If there was another food-safety crisis, company representation would be handled the same way, he said.
Wilson copped criticism for failing to front in the first few days of the August scare of whey protein concentrate, used to make infant formula, which panicked consumers in New Zealand and Asia, especially China, and led to big product recalls.
Chief executive Theo Spierings, overseas when Fonterra announced the contamination, was also absent from the publicity frontline because he went straight to China, Fonterra’s biggest customer, on damage control.
It was left to then-New Zealand operations chief Gary Romano to bear the brunt of the huge public scrutiny. Romano resigned in the fallout.
Fonterra chairmen are invariably at the frontline with the chief executive during good-news publicity.
But the botulism scare, like Fonterra’s involvement with the Sanlu melamine poisoning scandal in China in 2008, was deemed an “operational matter”, to be fronted by management.
Wilson’s predecessor, Sir Henry van der Heyden, was also criticised for his absence at the height of the Sanlu scandal.
Wilson said deeming such incidents “operational matters” was not a glib excuse.
“It’s more than a line. The reality is those decisions are not taken lightly. What is critical in my role from the chair’s perspective and the board’s is that we are always there to protect our co-operative and that we ensure we have the very best information to put out into the market.
“It’s not a glib statement. During a recall, (until) we know all the challenges of it, it is an operational matter and some of the things we got right.
“We didn’t get everything right by a long shot and we were very public about that through our (independent) board review.
“Theo going straight to China was exactly the right thing. Yes, he was overseas at the time, but it was exactly the right thing.”
Wilson said by the time Spierings got back, the board of the farmer-owned co-operative had gathered a lot more information about the possible contamination of whey product manufactured at Fonterra’s Hautapu plant the previous year and Wilson announced there would be an independent review.
He accepted there would always be questions asked about his failure to quickly front publicly.
“But when I look back from the chair’s perspective, is that the appropriate way if, heaven forbid, we ended up in another crisis situation, would we handle that part the same way?
“Yes, I believe we would.
“Are there other parts we would handle differently? Yes.”
Wilson said his study of company crises globally showed they were considered operational matters, which chief executives must deal with.
“They are the ones responsible for dealing with that.”
Wilson earned industry kudos for launching an independent board review of the scare – the necessity for which became clear to him quickly.
“It was very clear to me over the first 24-48 hours we would need to have a very high-quality review done.
“But when it comes down to protecting the co-operative, and when I say that I mean the wider stakeholder group of our co-operative, it’s (about) having confidence in what we do as an organisation.
“Even though there had obviously been mistakes made, you have to have transparency.”
Wilson said he had heard the criticism “Fortress Fonterra” before the independent review report in October coined it.
He did not believe that was the way Fonterra operated and after intense travelling in the past three months talking to stakeholders and getting comment on the company, he felt positive.
“Transparency is not just a word we are using (now). It is a world we need to live in and operate in.
“A fundamental statement, which has always driven me, is that you have to earn respect.
“And after last year we have to earn respect and be judged on that.
“What I have seen in recent months is learning from the incident is ongoing as we continue to develop our strategy.”
