highest risk to become non-compliant and how best to influence a change in behaviour.

A research initiative designed to segment businesses into categories that can be described, identified and influenced. This will assist CFIA communication activities in promoting compliance promotion as well as program design and development. There is an added interest in understanding the effects of compliance promotion activities as it relates to risk and the cost-effectiveness of CFIA control measures. This research has obtained the behavioural, attitudinal and opinion data needed to segment businesses according to compliance-related issues.

Results of previous public opinion research studies with food businesses show that:

• The food industry is reasonably aware of the CFIA and most business managers are very confident in their ability to meet food safety regulations. Small businesses are less confident.
• Knowledge of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) is limited, but increasing.
• Respondents know more about the specific food safety requirements within the SFCR than they do about the Act and Regulations themselves.
• Many already engage in compliance behaviours comparable to the SFCR through food safety regimes required by clients (for example, Global Food Safety Initiative, or GFSI). However, small businesses are less likely to report having a written preventive control plan.
• Satisfaction with the CFIA is high among those who have had recent contact with the Agency, including those who have recently been inspected.
• Concerns about dealing with the Agency tend to relate to the difficulty in finding relevant information in order to answer specific questions.
• The CFIA is typically seen as a fairly reasonable and even helpful regulator.

2.2 Objectives

The main objective is to use the findings to develop preliminary statistical models of the barriers to compliance and motivations to compliance that will help program design and development.

Enforcement and service activities also require an understanding of motivations to comply and barriers to compliance.

This public opinion research aims to:

• identify common barriers to compliance and motivations for compliance
• identify sources of information and influence that can be used to assist in compliance promotion
• identify and describe key attributes that assist in understanding and predicting compliance and non-compliance
• identify a profile for companies that are likely to not comply either intentionally or unintentionally
• identify and describe corporate characteristics that can be used to predict areas of non-compliance (such as weak culture of compliance or financial challenges)
• create a model that segments companies into identifiable groups based on level of risk of non-compliance, corporate characteristics and attitudinal data of key corporate decision makers
• examine effectiveness of certain message types in promoting compliance to possible segments

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Survey specifications and sample profile

Survey specification

• Online quantitative survey, approximately 20 to 25 minutes in length, original target was 1,000 businesses
• Explored company attitudes, culture, structure, and behaviours with regard to food safety compliance
• Created an organizational segmentation based on attitudes towards regulation, compliance, and the CFIA, overlaid across business lines (food, plant, animal)
• Understand key barriers to compliance across segments

Target sample

Targeted the industrial regulated parties of the CFIA and achieved N = 1,167 total responses:

• food businesses conducting activities related to or in preparation for importing, exporting or interprovincial trade of food products (N = 1042)
• businesses regulated by federal plant health regulations (N = 204)
• businesses regulated by federal animal health regulations (N = 210)

*Note that businesses were allowed to self-select the industrial segments that they belong to, and businesses were allowed to identify if they were regulated under more than one CFIA business line (food, plant or animal). As such, the business lines reported above are not mutually-exclusive.

Recruitment

Recruitment of industrial regulated parties was accomplished through 2 different sampling methods:

• emailing businesses in the CFIA CRM database (~18,000 federally regulated parties) with link to online survey (N = 1,007)
• phone-to-web recruitment using sample lists (N = 160)

3.2 Sampling results

The most robust portion of the sample for this study comes directly from the CFIA Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database. The CFIA sent out email invitations to 10,448 businesses that are included in their CRM list, and 1007 businesses completed the survey (125 French, 882 English), for a 10% completion rate. The average survey length for the online survey was 27 minutes, and while this was longer than expected, the time elapsed when a respondent conducts the survey does not necessarily align perfectly with survey duration, as respondents may not always complete the survey all at once.

The businesses that were not part of the CFIA CRM list were contacted by a contracted third party (Advanis) and were identified using a list of business sample that was purchased from ASDE Inc. and generated by pulling specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that were provided to Advanis and element54 by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). After a respondent was recruited to participate by phone, they were sent an initial email or SMS invitation to complete the survey. Reminders were sent if they did not complete the survey after 3 days, and another reminder was sent if they did not complete the survey within 6 days after the initial invitation.

In total, Advanis called 3,953 phone numbers for recruitment outside of the CFIA CRM scope, and 771 people agreed to participate in the survey. Of those who agreed to participate, 14% were conducted in French and 86% were conducted in English. To increase the response rate, inbound calling was allowed and directed to interviewers trained on the survey. As is standard procedure, if the potential respondent called from the phone that was initially dialled by someone in the call centre, the calling record was automatically displayed to an interviewer. A total of 57 inbound calls were received, and of those, 23 were then recruited to participate. On average recruitment calls took approximately 3 minutes. An overall response rate of 26% was achieved on the recruiting calls. The response rate calculation is presented in Appendix A. In total, 160 people (23 French, 137 English) who were recruited by phone completed the web survey, for a show up rate of 21%.

