Conference PaperPDF Available

Tool for measuring food safety climate

Authors:
Brita Ball at University of Guelph
Brita Ball
Anne Wilcock at University of Guelph
Anne Wilcock
Scott Colwell
Scott Colwell
Scott Colwell
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation
Content uploaded by Brita Ball
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brita Ball on Jan 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Methodology
Using a quantitative approach, we surveyed personnel at meat plants
in Ontario and obtained 124 useable surveys.
Survey instrument
•Based on a qualitative study and literature (Wilcock, 2010)
•65 scale items as well as demographic questions
•Scale items related to five areas:
–management commitment to food safety (including
leadership and resource allocation)
–work unit commitment to food safety (including supervisor,
co-worker and personal commitment)
–food safety training
–infrastructure for food safety (including food safety
management system, food safety personnel and production
practices)
–worker food safety behavior
•Response options for scale items based on a 7-point Likert scale
anchored at
–strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) for 58 items
–never (1) and always (7) for the remaining 7 items regarding
personnel behavior
•Face validity assessed by experts in the field
Survey administration
•Self administered by
–all personnel at small plants
–all salaried personnel and hourly quality assurance/food
safety personnel at medium//large plants
Participating firms
•Five further-processing establishments
Data analysis
•124 useable questionnaires after standard procedures for data
screening
•Factor and reliability analyses conducted using SPSS 17
–Principal axis factoring using direct oblimin rotation on the
correlation matrix; missing value cases excluded pairwise
–Four scale items removed due to low communalities as
recommended by Costello and Osborne (2005)
– Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis on all 15 factors; scale
items removed to improve αas needed
Results and Discussion
Fifteen factors with Eigenvalues of greater than 1 were extracted. One factor had a considerably higher Eigenvalue (22.214) than the
others (3.386-1.062). As was expected, the analysis matricies showed considerable cross loading. Most items loaded at >.400 on two
or more factors, suggesting the potential for higher order factors (i.e., factors that contain several subfactors) (Table 1). Tests of
sampling adequacy were acceptable (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .665; Bartlett’s test of sphericity (homogeneity of variances)
χ2 = 5502.609 (1830) , ρ< .001). Fifty-one of the scale items remained after the reliability analysis on the fifteen extracted factors;
Cronbach’s alpha scores for the constructs ranged from .668 to .922.
Work unit commitment to food safety as a higher order factor contained elements of worker commitment to food safety as well as
supervisor commitment to food safety (through positive and negative actions) and supportive communication. Personal understanding
of food safety (roles and knowledge about tasks) was distinct from work unit commitment and behavior, although this may be due to
this factor being answered by personnel at various levels. Management commitment items cross loaded with more factors than other
items and showed several distinct subfactors. Food safety system support items also cross loaded, suggesting this factor may influence
or be influenced by other factors.
The development of valid measurement items provides the necessary tools required to research food safety culture. This tool will
enable the quantitative investigation of key factors that contribute to food safety behavior. This supports the concept of food safety
climate, an aspect of food safety culture.
Introduction
What is ―food safety culture‖? How can you measure it?
There is little quantitative evidence to support the claim that there is a
definable ―culture‖ that contributes to appropriate behavior of
workers in food plants. Climate, often considered a snapshot of
culture, is a useful proxy. Health and safety literature contains
validated scales for safety culture and climate; there are no
comparable scales to assess food safety culture or climate.
Yiannas (2009) describes various attributes of a food safety culture,
including strong leadership and commitment to food safety
throughout the organization.
Popular thought is that management commitment determines worker
food safety behaviour (Ball et al. 2009). Training has been shown to
be an important element—ensuring that workers know what they
ought to do—yet it does not necessarily translate into practice
(Griffith 2010). Ball et al. (2010) identified that work unit factors and
food safety system requirements also contribute to desired behavior.
The objective of this study was to validate a measurement tool for
identifying key factors that influence meat plant workers to follow
food safety behaviors in their plants.
