Food manufacturers need to recruit an extra 118,000 workers by the end of 2014, according to Improve, the food and drink sector skills council.
That equates to more places than there are seats in Wembley Stadium and Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium combined.
The employee shortfall included 38,000 managers and supervisors, 16,000 skilled craftsmen and 40,000 machine operators, delegates at Food Manufacture's fifth HR Forum held on campus at Nottingham University were told.
The lack of food scientists alone was a big enough concern, said Paula Widdowson, Improve commercial director. "It's a huge issue at the moment. There are just under 9,000 food science roles in the UK and one in four are not filled."
The figures certainly focused people's minds on the urgency of the mission to crank up recruitment and boost training.
Andy Taylor, professor of flavour technology and head of food sciences at Nottingham University, is championing the development of a food science course that can appeal to students. It must also equip them to have the skills employers so badly need. But progress has been far from smooth.
A draft proposal to the Higher Education Funding College of England received a "guarded" response, said Taylor. "They wanted 50% of the funding, or £50,000, to come from elsewhere." Consequently, the process stalled at the end of January. However, Taylor was determined. He restructured the proposal around a more local focus and is presenting it to the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) to secure funding. He has also teamed up with The Food & Drink Forum in Nottingham, Food Processing Faraday Partnership, Nottingham Trent University and Lincoln University, so he's not standing alone.
Taylor is now trying to carve out the shape of the course, which should, he said, be science-based and focused mainly on innovation and technology. The content should be very practical and founded on a problem-based approach. "For the sort of thing we're talking about, the classic university course is not the way to go," Taylor said. "For example, a company has received customer complaints about watery yogurt. To solve the problem, students would need information on the product and its structure."
The course could be web-based, with students using laptops to run through modules. Various teaching tools could be employed, from web-based materials, through quality films shot in factories. Pilot plant facilities could even be used, said Taylor.
Once a regionally grounded course had been established it could then be rolled out across the UK, he said.
However, he called for at least 20 letters of support to present to EMDA to take the matter further, plus the involvement of a small advisory group. He also asked HR managers at the forum to pursue employers' buy-in, so they could offer resources and even scholarships.
Pitched into discussion groups, delegates, from companies such as legal firm Eversheds, through to Nestlé UK and Arla Foods, echoed Taylor's views. Some had been working on bespoke courses themselves. "We worked with Sheffield Hallam University and developed a diploma in manufacturing management, which on average takes two years," said Angela Armstrong, a self-employed consultant working with Northern Foods. But she acknowledged that the process of hammering out a workable programme was long and laborious. "If we could get support from places like the University of Nottingham, it would make things a lot easier."
Most agreed that university programmes could address employers' needs better. Something needed to be done fast, they said.
If bosses could be convinced of the benefits that involvement in high quality training could bring, they might be persuaded to get involved, said Armstrong.
She found as much £210,000 could be saved on projects by drafting in students to work on them for placements. Because they were getting training thrown in, they cost less than permanent employees and often provided "a fresh pair of eyes" that could spot solutions where company workers couldn't. However, some warned that students seconded by companies would not necessarily remain with them after their placements were over. Others made the point that any comprehensive course would need to cover people management and communication, so-called 'soft' skills, as well as 'hard', technical training.
But overall, the response to Taylor's words was positive, born out of a recognition of the need and the importance of addressing it. However, building a credible course that would equip graduates for the food manufacturing industry was only part of the challenge to hook future talent, delegates heard. The debate shifted to the perennial question of food manufacturing's image and whether it needed a makeover.
Julian Hunt, communications director at the Food & Drink Federation (FDF), led the way, outlining positives and negatives. On the one hand, he said, there was considerable ignorance about what working in the industry entailed and there was little doubt potential recruits had negative ideas about it. Analysis of the most popular companies for graduates to sign up to seemed to show "students would rather be accountants and civil servants" than work in the food and drink sector.
Negative images were partly fostered by the media and lobbyists. "We do find ourselves under constant attack over issues such as food scares, advertising to kids and packaging waste," said Hunt.
"But there's also a bigger issue - an inherent mistrust of big business, which is seen as somehow sinister."
On the other hand, the industry could lay claim to some of the UK's most cherished products, he added. "It still remains the fact that our industry is producing some of the best-loved brands in the country."
Hunt outlined the FDF's recent work to promote the sector's cause, including raising the profile of the industry's work on salt reduction in food and the progress made on nutritional labelling.
His comments were developed by feedback from the floor. Some felt that many people had conflicting positive and negative opinions about the industry. They respected the craft and artisanship of small businesses, but were less complimentary about larger firms and mass-produced, processed food.
In addition, working conditions were a significant factor, particularly in the case of machine operators, who were often required to cover shifts for long hours and little money.
However, more could be made of the positives, delegates argued. Workers, for example, could have a sense of pride about creating a high quality, concrete end product. And they provided an invaluable service to all sections of society.
The further involvement of the FDF, together with greater collaboration from other bodies, was needed to accentuate the positive on a national level.
Attendees left on a high, with the future showing promise, though more work is needed to take the pressure off food manufacturers' human resources departments. Formulating a successful training and recruitment strategy will be dependent on the buy-in of a range of company departments. It's a challenge, but the rewards will be worth it. FM