There is potential for non-response bias if particular types of businesses did not want to answer the survey. Since this survey samples an extremely broad range of industrial parties that are regulated by the CFIA, there is no data reference point available that would allow any weighting to be applied. When contacted, all businesses were given equal chance to provide their feedback and several different sampling methods were used to help try to reduce non-response bias. Another potential bias that should be identified is that this research asked individuals working for regulated parties to evaluate their own company's organizational culture and disposition towards the CFIA. While we have specifically asked for only the individuals that are most familiar with CFIA regulations to participate in the survey, there is always some inherent bias when individuals are asked to speak on the behalf of organizations.

4.0 Segmentation

4.1 Segmentation approach in detail

An attitudinal segmentation provides the CFIA with greater insight than straightforward profiling. Segmentation takes a large group of companies with disparate attitudes and behaviours specific to compliance and groups them into segments, each with a more homogeneous set of dimensions that differentiate them from each other in terms that will both allow the CFIA to identify distinct targets and to deploy the messages and positioning that will further their compliance with the regulations. This enables the CFIA to focus on a more manageable set of priority segments, ensuring that communications will have greater relevance and likelihood of success to increase compliance.

High-quality statistical segmentation requires a multi-faceted approach to variable selection, clustering, profiling, and segment evaluation. We used the overall approach outlined below to produce viable segments that are meaningful, relevant, well-differentiated, of sufficient size, and reachable.

Step 1

• Selected a subset of key related outcomes to use as dependent variables for a series of attitudinal-based drivers analyses
• The results of the driver analyses highlight important correlates of desired outcomes

Step 2

• Apply cross-correlations and factor analysis to understand the attitudes dimensions underlying the complete set of attitudes
• The factor analysis identifies subsets of attitudes that are most representative of each dimension/theme

Step 3

• Selected a preliminary set of input variables for statistical clustering techniques to produce a range of initial segment solutions
• Reviewed the segment solutions and refined the input variables

Step 4

• Reviewed and evaluated multiple segment solutions and selected a final 4 segment solution for scorecard creation and personal/attitudinal development
• We selected the 4-segment solution based on this solution generating segments that were meaningful, relevant, well-differentiated, of sufficient size, and reachable
• Scorecards will segment name, size, and a high-level summary of all key attitudes, behaviours, and firmographic variables. Firmographics refers to the combination of demographic and geographic factors which can help organizations segment their customer companies.

4.2 Segmentation results

Analysis of the results of segmentation analysis showed that businesses regulated by the CFIA can be divided into 4 appropriately-sized and distinctive groups, each with its own differentiated firmographic features, attitudinal dispositions, and opinions about communication with the CFIA. The most important dimension of differentiation between the 4 segments was their "Degree of Embrace" towards CFIA regulations: on one end of the spectrum, Regulation Embracers were highly receptive to CFIA regulation, while Regulation Resisters took the opposite perspective, largely rejecting the CFIA mandate and having a very negative opinion towards CFIA regulations.

Figure 4.2.1

We have identified 4 distinct segments that vary significantly when compared across 9 different attribute dimensions.

Regulation Embracers: 26% of CFIA-regulated businesses

Larger businesses with positive dispositions towards food safety regulation and the CFIA. Lots of organizational structure in place to manage food safety compliance because compliance is important to them.

Emerging Businesses: 21% of CFIA-regulated businesses

Smaller businesses that skew 'younger.' They understand why food safety regulations exist, but they have very little interaction with the CFIA. As such, they are relatively unconcerned with their compliance.

Conventional Corporate Utilitarians: 32% of CFIA-regulated businesses

Large and longstanding companies, with lots of organizational structure related to compliance. Mixed disposition towards the CFIA, but very concerned with their own compliance (as in their best-interest).

Regulation Resisters: 21% of CFIA-regulated businesses

Often smaller businesses with low CFIA familiarity, little organizational structure around food safety and less progressive company culture. Highly adversarial to the CFIA.

Another significantly differentiating dimension that emerged across the 4 segments was their "Concern for Compliance". Here, Emerging Businesses emerged as a highly-distinct segment within the data: these businesses tended to be young and not inspected very often, and concern for CFIA compliance was low, despite being generally understanding and supportive of the CFIA mandate. On the other end of this "Concern for Compliance" spectrum, Conventional Corporate Utilitarians emerged from the data, a group that tended to consist of larger and more long-standing businesses with a high degree of interaction with and inspection by the CFIA: these businesses are strongly concerned with their compliance and focused on the elements that implicate them directly.