References
1. Ball, B., Wilcock, A. and M. Aung. 2009. Factors influencing workers to follow food safety management
systems in meat plants in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Environmental Health Research,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 201-18.
2. Ball, B., Wilcock, A. and M. Aung. 2010. Background factors affecting the implementation of food safety
management systems. Food Protection Trends, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 78-86.
3. Costello, A B. and J.W. Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation,
Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9. Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7.
4. Griffith, C.J. 2010. Do businesses get the food poisoning they deserve? The importance of food safety
culture. British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 416-425.
5. Wilcock, A. 2010. Validation of factors identified as influencing employee adherence to practices in food
safety systems: A meat industry perspective, Final Report for OMAFRA Competitive Research Program.
(Guelph, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Research and Innovation Branch).
6. Yiannas, F. 2009. Food safety culture: Creating a behavior-based food safety management system.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Tool For Measuring Food Safety Climate
Brita Ball1, Anne Wilcock2 and Scott Colwell2
1Department of Food Science and 2Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph
Table1. Structure matrix
Factor
Scale
item
WUC1
WUC2
WUC3
ComWWU
PersC1
PersC2
Training
MGTC1
MGTC2
MGTC3
FSSyst
GMPs1
GMPs2
Behav1
Behav2
1
-0.769
0.534
0.412
2
-0.767
0.564
3
-0.714
0.427
4
-0.543
5
-0.826
0.479
0.409
7
-0.483
0.751
-0.458
-0.487
0.413
8
-0.472
0.820
-0.533
0.449
9
-0.540
0.731
10
0.720
-0.413
11
-0.405
0.829
0.428
12
-0.515
0.793
13
-0.423
0.547
-0.533
-0.459
14
0.595
-0.571
15
-0.707
16
-0.401
0.655
-0.453
0.420
17
-0.411
-0.815
0.450
18
-0.811
19
0.436
21
0.810
22
0.494
0.419
23
0.698
24
0.793
25
0.789
26
-0.882
0.411
27
-0.905
28
-0.410
0.419
-0.599
-0.708
-0.474
0.472
29
-0.594
-0.681
-0.420
0.462
30
0.426
-0.517
-0.570
-0.573
-0.422
31
-0.774
-0.476
32
0.453
-0.422
-0.570
0.630
-0.463
0.463
33
0.429
-0.565
0.662
-0.475
0.440
34
0.401
-0.618
0.563
0.615
35
0.470
-0.437
-0.653
0.446
-0.458
0.538
36
-0.744
37
0.416
-0.601
-0.662
38
0.461
-0.578
0.444
-0.685
39
-0.408
0.498
-0.550
0.401
-0.590
40
0.404
-0.409
-0.426
-0.814
41
-0.494
-0.828
42
-0.431
0.443
0.519
0.462
43
-0.439
0.529
0.428
44
0.723
0.415
45
0.529
-0.617
46
0.478
-0.407
0.456
0.480
48
-0.458
0.433
-0.456
0.651
49
0.712
50
-0.442
0.435
-0.585
0.759
51
-0.493
0.516
52
-0.506
0.450
-0.462
-0.463
-0.466
0.427
53
0.519
-0.420
0.410
0.478
0.428
54
0.668
55
0.581
56
0.470
0.468
0.488
0.404
0.435
57
0.457
0.535
0.454
58
0.804
B1
-0.412
-0.409
0.484
0.501
B2
-0.667
B4
0.630
B5
0.776
B6
0.732
B7
0.405
-0.407
0.608
Items loading in Pattern Matrix
Highest loading of scale items not in Pattern Matrix
Constructs identified from extracted factors
Management commitment
MGTC1. Actions (α=.822)
30. Management encourages workers to report all food safety problems or
deviations.
31. Management believes that food safety is very important.
35. Even if no one were looking, managers would follow all the food safety rules.
36. Management will only allow product to be shipped to customers if it is in full
conformance with food safety program requirements.
MGTC2. Leadership shown (α=.839)
32. Management shows leadership by keeping people focused on food safety.
33. Management visibly shows support for food safety (“walks the talk”).
44. Upper management in this plant requires each manager to help improve food
safety in his/her department.
