Compliance officers can learn a lot from small businesses, and today we have a fascinating example of that point from the smallest sort of business there is – a boy selling ice cream on the side of the road, who was soon shut down by his town’s health department.
The tale begins in Norwood, Mass., a typical suburban town outside of Boston. That’s where Danny Doherty, 12 years old, decided earlier this summer to set up a roadside stand selling homemade ice cream. His goal: to raise money for the Boston Bear Cubs, a hockey team for children with developmental disabilities (including his brother, who is autistic).
So, Danny set up his ice cream stand, selling vanilla, shaved chocolate, and fluffernutter. Then, on August 5, Danny’s family received a letter from the Norwood board of health. Someone had complained that his ice cream stand violates the Massachusetts Food Code, a state regulation; he had to cease operations, the letter said.
This story caught my attention for two reasons. First, I like ice cream. Second, as preposterous as this meltdown might seem, it does indeed offer numerous lessons for corporate compliance professionals.
The importance of a risk-based approach
We can all see that at first glance, the town looks terrible here. Who wants to be the meanie quashing a child’s first attempt at free enterprise? Who wants to shut down an effort to raise money for disabled children? What crazy person opposes ice cream in August?
Except, the town health officials do have a valid concern. Ice cream is made from dairy cream, and without proper precautions dairy products can be contaminated with listeria – a potentially deadly bacterial infection. Just weeks before Danny launched his venture, a major commercial manufacturer had to recall more than 60 brands of ice cream nationwide amid a possible listeria outbreak.
If Danny had been selling lemonade (lemons, water, sugar) or cookies (flour, butter, and sugar heated to high temperatures), we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because the risk of food poisoning from those items would be negligible. That’s why you see kids selling lemonade or cookies by the side of the road in one town after another. But with ice cream, that risk isn’t negligible – it’s real, with potentially devastating consequences.
So, compliance officers (such as your local board of health) need policies that are proportionate to the risk; and then they need to enforce that policy even when doing so isn’t fun
The importance of training and communication
Next, we should praise Danny Doherty for being a great kid. He seems kind, thoughtful, and industrious all at once. Every town needs more kids like him.
That said, Danny also reminds us of another important point: some compliance violations start from a place of good intentions. Employees want their company to succeed, so they charge forward with what they believe is a good idea; but don’t necessarily grasp the consequences of their actions. Then compliance needs to intervene – and, many times, looks like the bad guy while doing so.
That’s certainly the case with the Norwood board of health, whose employees received all manner of threats and nasty messages as the shut-down of Danny’s ice cream stand made the news. Those critics scorched health inspectors as the Department of No. Sound familiar?
So in a roundabout way, another lesson for compliance officers is the importance of training and communication, so that employees know why certain policies exist. Compliance officers need to reach out to business operating units all the time, and explain that even good intentions can cause an enterprise serious difficulty.
We can’t necessarily expect town health officials to send pre-emptive letters to every household, “Here’s why your kids should sell lemonade rather than ice cream” – but corporate compliance officers do have more ability to reach out their workforce. Take advantage of that discretion, so you can guide employees away from violations rather than arrive later as the Department of No cleaning up a violation.
The delicate art of enforcement
We also need to consider the actual enforcement action taken by the health department, shutting down a 12-year-old’s ice cream stand.
First, consider how you deliver an enforcement message. Norwood officials sent a no-nonsense letter in the mail to Danny’s parents. Yes, proper documentation is important for every compliance matter – but is that always the right first step to take?
Perhaps you instead approach the compliance offender informally and say, “We understand why you want to do this, but for reasons A, B, and C, the organization doesn’t allow that. How about you stop now, and consider these other options?” (Indeed, our friends in HR would say that for many infractions, the proper response for a first-time offense is a verbal warning.)
That said, be consistent in enforcement against violations. Nobody likes the idea of taking action against a 12-year-old boy selling ice cream as a fund-raiser for charity – but would you say the same for two 17-year-olds running a much bigger operation, handing out ice cream to hundreds of people? What about an adult selling ice cream on the side of the road for profit, essentially running a business without proper health permits?
Rules don’t exist to punish specific people; they exist to address specific risks. So even while you should strive to deliver enforcement with empathy and a deft touch, you need to deliver enforcement consistently no matter who the person is.
The good news is that once Danny’s plight became known, neighbors and local businesses rallied to help him find a solution. He gave away the ice cream for free and accepted donations, and then a local radio station helped him to hold a larger fund-raiser. When all was said and done, Danny had raised $20,000 for the Boston Bear Cubs, more than enough to keep the team going for a full year.
Danny himself should be an inspiration to us all. His predicament also offers plenty of lessons for compliance officers that we should take to heart.