Related to both "Degree of Embrace" and their "Concern for Compliance", a third highly-differentiating dimension emerges: the "Relevance of Regulations and Advocacy" of each segment. For Regulation Embracers and Conventional Corporate Utilitarians, the perception is that CFIA regulations are highly relevant and very important to both them and their customers, and therefore these businesses were highly concerned with compliance and much more likely to advertise the measures they have in place to remain compliant. Alternatively, Regulation Resisters and Emerging Businesses felt that CFIA regulations were not nearly as relevant to themselves or their customers – albeit for different reasons – and therefore businesses in these segments are much less likely to communicate the measures that they have in place to remain compliant with CFIA regulations.

Finally, some dimensions were identified that may start to add focus to the potentially predictive lens of this research. For example, the data shows that strongly compliant segments have strong associations with organizational progressiveness, with "more progressive" companies being more likely to be strongly-compliant and "less progressive" companies tending to fall in with Regulation Resisters. Relatedly, "Decision Making" was associated with "Progressiveness", with the more progressive segments reporting that decisions were more likely to be made by consensus by a larger group of people, while less progressive segments reported that the decision-making was more likely to be made by one or a small number of individuals.

The answers to the following codes at question number A1 were used to gauge organizational progressiveness:

• The company culture is progressive
• We have a strong focus on environmentalism
• We are considered a 'leader' within our industry
• The company is generous in donating to charitable causes

Additionally, the data shows that the segments are also differentiated by their Temporal Focus: for example, Regulation Embracers were more likely to be more long-sighted, prioritizing planning and not allowing their day-to-day operations hinder the scope of their strategic plans. On the other hand, Regulation Resisters tended to be much less focused on long-term planning and were more likely to report that their long-term plans were hindered by their day-to-day operations. Finally, there are also some predictive elements related to the types of customers a business is focused on serving: Regulation Embracers and Conventional Corporate Utilitarians are more likely to conduct business outside of Canada and their revenue is more likely to come from a smaller base of customers, while Emerging Businesses and Regulation Resisters were more likely to be focused on a larger base of primarily domestic customers.

The following section provides more detail about each segment, and references the Segment Summaries that follow in Figures 1.1 to Figures 4.4.

4.3 Segment profiles

Regulation Embracers

The firmographics of Regulation Embracers skew towards larger businesses with several hundred employees, somewhat more likely to be operating in Quebec. These businesses are more likely to have peak business hours occurring on weekdays and during the day, and business is likely to be consistent year-round. Aside from firmographics, the most significant factor that distinguishes Regulation Embracers is their positive attitudinal disposition towards the CFIA (and food safety compliance more generally). These businesses tend to have lots of organizational structure related to food safety, are far more likely to have separate divisions or departments that manage food safety compliance, formal on-the-job food safety training, and formal processes to ensure that the business remains up-to-date on compliance standards. They are very familiar with the CFIA and its mandate, and have a very good understanding of how the CFIA operates, the role of inspectors, and where to find information about CFIA regulations; these businesses are very confident in their understanding of CFIA regulations (Figure 1.1).

The organizations that make up the Regulation Embracers segment tend to be much more long-sighted, where planning is prioritized and day-to-day operations do not impact long-term strategic decision-making. Decisions are more often made in consensus across a larger group, which is perhaps related to generally more "progressive" attitudes in these businesses: they are more likely to be focused on environmentalism, more likely to consider themselves leaders in their industry, and 80% of Regulation Embracers consider their company culture to be 'progressive'. When it comes to opinions about the CFIA, the understanding of why CFIA regulations were in place and the perception that complying with regulations are in their best interest were agreed upon universally: all businesses in this segment answered positively regarding the role of CFIA regulations and that compliance is in their best interest. These businesses do not believe that compliance with CFIA regulations is overly complicated or expensive, and they believe that their compliance record is extremely important – both to themselves and to their customers – so they will often proactively advertise the food safety compliance measures that they have in place. Regulation Embracers believe that the CFIA is a helpful organization and frequently communicate their industry's specific needs (Figure 1.2).