MGTC3. Resource commitment (α=.901)
37. Management provides adequate resources for training and/or education for
food safety.
38. Upper management in this plant gives food safety a high priority when setting
production speed and schedules.
39. Upper management in this plant gives food safety personnel the power
(authority) they need to do their jobs.
40. Upper management in this plant invests a lot of money in food safety training
for workers.
41. Upper management in this plant invests a lot of time in food safety training for
workers.
45. Upper management in this plant spends the money needed for us to maintain
our food safety program.
Infrastructure
Food safety system support (α=.838)
48. Food safety/quality personnel at this plant are very knowledgeable about food
safety.
49. The top food safety person in this plant is very qualified for the job.
50. There is an effective food safety committee and/or HACCP team.
GMPs 1 (α=.668)
54. Equipment is designed to allow for proper cleaning.
55. The equipment maintenance program is effective such that equipment rarely
breaks down during a shift.
GMPs 2 (α=.691)
56. Maintenance personnel know what to do to avoid cross-contamination in
production areas.
57. The sanitation program is effective such that equipment does not need to be
re-cleaned before a shift starts.
58. The pest control program is effective such that there is no sign of rodents
and/or insects in the plant.
Behavior
Worker negative (α=.653)
B4. Workers chew gum or eat snacks in the plant. (reversed)
B5. Workers avoid washing their hands when they can get away with it. (reversed)
Various positive (α=.718)
34. Managers follow all the food safety rules in the plant.
B1. Food safety/quality personnel at this plant follow the food safety rules.
B6. Workers wear their hair nets so they cover their ears and keep their hair in
place.
B7. Maintenance personnel follow the food safety rules in the plant.
Work unit commitment
WUC1. Worker commitment (α=.894)
1. Workers are committed to our food safety program.
2. Workers encourage each other to follow food safety rules.
3. Workers take responsibility for food safety in their work areas.
5. Even if no one were looking, workers would follow all the food safety
rules.
B2. Workers follow the food safety rules in the plant.
WUC2. Supervisor positive (α=.922)
7. Supervisors believe food safety is very important.
8. Supervisors show a personal interest in food safety.
9. Supervisors make sure workers follow all the food safety rules all of the
time.
10. Supervisors emphasize food safety rules when workers are under
pressure to meet production deadlines.
11. Supervisors make sure workers have all the equipment and/or tools
needed to follow the food safety rules.
12. Supervisors often check to see that all workers are obeying the food
safety rules.
16. Even if no one were looking, supervisors would follow all the food
safety rules.
WUC3. Supervisor negative (α=.683)
14. Supervisors sometimes encourage workers to do things that are
against the food safety rules. (reversed)
15. Supervisors sometimes look the other way when workers are not
following food safety rules. (reversed)
Supportive communication( α=.804)
13. Supervisors praise workers who pay special attention to food safety.
17. Supervisors get input from workers to improve the food safety
program.
18. Food safety/quality personnel at this plant ask for ideas to make it
easier for workers to follow food safety rules.
Personal understanding
Role in food safety (α=.667)
21. I believe that how well I do my job can affect the safety of the food the
consumer gets.
23. I know the food safety problems that can happen if I do not do my job
correctly.
Task knowledge (α=.831)
24. I know when I should change my gloves and/or other clothing to
protect product from contamination.
25. I know why I should change my gloves and/or other clothing to protect
product from contamination.
Food safety training (α=.904)
26. Workers receive adequate (good enough) training to properly follow
the food safety rules.
27. Workers receive adequate (good enough) training to properly follow
our standard procedures.
28. New workers receive all the training they need to perform their jobs
according to food safety rules.
29. The food safety training provided gives us the necessary skills and/or
knowledge to follow the food safety rules.
