vaayaa Inclusive Education
Hospitality risk assessment

Brewery, Winery and Craft Beverage Production Risk Assessment: Hygiene, Fire and Supply Controls

A worked example of how a small craft producer finds, scores and controls risks in brewing, winemaking, packaging, allergen management, fire safety, staffing, guest payments and supplier continuity.

Updated November 2026 8 hazards assessed Review every 6 months Highest risk: High to Medium
See the Brewery, Winery and Craft Beverage Production course

Executive summary

This assessment shows how a small craft beverage producer can find, rate and control the risks that matter most to guest safety, product quality, people and cash. Eight risks were chosen because they are plausible in everyday brewing, winemaking, packaging and taproom work. Allergen cross contact and microbial spoilage are among the most likely and carry the highest early scores. Fire and gas hazards in the cellar are less likely but can cause severe harm, so they are rated with care. Each risk is scored before controls and again after existing and added controls. Most risks fall to Medium or Low once added controls are in place, but allergen and gas exposure remain subject to specialist review. The first actions are a labelled allergen matrix, gas monitoring with a tested alarm, a fatigue rota for peak days and a second approver for bookings. Every score illustrates method, not a real business.

Focus area
Brewery, winery and craft beverage production
Setting
Small craft beverage producer with a production cellar, packaging line and taproom
Method
Five by five likelihood and impact risk register

Scope

This assessment covers a small craft producer that brews beer, makes wine and packages drinks, with a production area, a cold store, a taproom that serves guests and a small online shop. It covers food and beverage hygiene, allergens, fire and equipment, staffing and fatigue, cash and booking payments, supplier continuity, privacy and accessibility, regulatory duties, emergency readiness and guest safety. Jurisdiction, site layout, equipment and licence types are not specified, so they are treated as assumptions for teaching only.

Context

The producer has a head brewer or winemaker, a production team of four, a cellar lead, a taproom manager and a part-time administrator. Fermentation tanks, a bottling line, cold rooms and a gas supply operate on site, and carbon dioxide and cleaning chemicals are stored in the production area. Guests book tastings and pay by card through a third-party system. Each hazard is scored before controls to show its natural level, then again after existing and added controls.

Objectives, assets and stakeholders

The objective is to make safe, consistent beverages, protect guests and staff, keep cash and bookings accurate, meet food, fire and alcohol duties, and keep the trust of guests, retailers and regulators. Assets in scope are the brewhouse, fermenters, barrels, bottling line, cold rooms, gas and cleaning chemical stores, the booking and payment system, guest data, recipes and the brand. Stakeholders include production staff, the taproom team, guests with allergies or access needs, retail and trade customers, growers, glass suppliers, local inspectors and insurers. Each risk has one owner role, and the head brewer or winemaker keeps the register current and reports to the owner each quarter.

Risk matrix: before and after controls

Each cell shows hazard numbers placed by likelihood and impact. Compare the two grids to see how controls move each hazard.

Before controls

Inherent risk

Risk before controls: rows are likelihood from almost certain to rare, columns are impact from insignificant to catastrophic. Cells list hazard numbers.
1
Insignificant		 2
Minor		 3
Moderate		 4
Major		 5
Catastrophic
5 Almost certain
4 Likely Likelihood 4, impact 3, score 12, high: H04 Likelihood 4, impact 4, score 16, high: H01
3 Possible Likelihood 3, impact 3, score 9, medium: H05 H08 Likelihood 3, impact 4, score 12, high: H02 H06 H07
2 Unlikely Likelihood 2, impact 5, score 10, high: H03
1 Rare

After controls

Residual risk

Risk after controls: rows are likelihood from almost certain to rare, columns are impact from insignificant to catastrophic. Cells list hazard numbers.
1
Insignificant		 2
Minor		 3
Moderate		 4
Major		 5
Catastrophic
5 Almost certain
4 Likely
3 Possible Likelihood 3, impact 2, score 6, medium: H04 Likelihood 3, impact 3, score 9, medium: H07
2 Unlikely Likelihood 2, impact 2, score 4, low: H05 H08 Likelihood 2, impact 3, score 6, medium: H01 H02 H06
1 Rare Likelihood 1, impact 4, score 4, low: H03
  • Low 1 to 4
  • Medium 5 to 9
  • High 10 to 16
  • Critical 17 to 25

Hazard register

A summary first, then the detail for each hazard.