Considering their strong degree of embrace of CFIA regulations, the high relevancy of regulations to them, and their overall positive disposition towards the CFIA, it is no surprise that confidence in CFIA regulatory compliance is highest among Regulation Embracers: 91% said they feel that compliance if inspected today would be "very likely", and almost half (43%) expected perfect compliance on a day when an inspection is not expected. As frequent communicators with the CFIA, this segment is more likely to receive information from the CFIA through My CFIA portal notices, and were much more likely to report that these communications were effective (56% considered them "effective" or "highly effective", compared to only 30% across the other 3 segments). The vast majority of these businesses consider their treatment by the CFIA to be 'fair', and all of these businesses that had faced a sanction in the past reported that their inspector was helpful in avoiding future non-compliance (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.1

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Segment size: 26%

Business line: 92% food business, 17% plant health business, 16% animal health business

Figure 1.2

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+X) indicates over (above 115) and (-X) is under (below 85) indexing against the total. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Figure 1.3

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample. Caution: base too small.

5% experienced a sanction/regulatory response due to non-compliance.

60% faced financial impact of the sanction.*

53% implemented new HR-related initiatives.*

7% faced impact on the corporate reputation.*

43% (+) of Regulation Embracers estimated a rate of 100% compliance on a regular day when inspection is not inspected.

Section footnotes

1.1: Base: Regulation Embracers N=304; Questions: S2, X1-X13, B1-B3, S3, A2

1.2: Base: Regulation Embracers N=304; Questions: S2, D1-D3, A1

1.3: Base: Regulation Embracers N=304; Questions: S2, C2, C3B, C7, C8, C1, C4-C6;
*Base: Those who have been sanctioned N=15; Questions: C3C, C3E, C3F

Emerging Businesses

Emerging Businesses tend to be smaller businesses with 100 employees or less and lower-than-average annual revenues, and a huge differentiator within this segment is the relatively 'young' age of many of these businesses: roughly 1/3 of the businesses in this segment are less than 5 years old. These businesses are more likely to have non-traditional hours of operation (for example, many report that the weekends are when their business is most busy) or have peak seasonal periods (for example, 35% reported that their business is busiest during the summer), and businesses that are regulated by Federal Animal Health regulations were somewhat less likely to be represented in this group. In terms of organizational structure, these businesses were more likely to be female-led and often featured significantly less structure with regard to food safety compliance: they were not likely to have formal training or separate divisions set up to manage regulatory compliance. Despite low organizational structure with regard to food safety compliance, Emerging Businesses had a somewhat average familiarity with the CFIA, and most (54%) consider themselves at least "somewhat confident" that they understand CFIA regulations. Perhaps as a function of their relatively young business age, these businesses were more likely to have started/increased selling through online channels since COVID, with almost 40% having reported doing so. (Figure 2.1).

This prioritization of online business channels also appears in the organizational attitudes of Emerging Businesses, who are almost twice as likely to sell products to consumers online versus the other 3 segments. Attitudinally, as smaller and younger businesses, these companies tend to have most decisions being made by a small number of individuals; they are more likely to have their long-term plans impacted by the realities of their day-to-day operations. Their client base tends to be more diversified, but their business model is often simpler: less structure and low bureaucracy, and often focused on specific business channels. Emerging Businesses understand the reason why CFIA regulations are in place and generally considers them fair and sensible, and they do not feel like there is too much regulation, or that regulation is overly complicated or expensive to implement. These businesses have confidence in the CFIA, but also have little concern with their own regulatory compliance. (Figure 2.2).

One of the reasons why this segment might be so unconcerned with regulatory compliance might be because so few have faced a sanction or regulatory response, likely because these businesses are inspected so infrequently: only 2% reported being inspected more often than monthly, and 29% reported "not applicable" as their inspection frequency, indicating that they do not receive regular inspections. Since these businesses are not inspected as often and are less concerned with compliance, they tend to use the My CFIA portal much less often to receive communications from CFIA, and are much less likely to communicate with CFIA representatives directly. Since visits from a CFIA representative are also much less frequent, these interactions are also not considered "routine", and interactions with CFIA representatives are therefore much less likely to help improve their understanding of regulations or help improve compliance (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.1

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Segment size: 21%

Business line: 90% food business, 13% plant health business, 13% animal health business

Figure 2.2

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+X) indicates over (above 115) and (-X) is under (below 85) indexing against the total. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Figure 2.3

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample. Caution: base too small.

4% (-) experienced a sanction/regulatory response due to non-compliance.

67% faced financial impact of the sanction.*

56% faced impact on the corporate reputation.*

11% faced business closure due to the sanction.*

11% implemented new HR-related initiatives.*

38% of Emerging Businesses estimated a rate of 100% compliance on a regular day when inspection is not inspected.