... Several studies have surveyed workers in a variety of settings in an attempt to develop a food safety culture assessment model. These researchers have assessed meat workers (Ball et al., 2010), culinary students (Neal et al., 2012), school food service workers (Abidin et al., 2014), and workers in a European meat distribution company (De Boeck et al., 2015). Taha et al. (2020) examined organizational factors and worker beliefs in food manufacturing plants. ...
... We developed a survey for restaurant food workers based on the constructs proposed by Griffith et al. (2010a) and previously administered surveys (Ball et al., 2010;De Boeck et al., 2015;Neal et al., 2012). A workgroup composed of EHS-Net health department staff designed the survey to apply to all types of restaurants, rather than for a specific company as previous researchers have done (i.e., our survey assessed handwashing resources, something that is relevant in all restaurants). ...
... Similar to other models, we identified a Leadership factor ( Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). Differences between our model and others may be because food safety culture constructs differ across settings (Abidin et al., 2014;Ball et al., 2010;De Boeck et al., 2015;Neal et al., 2012;Taha et al., 2020). Our findings might also be the result of our sample being comprised of a large and heterogenous (331 restaurants spread across eight different jurisdictions) sample compared with the limited sampling frames available to other researchers. ...
Development of an Empirically Derived Measure of Food Safety Culture in Restaurants
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2023
  • J FOOD PROTECT
A poor food safety culture has been described as an emerging risk factor for foodborne illness outbreaks, yet there has been little research on this topic in the retail food industry. The purpose of this study was to identify and validate conceptual domains around food safety culture and develop an assessment tool that can be used to assess food workers' perceptions of their restaurant's food safety culture. The study, conducted from March 2018 through March 2019, surveyed restaurant food workers for their level of agreement with 28 statements. We received 579 responses from 331 restaurants spread across eight different health department jurisdictions. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling supported a model composed of four primary constructs. The highest rated construct was Resource Availability (x¯=4.69, sd=0.57), which assessed the availability of resources to maintain good hand hygiene. The second highest rated construct was Employee Commitment (x¯=4.49, sd=0.62), which assessed workers' perceptions of their coworkers' commitment to food safety. The last two constructs were related to management. Leadership (x¯=4.28, sd=0.69) assessed the existence of food safety policies, training, and information sharing. Management Commitment (x¯=3.94, sd=1.05) assessed whether food safety was a priority in practice. Finally, the model revealed one higher-order construct, Worker Beliefs about Food Safety Culture (x¯=4.35, sd=0.53). The findings from this study can support efforts by the restaurant industry, food safety researchers, and health departments to examine the influence and effects of food safety culture within restaurants.
View
... Several commercial tools have also emerged e.g., VEST framework by SGS and Culture Excellence by Taylor Shannon International. Various researchers have also developed several tools to assess food safety culture in different sectors of the food industry ( [5][6][7]; Jespersen et al., 2014, [8,9]). These different frameworks and assessments offer different levels of depth when analysing food safety culture [10]. ...
Assessing reliability and validity of food safety culture assessment tools
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2024
Since its recognition as a plausible direction to assure food safety, food safety culture research has evolved with several commercial and scientific assessment tools developed to evaluate the food safety culture in food businesses. However, existing research does not specify the validity and reliability checks required to demonstrate rigor in the tool development process and there is no unified methodology to confirm robustness of the tools to ensure trustworthiness and usefulness of findings and inferences generated. The purpose of the study was to develop a method to evaluate food safety culture assessment tools and to assess the reliability and validity of existing food safety culture assessment tools using the developed method. Eleven elements were found to be key in validating food safety culture assessment tools. Of the eight tools assessed, only one tool (CT2) was validated on each of the elements. The depth of validation strategies differed for each tool. Three out of the five commercial tools published peer reviewed publications that demonstrated the validation checks that were done. Face validation, and pilot testing were evident and appeared to be done the most. Whilst content, ecological, and cultural validity were the least validated for scientific tools, factor analysis and reliability checks were the least evaluated for commercial tools. None of the tools were assessed for postdictive validity, concurrent validity and the correlation coefficient relating to construct validity. Having an established science-based approach is key as it provides a way to determine the trustworthiness of established assessment tools against accepted methods.
