Food processing sanitation poses a conundrum for processors.
They can choose to decentralize food preparation locations. If you have more preparation locations, you create more locations where a sanitation breakdown. But if you have a breakdown at a location, the impact is more localized. In the extreme, you can move food preparation to the local store level, a la Chipotle. But that comes with a tradeoff for not having more direct management control of sanitation at the local level. Most processors have found that unacceptable, and Chipotle has now abandoned that model in favor of creating more regional processing locations where they can exert greater control of sanitation.
The flip side is that with more centralized food preparation, when there is a sanitation breakdown, the extent and implications are much more extensive. That leads to the conundrum: are you better off having: 1) more processing locations, accepting greater likelihood of sanitation breakdown but more limited impact, or 2) fewer processing locations, leading to lesser probability of a sanitation breakdown, but larger impacts if a breakdown occurs.
I suspect that most risk analyses will indicate that the extremes (devolving to the individual unit or consolidating to a single location) are not optimal. Between those two extremes there is a lot of room, and a lot of uncertainty.
****************
Based on personal experience, I would say that many food processors do not give adequate attention to sanitation issues until they get gob-smacked, a la Chipotle,. Drawing on another example, Jack-in-the-Box got religion after their sanitation breakdown in the 1990s. They went through an internal culture change that I'm not sure has been replicated by many of their competitors. And that was almost 30 years ago - which leaves me wondering how many of the people who were schooled by that trauma are still with Jacks.