Section footnotes

2.1: Base: Emerging Businesses: N=248; Questions: S2, X1-X13, B1-B3, S3, A2

2.2: Base: Emerging Businesses N=248; Questions: S2, D1-D3, A1

2.3: Base: Emerging Businesses N=248; Questions: S2, C2, C3B, C7, C8, C1, C4-C6;
*Base: Those who have been sanctioned N=9; Questions: C3C, C3E, C3F

Conventional Corporate Utilitarians

The firmographic profile of Conventional Corporate Utilitarians is very distinct: these skew towards large businesses with several hundred employees, and most (51%) have been in operations for more than 25 years. The management team is more likely to consist of men, and about 1/3 of these businesses have operations in the United States. The large and longstanding nature of these businesses means that they are more likely to have a department dedicated to food safety compliance, written statements about their commitment to meeting food safety regulations, and a formal process to ensure they remain in compliance with regulations. These businesses are familiar with the CFIA, its mandate, and how it operates, but also seem keenly observant of things that could directly impact its own operations (for example, client-specific quality requirements, international product/quality standards). Regarding the impact of COVID, these businesses do feel like the pandemic has impacted their business negatively, but they do not feel like they are at a disadvantage versus their competitors, and perhaps as a function of their longstanding nature, have not switched focus to selling to customers more online (Figure 3.1).

As larger businesses, Conventional Corporate Utilitarians are more likely to have more bureaucratic complexity (that is, many different divisions or business units, sell products across many different channels) and their decision-making often happens through consensus across a large group. Since these organizations are accustomed to dealing with a high degree of complexity, their attitudes towards the CFIA are best considered in this context: these businesses feel like CFIA regulations are 'too complicated' and are not always based on 'common sense', but they also understand why CFIA regulations are in place, and are very aware that compliance is in their best interest. Furthermore, Conventional Corporate Utilitarians believe that their customers care very much about food safety compliance, so they are dedicated to preserving their compliance record and will often advertise their compliance record or the measures that they have in place to remain compliant. When it comes to food safety regulation and compliance, these are "highly engaged" stakeholders that will often be members of industry associations and communicate specific industry needs to the CFIA (Figure 3.2).

As large and longstanding businesses, Conventional Corporate Utilitarians are inspected most frequently in comparison to other segments, but they also have high confidence that they will be found in compliance if inspected today without notice (98% said that compliance likelihood would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely"). Since these businesses are inspected most often, they are more likely to have received information from an in-person visit by a CFIA representative, and this visit has a tendency to be highly effective in driving future compliance. These businesses are also likely to have received communication from an industry association, perhaps as a result of their larger size and 'older' business age, but also a signal of them being "highly engaged" in regulatory matters that concern them (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.1

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Segment size: 32%

Business line: 87% food business, 21% plant health business, 20% animal health business

Figure 3.2

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+X) indicates over (above 115) and (-X) is under (below 85) indexing against the total. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Figure 3.3

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

10% experienced a sanction/regulatory response due to non-compliance.

49% implemented new HR-related initiatives.*

41% faced financial impact of the sanction.*

24% faced business closure due to the sanction.*

22% faced impact on the corporate reputation.*

45% of Conventional Corporate Utilitarians estimated a rate of 90 to 95% compliance on a regular day when inspection is not inspected.

Section footnotes

3.1: Base: Conventional Corporate Utilitarians N=368; Questions: S2, X1-X13, B1-B3, S3, A2

3.2: Base: Conventional Corporate Utilitarians N=368; Questions: S2, D1-D3, A1

3.3: Base: Conventional Corporate Utilitarians N=368; Questions: S2, C2, C3B, C7, C8, C1, C4-C6;
*Base: Those who have been sanctioned N=37; Questions: C3C, C3E, C3F

Regulation Resisters

Regulation Resisters tend to be smaller in terms of employee count and revenues, and more domestically-focused, with their headquarters located in Canada. As smaller companies, their organizational structure related to food safety compliance is small, with businesses much less likely to have divisions or departments dedicated to food safety regulatory compliance or formal processes to ensure the company remains up-to-date on compliance standards. These businesses have very low familiarity with the CFIA, especially with regard to the CFIA's mandate or the way that the CFIA operates. Interestingly, businesses that belong to this segment are more likely to feel like they have been put at a disadvantage versus competitors when it comes to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, perhaps pointing towards broader attitudes of feeling that their business is under pressure (Figure 4.1)

In terms of the broader organizational attitudes of Regulation Resisters, these businesses seem to have more trouble with planning, with almost half reporting that their long-term planning is impacted by their day-to-day operations. The company culture of these businesses is perceived as "less progressive" and they tend to not be very focused on environmentalism, and decision-making tends to be concentrated to one or a small number of stakeholders. More specifically, these businesses do not believe the CFIA to be a helpful regulatory agency, believing food safety regulations to be too plentiful, complicated, and expensive to implement. Correspondingly, these businesses do not perceive complying with CFIA regulations to be very important to them or their customers, and therefore have relatively less concern regarding compliance. (Figure 4.2).

