CHICAGO — Suppliers are essential to CPG operations, but making the switch from one to the other is not an easy decision for manufacturers.
Sharon Bender, senior principal scientist at Winland Foods, highlighted some considerations and tips for companies looking to switch up their suppliers during her presentation, “The Not-So-Simple Side of Changing Ingredient Suppliers,” at the Institute of Food Technology’s IFT FIRST event, held July 14-17 in Chicago.
Throughout her career, Bender has seen issues arise due to supply chain shifts made by individuals who do not consult with their technical teams. In some cases, the problem can be caught early on in a facility or following an initial round of production, but there are also circumstances where the ingredient discrepancy isn’t caught until consumer complaints begin to roll in months later.
“Unfortunately, it’s not until there’s an issue that sensory and R&D are finally brought into the conversation, and they’re usually asked to fix what could have been prevented in the first place,” she shared.
To avoid these issues, companies planning to make a switch in their supplier need to start with why the change is being made in the first place, whether it’s to accommodate for a contract coming up for renewal, a shift in the quality of an ingredient or any other factors.
“Each of these reasons carries different levels of risk, so we need to assess how much risk,” Bender said.
Bender provided two questions manufacturers should ponder when considering risk factors. The first question outlined focuses on how the ingredient or supplier change will impact a business. Companies should ask whether introducing a new ingredient will impact one product or the whole portfolio and whether or not the change will impact a product’s sensory characteristics. In addition to consumer experience, substituting ingredients may affect a product’s physical or nutritional attributes as well as its shelf life.
Bender noted that a shift in appearance, texture or flavor could impact consumer response to a product and brands may need to be ready for adverse consumer reaction.
Qualifying a new ingredient or supplier begins with a sample. But it’s not enough to just get one sample for manufacturers who operate out of more than one facility.
“Involving your cross-functional team to help lay out project risks will save you the headache of having to fix an avoidable problem down the road long after that contract has been signed.” — Sharon Bender | senior principal scientist | Winland Foods
“If they’re going to be providing the product for multiple facilities, you will want to have at least one sample from each of those facilities,” she said, noting that in an ideal situation, companies can have multiple samples to get a better understanding of an ingredient’s variability.
Bender emphasized that tasting the new ingredient is non-negotiable.
“You don’t need to formulate it, you just need to get a rough idea to see if this is even reasonably close to what you’re currently procuring,” she said. “Get the important people in the room, taste it together and have a discussion. Only then can you figure out what those appropriate next steps are.”
It’s important that companies be proactive throughout the entire process when making this decision. This includes helping the procurement team ensure specifications are up-to-date, comprehensive and cover all of the products that include the affected ingredient.
The second question companies should ask before making a change focuses on the importance of the affected product and if the switched ingredient will alter the core product.
“Once we know the impact of making the supplier change and how important the product is to the company’s portfolio, we can determine the overall risk of the project,” Bender said. “When we know that overall risk, we can determine the best sensory approach to qualify the change.”
While every company may approach this decision differently, the more risk involved with a supplier or ingredient swap, the more research and actionable steps are needed to make a final choice.
“This exercise may seem complicated and time-consuming on the surface, but I can assure you that in the long run, it’s not,” Bender concluded. “Involving your cross-functional team to help lay out project risks will save you the headache of having to fix an avoidable problem down the road long after that contract has been signed.”