Summary of hazards with scores before and after controls
No.HazardBeforeAfterOwner
H01 Allergen cross contact and labelling error 16 High 6 Medium Food safety lead
H02 Microbial contamination and fermentation spoilage 12 High 6 Medium Head brewer or winemaker
H03 Fire, carbon dioxide and refrigerant leak in cellar and cold store 10 High 4 Low Production manager
H04 Staff fatigue and long shifts during brew and harvest peaks 12 High 6 Medium Production manager
H05 Booking, payment and cash handling errors 9 Medium 4 Low Taproom manager
H06 Privacy breach of guest and trade customer data 12 High 6 Medium Operations administrator
H07 Supplier disruption for grain, fruit, glass and packaging 12 High 9 Medium Purchasing lead
H08 Reputational harm from poor service, access failure or product complaint 9 Medium 4 Low Taproom manager
H01

Allergen cross contact and labelling error

Safety Before 16 After 6

A shared line, tank or cleaning step carries an allergen such as wheat, milk or sulphites into a product that is labelled without it, or the label itself is wrong, so a guest reacts.

Who or what is affected: Guests with allergies, taproom staff and packaging team

Causes

Shared equipment, late recipe changes and ingredient substitutions from suppliers.

Consequences

Serious allergic reaction, product withdrawal, legal action and loss of guest trust.

Existing controls

  • Each recipe sheet lists the main allergen ingredients.
  • Packaging labels are checked by a second person before printing.

Control gaps

The matrix is not linked to the labelling process, so changes can be missed before printing.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Publish an allergen matrix for each product and update it with every recipe or supplier change.
  • Detect: Check line changeovers and record the cleaning sign-off before a new product starts.
Likelihood 4 x impact 4 before; 2 x 3 after Owner: Food safety lead Target: Within 30 days Early warning: Allergen matrix entries not updated after a recipe or supplier change.
H02

Microbial contamination and fermentation spoilage

Operational Before 12 After 6

Wild yeast, bacteria or poor sanitation spoil a batch or contaminate packaged product, so drinks are off flavour, unsafe or must be discarded before sale.

Who or what is affected: Production staff, guests and retail customers

Causes

Poor cleaning, open transfers, warm storage and shared hoses between batches.

Consequences

Discarded batches, unsafe product, retailer complaints and lost income.

Existing controls

  • Cleaning and sanitation are logged for each vessel.
  • Samples are tasted and checked for gravity and clarity before packaging.

Control gaps

Checks happen mainly at packaging, so faults that start during fermentation go unseen.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Use a written cleaning schedule with chemical concentrations and contact times for each vessel.
  • Detect: Run microbial and sensory checks at set points and hold any batch that fails.
Likelihood 3 x impact 4 before; 2 x 3 after Owner: Head brewer or winemaker Target: Within 45 days Early warning: Repeated off flavour or gravity readings outside the expected range for a batch.
H03

Fire, carbon dioxide and refrigerant leak in cellar and cold store

Safety Before 10 After 4

A fire from electrical or cleaning equipment, or a leak of carbon dioxide or refrigerant in a closed room, puts staff at risk of injury or asphyxiation and damages stock and premises.

Who or what is affected: Production staff, visitors and emergency responders

Causes

Ageing electrical fittings, leaking gas connections and closed rooms without airflow.

Consequences

Serious injury, fatality, fire damage and closure of the site.

Existing controls

  • Fire extinguishers and an alarm are fitted in the production area.
  • Gas cylinders are secured upright in a ventilated store.

Control gaps

Gas monitors are not fitted in the cold store and alarm tests are not recorded.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Fit fixed gas monitors in closed rooms and use a written permit before entering a confined space.
  • Respond: Train staff in the evacuation route and assembly point and rehearse it twice a year.
  • Recover: Have a competent contractor inspect gas systems and fire equipment on a fixed schedule, with specialist review where needed.
Likelihood 2 x impact 5 before; 1 x 4 after Owner: Production manager Target: Within 30 days Early warning: Gas monitor reading above the alarm setting or a failed alarm test.
H04

Staff fatigue and long shifts during brew and harvest peaks

People Before 12 After 6

Long shifts, night brewing and harvest peaks lead to tiredness, slips, mistakes in cleaning and missed checks, and injuries from moving drums and using equipment.

Who or what is affected: Production team, taproom staff and their families

Causes

Seasonal peaks, short staffing and pressure to meet bottling dates.

Consequences

Injury, cleaning errors, poor product quality and staff turnover.

Existing controls

  • Staff have a written shift pattern agreed with the production manager.
  • Overtime is recorded and approved each week.