These businesses generally have an adversarial disposition towards the CFIA, with significantly fewer feeling that they have been treated fairly by the CFIA when compared to the other segments. Considering this disposition and their lack of concern regarding food safety regulation, it is no surprise that Regulation Resisters are also least confident in their compliance: when asked to evaluate likelihood of compliance, this segment featured the lowest proportion of respondents who answered "very likely" (only 63%, compared to 84% average response rate across the other 3 segments), and highest proportion that answered "not very likely" or "not at all likely". These businesses were less likely to report receiving information from any method of communication that the CFIA uses, and are especially unlikely to access the CFIA website or portal notices though My CFIA. (Figure 4.3)

Figure 4.1

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Segment size: 21%

Business line: 89% food business, 20% plant health business, 19% animal health business

Figure 4.2

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+X) indicates over (above 115) and (-X) is under (below 85) indexing against the total. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

Figure 4.3

Refer to Appendix for the questions. (+) and (-) indicate significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample. Caution: base too small.

7% experienced a sanction/regulatory response due to non-compliance.

44% faced financial impact of the sanction.*

39% faced impact on the corporate reputation.*

28%implemented new HR-related initiatives.*

11% faced business closure due to the sanction.*

18% (+) of Regulation Resisters estimated a rate of 75 to 89% compliance on a regular day when inspection is not inspected.

Section footnotes

4.1: Base: Regulation Resisters N=247; Questions: S2, X1-X13, B1-B3, S3, A2

4.2: Base: Regulation Resisters N=247; Questions: S2, D1-D3, A1

4.3: Base: Regulation Resisters N=247; Questions: S2, C2, C3B, C7, C8, C1, C4-C6;
*Base: Those who have been sanctioned N=18; Questions: C3C, C3E, C3F

5.0 Drivers and barriers to compliance

While each of the 4 segments has specific barriers and drivers to compliance as detailed above, there are also some more general observations that can be applied across the entire scope of CFIA regulated industrial parties. These are specific things that the CFIA can focus on in its communications that will help drive improved food safety compliance.

The most significant drivers of compliance are related to organizational culture: wanting to set the standard for the industry, having a reputation for food safety, and having a company culture that prioritizes food safety were all ranked in the top 5 drivers of compliance, and this is generally consistent across food, animal, and plant lines of business. As such, the CFIA should emphasize to its regulated parties that building an organizational culture around compliance with food safety regulation is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, the business needs to be committed to setting the standard for its industry and building a reputation for food safety as a part of its broader commitment to nourishing this "compliance culture" internally. Businesses can be convinced that developing this "compliance culture" in in their best interest, as evidenced by the other 2 top-ranked drivers being "the strength of the business is strongly tied to food safety standards" and "my customers or clients demand that CFIA regulations are met".

Figure 5.1: Top 5 drivers and barriers of complying with CFIA regulations

Base: N = 1167.

Refer to Appendix for the questions.

In terms of key barriers to CFIA regulatory compliance, one barrier stood out clearly as having the most negative impact: almost 25% of businesses indicated that there is a lack of understanding about the changes to CFIA regulations. This presents a clear opportunity for the CFIA to focus messaging on "what has changed", as that will have the greatest impact on improving compliance with regulations. Additional barriers exist that are related to the quantity, cost, or complexity of CFIA regulations, but these were much less important drivers when compared to a lack of understanding regarding changes to CFIA regulations.

Finally, analysis is provided for top barriers and drivers to complying with CFIA regulations by business line (food, plant, or animal). The number of respondents included in animal and plant heath businesses are small and need to be interpreted with caution, but most of the data regarding barriers and drivers is remarkably consistent across business lines. There are only a few noteworthy exceptions regarding barriers to compliance: businesses that are regulated by animal health and plant health regulations are less likely to report a lack of resources that would prevent them from complying with CFIA regulations, and businesses regulated by federal plant heath regulation are also unlikely to report that implementing CFIA regulations are too expensive.

Figure 5.2: Top 5 drivers and barriers for complying with CFIA regulations

Base: Net food businesses: N = 1042, Net animal health businesses: N = 210, Net plant health businesses N = 204.

Note: (+) and (-) indicates significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

6.0 CFIA communication effectiveness

While each segment is distinct in both its disposition towards communicating with the CFIA as well as the methods it prefers to use to communicate with the CFIA, there are also some more general observations that are valuable when looking across all CFIA federally-regulated parties. Below provides an overview of the most common methods of communication that are used today by businesses that are regulated by the CFIA.

