Why can't Starbucks's "gold standard" prevent food safety loopholes? Exploring the causes and the contradiction between management concept and assessment mechanism may be the crux. It is necessary for food and catering enterprises to consider adjusting and improving the assessment mode, find a better balance between profit margin and standardization, and also consider using technical means to optimize the production process, food material management and supply chain of stores, so as to reduce the interference of human factors as far as possible, and keep up with the internal and external supervision. Recently, a media reporter undercover two Starbucks stores in Wuxi found that the store manager and clerk had repeatedly changed the shelf life label of ingredients and put on the shelf the pastries that should have been scrapped. When the news came out, netizens suddenly felt that the coffee of 30 or 40 yuan a cup in their hands was no longer fragrant and the dessert was no longer sweet. Similar to the practice of some businesses tampering with the shelf life and reusing expired ingredients, it has been exposed many times, but this time Starbucks was exposed, which still surprised consumers. In the market, Starbucks has always had a "based on the highest standards in the industry" and implemented the "Starbucks food safety gold standard", and consumers are willing to pay a premium. The management system of Starbucks is also highly respected in the industry. It is said that peers will also look at job seekers who have worked in Starbucks. Now, it's a bit confusing to have such a problem that shouldn't happen. Normally, no brand enterprise will take the initiative to use expired ingredients at the risk of food safety, because this profit is hardly worth mentioning compared with the loss of corporate reputation. Food and catering enterprises have generally formulated thick implementation manuals, and even made open and secret visits to ensure food safety. It can be said that enterprise managers do not want to see frequent food safety problems. Why can't the "gold standard" prevent food safety loopholes? Why can't "zero tolerance" stop the illegal operation of individual employees? Exploring the causes behind the problems and the contradiction between management concept and assessment mechanism may be the crux. Brand enterprises attach importance to food safety and have strict assessment on business indicators such as store turnover and profit margin. However, whether the franchise stores are responsible for their own profits and losses or the index assessment of Direct stores, how to make a reasonable balance between cost control and expanding revenue seems to be a difficult problem for operators. If the food safety manual is strictly implemented, it will inevitably increase the loss of food materials; If it fails to expand the enterprise's revenue, it will directly affect the store performance. In some previous food safety incidents, some store employees worked together and took risks to fool the company's inspection, resulting in the "gold standard" becoming a decoration, which is an example. First of all, it may be necessary for food and catering enterprises to consider adjusting and improving the assessment model and find a better balance between profit margin and standardization. No matter how strict the regulations are, they will be meaningful only if they are truly implemented by employees. The assessment indicator is the baton, and the process of implementing food safety standards is also a process for front-line employees to weigh the pros and cons to some extent. Only when their vital interests are more closely related to food safety and other indicators, rather than directly linked to economic indicators, can front-line employees be more determined to do their own work. Secondly, these enterprises can also consider using technical means to optimize the production process, food material management and supply chain of stores, so as to reduce the interference of human factors as much as possible. If a store frequently has expired ingredients, it largely indicates that it may not have so much traffic and use so many ingredients. Or, in different seasons, the consumption of food materials is different and needs to be adjusted dynamically. Some ingredients are always left over and may need to be changed into smaller packages. At the same time, some processes can be replaced by machines. The front-line staff are very clear about this information, which should also be reflected in the supply data. On this basis, adjusting and optimizing relevant processes, management and supply may reduce the expiration of food materials and save resources. Thirdly, internal and external supervision should also keep up. The flight inspection has not found any problems, but it has been exposed by the media, indicating that there are loopholes in the enterprise's internal supervision and did not play its due role; The clerk tampered with the label, but the regulatory department did not find it, but it was found by the media, indicating that the external supervision also failed. In this regard, the market supervision department should strengthen the supervision in advance and take the initiative. It is reported that Starbucks has said that it will start self-examination of all stores in mainland China, and the local regulatory authorities have also investigated the stores under their jurisdiction, conducted administrative interviews with enterprises and investigated the stores involved. In addition to severely punishing the stores involved, people also expect the survey results to answer consumers' doubts: is this an example or a common phenomenon? What is the compensation for consumers who drink expired coffee and how to avoid the next cup of expired coffee? (Xinhua News Agency)