Control gaps

Hours are recorded but not checked against agreed rest limits.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Set maximum shift length and minimum rest between shifts for brew and harvest days.
  • Detect: Review overtime and near miss reports each month and adjust the rota.
Likelihood 4 x impact 3 before; 3 x 2 after Owner: Production manager Target: Within 45 days Early warning: Repeated missed cleaning sign-offs on night shifts.
H05

Booking, payment and cash handling errors

Financial Before 9 After 4

Double bookings, failed card payments, manual refunds and cash float mistakes cause lost income, overcharging or theft from the till.

Who or what is affected: Guests, taproom staff and the finance lead

Causes

Manual edits, peak tasting periods and one shared system used by many staff.

Consequences

Lost income, guest complaints, cash shortfalls and disputes with the payment provider.

Existing controls

  • Card payments run through a third-party payment system.
  • A daily till reconciliation is signed by the shift lead.

Control gaps

No one checks refund patterns across several weeks.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Require a second approver for refunds, price changes and booking edits.
  • Respond: Hold a tested manual booking and cash process for use when the system is down.
Likelihood 3 x impact 3 before; 2 x 2 after Owner: Taproom manager Target: Within 45 days Early warning: Refunds or booking edits made without a second approval.
H06

Privacy breach of guest and trade customer data

Technology and data Before 12 After 6

Guest names, contact details, allergy notes and mailing lists are kept in shared spreadsheets or accounts, and are sent or viewed by people who should not have access to them.

Who or what is affected: Guests, trade customers and marketing contacts

Causes

Shared spreadsheets, weak passwords and bulk emails sent to the wrong group.

Consequences

Loss of trust, complaints and enforcement action if privacy duties are breached.

Existing controls

  • Booking data is held in the payment system under individual logins.
  • Mailing list sign up asks for consent.

Control gaps

Allergy notes are stored in general booking comments that many staff can read.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Limit access to allergy and contact notes to named roles and remove any shared logins.
  • Detect: Review access lists each quarter and check mailing lists for errors before each send.
Likelihood 3 x impact 4 before; 2 x 3 after Owner: Operations administrator Target: Within 60 days Early warning: A shared login used to access booking or mailing data.
H07

Supplier disruption for grain, fruit, glass and packaging

Supplier Before 12 After 9

A key supplier of grain, fruit, hops, glass or cans fails to deliver, or delivers late or out of specification, so batches are delayed, changed or cancelled.

Who or what is affected: Production schedule, retail customers and local growers

Causes

Single sourcing of key items, poor weather at harvest and long lead times for glass.

Consequences

Missed sales, changed products, broken customer promises and cost overruns.

Existing controls

  • Main ingredients are bought from two approved suppliers.
  • Goods are checked against the specification on arrival.

Control gaps

Second suppliers have not yet been tested on quality or delivery.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Approve a second supplier for each critical input and keep an agreed specification for each.
  • Respond: Hold a short list of substitute recipes and a plan for delayed packaging deliveries.
Likelihood 3 x impact 4 before; 3 x 3 after Owner: Purchasing lead Target: Within 90 days Early warning: Ingredient stock below two weeks of planned use.
H08

Reputational harm from poor service, access failure or product complaint

Reputational Before 9 After 4

Slow or rude service, a taproom or tasting room that some guests cannot access, or a product complaint posted online damages trust and future bookings.

Who or what is affected: Guests with access needs, taproom staff and the brand

Causes

Peak periods, untrained new staff and no regular accessibility review.

Consequences

Negative reviews, lost bookings and damage to the brand.

Existing controls

  • Staff receive a basic service induction.
  • Complaints are logged and answered by the taproom manager.

Control gaps

Complaints are not grouped to find repeat causes.

Additional controls

  • Prevent: Review step free access, seating and toilets against a written access checklist each season.
  • Respond: Reply to online complaints within one working day using an agreed script and offer a fair remedy.
Likelihood 3 x impact 3 before; 2 x 2 after Owner: Taproom manager Target: Within 60 days Early warning: Repeated complaints about the same product, service or access point.

Rating method and evaluation

Each risk is rated on two five-point scales. Likelihood runs from Rare to Almost certain, and impact runs from Insignificant to Catastrophic. Multiplying them gives a score from 1 to 25, banded as Low from 1 to 4, Medium from 5 to 9, High from 10 to 16 and Critical from 17 to 25. Inherent risk is the score before controls. Residual risk is the score after existing and added controls, and it can never be higher than inherent. Impact covers harm to guests and staff, product loss, time to recover, legal exposure and reputation, and a hazard is never rated down only because it has not happened yet. Anything High or Critical needs senior attention and a dated plan, Medium needs routine controls with a named owner, and Low is accepted and watched. Production staff, the taproom lead and the food safety lead should challenge each rating, and a rating is reopened whenever a warning indicator reaches its threshold or an incident occurs.