Figure 6.1

Base: Total Sample N = 1167.

Most (82%) respondents included in this study reported receiving information from the CFIA through email, and roughly 2/3 of those who communicated with the CFIA through email reported that this method was effective in understanding regulation and driving compliance. The second most common method of receiving information from the CFIA was through the CFIA website, and about half of those who accessed the site found it effective in improving their understanding of regulations or driving compliance.

A few communication methods were utilized less frequently, but should be highlighted since they tended to drive relatively stronger levels of understanding and compliance. In-person visits from a CFIA representative were reported as the second most effective method to drive understanding and compliance, despite only 30% of the sample having interactions with a CFIA representative. Telephone calls were also not very frequently used as a method of communication, but resulted in a high degree of understanding and were generally thought to be more effective at driving compliance than many other methods.

7.0 Appendices

7.1 Top drivers and barriers to compliance by segments

Note: (+) and (-) indicates significant differences at 95% CL vs. total sample.

7.2 Response rate

¹ No possible contacts under these numbers
² Respondents were not eligible or were unable to answer
³ Usable numbers
⁴ Refusal / sample
⁵ Completed / sample
⁶ (D + completed + quota blocked) / (B + D + completed + quota blocked)
⁷ (Competed + quota blocked) / (C*(E.R.) + D + completed + quota blocked)

7.3 Sample profile (s2, x1-x13)

Specific profiling details of the sample used for the report are detailed below in table form, which outlines the differences across the 3 lines of industry; food, animal and plant. Significance testing is shown by column letters indicating that a value is significantly higher than another at a 95% confidence interval.

7.4 Survey instrument

Languages: English, French

Section:

Login1, S2, S3

Page

Login1

(https://www.inspection.gc.ca)

Si vous préférez répondre au sondage en français, veuillez cliquer sur le bouton FRANÇAIS ci-dessus.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. The objective of this research is to allow you, a CFIA regulated party, an opportunity to provide feedback to the CFIA about your experience with regulations and enforcement. This survey is entirely voluntary, but also in your interest because the results will help inform how the CFIA approaches its mandate. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

All of your responses to the survey will be strictly confidential and will be reported only in the aggregate.

If you get interrupted while doing the survey, you can click on the same link to pick up right where you left off.

© 2021 Advanis Privacy Policy (http://www.advanis.ca/privacy_policy2.html) CRIC Pledge (https://www.canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CRIC-Pledge-to-Canadians.pdf)

S2

What industry segments does your company operate in? Select all that apply

S3

What is your general level of confidence with regards to understanding CFIA regulation at your company?

Section:

A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, C1, C1A, C1B, C1C, C2, C3A, C3B, C3C, C3i, C3ii, C3iii, C3iv, C3v, C3D, C3Df, C3E, C3F, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9

Page SecA

A1

Below are a number of statements that people might use to describe their company. For each statement, please indicate how much it describes your company. A rating of 5 means it 'Describes my company completely'. A rating of 1 means that it 'Does not describe my company at all'

Levels marked with * are randomized

A2

Thinking now specifically about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on your company, please indicate how much the following statements describe your company. A rating of 5 means it 'Describes my company completely'. A rating of 1 means that it 'Does not describe my company at all'.

Levels marked with * are randomized

Page SecB

B1

Thinking specifically about CFIA regulations in your company, does your company have the following… ?

Levels marked with * are randomized

B2

Please select the response that best applies to your company in general (and not you as an individual) about your familiarity with each of the following:

Levels marked with * are randomized

B3

Please select the response that best applies to your organization for each of the following components of the CFIA's mandate. Please think about your company in general (and not you as an individual).

Levels marked with * are randomized

Page SecC

C1

How often is your company inspected by each of the following organizations?

Levels marked with * are randomized

Page Show if C1 At Least 2

C1A

When regulations overlap, what standard does your company prioritize?

Rank order any that are applicable.

Levels marked with * are randomized

C1B

When regulations overlap, what factors are involved in making the decision to prioritize one set of standards over another? Select all that apply

Levels marked with * are randomized

C1C

Does the presence of overlapping regulations put your company at a disadvantage versus your competitors?

Page

C2

Has your company ever experienced a sanction or other regulatory response as a result of non-compliance?

Page Show if C2 Yes

C3A

Thinking back to the most recent time you have experienced financial sanctions and/or business suspension as a result of non-compliance…

How long ago did this occur?

C3B

The regulatory response was a result of non-compliance with the regulations of which organization?

Levels marked with * are randomized

C3C

What was the impact of the sanction? Select all that apply

C3i Show if C3c 1 Financial

How much was the financial sanction?

C3ii Show if C3c 1 Financial

How significant was the impact of the financial sanction to your business?

C3iii Show if C3c 3 BusinessClosure

For how long was the business closed?

Minimum: 0, Maximum: 999

__________ Days

C3iv Show if C3c 3 BusinessClosure

How significant was the impact of this closure to the company?

C3v Show if C3c 4 Corporate reputation

How significant was the impact to the company's corporate reputation?

C3D

What was the primary cause of non-compliance that resulted in financial sanctions and/or suspension? Start by selecting the reason that you consider to be most important. If there are other reasons, continue to select all that apply and rank (up/down) in order of importance

Levels marked with * are randomized

C3Df Show if C3D Other ranked in top 3

What was the "Other" primary cause of non-compliance?

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

C3E

Thinking back to the most recent time you have experienced financial sanction and/or suspension as a result of non-compliance, does your company generally perceive its treatment from regulators to be...?

C3F

Did the regulator/inspector involved provide information which will help avoid future non-compliance?

Page

C4

How do you usually receive information from the CFIA? Select all that apply

Levels marked with * are randomized

C5

How effective are the communications that you receive from the CFIA in helping to understand the regulations that apply to your company?

Levels marked with * are randomized

C6

How effective are the communications that you receive from the CFIA in helping to drive compliance at your company?

Levels marked with * are randomized

C7

If inspected today, what is the likelihood that your business will be found in compliance with CFIA regulations?

C8

On a regular day when you are not expecting an inspection, what would you estimate your rate of compliance to be (i.e. the percentage of items that would be in compliance with CFIA regulations)?

Minimum: 0, Maximum: 100

__________ %

C9

How confident are you that the regulations that apply to your business are well understood by all of the employees that need to understand them?

Section SecD:
D1, D2, D3

Page

D1

Below are a number of statements about regulation and/or the CFIA. For each statement, please indicate how much it describes the culture or attitudes of your company. A rating of 5 means it 'Describes my company completely'. A rating of 1 means that it 'Does not describe my company at all'.

Levels marked with * are randomized

D2

Below are a number of statements about your interactions and opinions of CFIA regulation and/or the CFIA. For each statement, please indicate how much it describes your company. A rating of 5 means it 'Describes my company completely'. A rating of 1 means that it 'Does not describe my company at all'.

Levels marked with * are randomized

D3

Below are a number of statements regarding compliance with CFIA regulations. For each statement, please indicate how much it describes the culture or attitudes of your company. A rating of 5 means it 'Describes my company completely'. A rating of 1 means that it 'Does not describe my company at all'.

Levels marked with * are randomized

Section SecE:
E1, E1f, E2, E2f

Page

E1

What are the top barriers that prevent a business from complying with CFIA safety regulation?

Start by selecting the barrier that you consider to be most important. If there are other barriers, continue to select all that apply and rank (up/down) in order of importance

Levels marked with * are randomized

E1f Show if E1 Other ranked in top 5

What was the "Other" barrier to compliance?

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

E2

Which factors are most significant in ensuring a business complies with CFIA regulation?

Start by selecting the factor that you consider to be most significant. If there are other factors, continue to select all that apply and rank (up/down) in order of significance.

Levels marked with * are randomized

E2f Show if E2 Other ranked in top

What was the "Other" significant factor to ensuring compliance?

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

Section firmographics:
X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12, X13

Page

X1

The following information is collected for classification purposes only. Please answer the following questions about your company:

Approximately how many people are employed in your company?

X2

What is the approximate annual revenue of your company?

X3

How long has your company been in operations?

X4

How long has your company operated in functions that involved food safety?

X5

Where does your company currently do business? Select all that apply

X6

Where does your company have offices or facilities where CFIA regulations are applicable? Select all that apply

X7

Where does your company have offices or facilities where CFIA regulations are applicable? Select all that apply

X8

Where is your company based?

X9

What are your company's regular hours of operation?

X10

When is usually your company's busiest time of the week?

X11

Which of the following best describes your company's busiest time of the year?

X12

Would you describe your company as Indigenous managed or owned?

X13

Please describe the approximate percentages of individuals with a senior management position who identify as:

Minimum: 0, Maximum: 100

Section firmographics1:

Final

Page

Final

(https://www.inspection.gc.ca)

Thanks for completing the survey. If you have any questions you can contact the CFIA using any of the methods on this page.

https://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-cfia/contact-us/eng/1546627816321/1546627838025

Status Code: -1