Likelihood, impact and rating bands

Likelihood

  • 5 Almost certain: Expected to happen in most circumstances.
  • 4 Likely: Will probably happen in many circumstances.
  • 3 Possible: Could happen at some time.
  • 2 Unlikely: Not expected, but it could happen.
  • 1 Rare: Only in exceptional circumstances.

Impact

  • 1 Insignificant: No lasting effect. Handled within routine work.
  • 2 Minor: Small effect that is quickly corrected.
  • 3 Moderate: Noticeable effect that needs managed effort to correct.
  • 4 Major: Serious effect on people, delivery or reputation.
  • 5 Catastrophic: Severe or lasting effect that threatens the whole activity.

Bands (likelihood x impact)

  • Low (1 to 4): Accept and monitor.
  • Medium (5 to 9): Manage with routine controls.
  • High (10 to 16): Senior attention and a treatment plan.
  • Critical (17 to 25): Act first. Do not proceed until reduced.

Monitoring, escalation and review

Review this assessment every 6 months, and sooner when an indicator below reaches its threshold.

Early-warning indicators and escalation thresholds
Indicator to watchEscalate when
Allergen matrix entries not updated after a recipe or supplier change.Escalate to the head brewer or winemaker within one working day, and hold the product until the matrix is corrected.
Gas monitor readings above the alarm setting or alarm tests that fail.Escalate to the production manager at once and stop entry to the area until a competent person confirms it is safe.
Staff working more than the agreed shift or rest limit in a week.Escalate to the production manager when a limit is passed, and rebalance the rota within three days.
Booking changes or refunds processed without a second approval.Escalate to the taproom manager at once, and to the owner if more than two occur in a month.
Ingredient stock below two weeks of planned use or a late key delivery.Escalate to the purchasing lead within one day, and to the head brewer or winemaker if the gap threatens a scheduled batch.

Contingency arrangements

If a serious event happens, such as an allergic reaction, a gas alarm, a contaminated batch or a failed payment run, the head brewer or winemaker stops the affected line or batch and isolates the area. Staff trained in first aid and gas response follow the posted emergency plan, and the emergency services are called first. The owner informs insurers, the local authority and affected guests as local rules require, and product is recalled or held only on specialist advice. Booking and payment work moves to a manual process using a tested backup, and customers are told plainly what has happened.

Prioritized action plan

  1. Publish an allergen matrix for every product and retrain staff on labelling, owner head brewer or winemaker, within 30 days.
  2. Install and test gas monitoring in the cellar and cold store, owner production manager, within 30 days.
  3. Set a fatigue rota with maximum shift and rest limits for brew and harvest days, owner production manager, within 45 days.
  4. Add a second approver for refunds and booking changes and prepare a tested manual backup, owner taproom manager, within 45 days.
  5. Confirm a second supplier for grain, fruit, glass and packaging, owner purchasing lead, within 90 days.

Conclusion

Safe and consistent beverages depend on a few steady habits: a current allergen matrix, disciplined cleaning records, gas and fire checks that are tested, sensible shift limits, secured payments and dated supplier plans. The highest early scores sit with allergen and spoilage risks, and each has actions that lower the residual score. Keep the register alive, review it on the stated cycle and seek qualified advice for any real food safety, fire, alcohol, privacy or employment question.

Assumptions and limitations

Assumptions

  • The producer holds the licences and food safety registrations that a site of this type normally needs, and the owner checks these rather than assuming them.
  • Jurisdiction is not specified, so legal duties are described only in general terms and must be checked locally.
  • Gas, cleaning chemicals and equipment are supplied by outside contractors and used by trained staff on maintained equipment.

Limitations

  • The scores are examples for learning and do not describe any real producer or inspection.
  • Food safety, allergen, fire and alcohol rules differ by place and change over time, so specialist review is needed.
  • This is educational content and is not food safety, fire, legal or medical advice.

Related frameworks to study

  • Hazard analysis and critical control points principles
  • Hierarchy of controls
  • Three lines model of risk ownership

Hospitality Risk Assessment

China, India, United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, South Korea, Australia, Spain.

For Learning Reference Only: This assessment demonstrates how risk assessment principles are applied in a practical setting, providing a useful reference for learning and understanding. Actual assessments may be adapted to suit specific site conditions and circumstances.

Keep learning

Study the subject behind this assessment.

Brewery, Winery and Craft Beverage Production course Read the best practices for this course

More Hospitality risk assessments

Hourly Active: 39,047 Learners