View
... O conceito de Cultura de Segurança (CS) tem sido estudado nos últimos 25 anos por muitos pesquisadores de diferentes formações acadêmicas. Nestes estudos, identificamos duas perspectivas distintas da questão: a abordagem de engenharia que foca principalmente nos aspectos formais da organização que influenciam a segurança (procedimentos, sistemas gerenciais, controles e políticas), e uma abordagem psicológica focada na percepção, sentimentos e atitudes dos trabalhadores, referentes ao clima de segurança e riscos da organização (Antonsen, 2009;Ball, Wilcock & Colwell, 2010;Brannon, York, Roberts, Shanklin & Howells, 2009). ...
ÍNDICE DE MATURIDADE ORGANIZACIONAL DA CULTURA DE SEGURANÇA DA ALIMENTOS (IMCSA): ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DE DUAS FÁBRICAS BRASILEIRAS DO SETOR DE ALIMENTOS E BEBIDAS
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2023
Muitas organizações do setor de alimentos e bebidas estão desenvolvendo práticas e estratégias para internalizar a Cultura de Segurança de Alimentos (CSA). Este artigo apresenta uma análise comparativa da aplicação de um modelo conceitual que identifica o Índice de Maturidade Organizacional da Cultura de Segurança de Alimentos (IMCSA), fundamentado na literatura de Cultura Organizacional, Cultura de Segurança e CSA, em duas fábricas localizadas no norte e no sul do Brasil, ambas do setor de alimentos e bebidas.Este modelo que inclui nove dimensões (pressão do trabalho, infraestrutura, responsabilidade, percepção de risco, sistema de gerenciamento, liderança, comunicação, trabalho em equipe e comprometimento) classifica o IMCSA das organizações numa escala de cinco níveis de cultura:imatura, reativa, gerenciada, madura e internalizada. A partir da análise quantitativa de 276 questionários respondidos por amostras estratificadas de gerentes e não-gerentes das duas fábricas, complementadas com a análise qualitativa de 30 entrevistas e 15 grupos focais, evidenciamos que as duas fábricas possuíam uma cultura gerenciada e não apresentavam o nível de benchmarking internacional esperado em Segurança de Alimentos. Neste nível de maturidade a segurança de alimentos é importante mas ainda não é um valor inegociável nas práticas de toda a organização.
View
... In 2012, the first empirical studies were published in a peer-reviewed journal (Neal, Binkley, & Henroid, 2012;Sarter & Sarter, 2012), as well as a conference abstract (grey literature) by Ball, Wilcock, and Colwell (2010). (2019), and . ...
The evolvement of food safety culture assessment: A mixed-methods systematic review
Article
  • Sep 2021
  • TRENDS FOOD SCI TECH
Background Food safety culture (FS-culture) is recognised as an important phenomenon that drives food handlers’ behaviours. Various tools and approaches have been developed to assess FS-culture. Scope and approach We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to analyse the evolvement of scientific FS-culture assessment tools, their approaches to quantitative and qualitative data collection, their integration system to accurately interpret FS-culture, the depth of their culture analysis, and the recommendations to improve FS-culture. Searches were conducted in six databases for studies published until November 2020. Included studies investigated FS-culture using quantitative/qualitative/mixed-methods, conceptualised FS-culture elements/dimensions, and made recommendations to improve FS-culture. A mixed-methods synthesis was performed using thematic content analysis. Key findings and conclusions Of the 264 records, 47 were included. People, communication, commitment, leadership, food safety management systems, risk, and work environment were the most prevalent elements/dimensions used to assess FS-culture; however, there was no standard approach. Questionnaires were used as the main method to assess FS-culture. Less FS-culture assessment tools used both quantitative and qualitative methods, and a few provided an approach for data triangulation to accurately conclude the prevailing FS-culture. Most of the FS-culture tools allowed the visible aspects assessment rather than the deeper layers. The main recommendation to improve FS-culture addressed people by developing specific training. The FS-culture assessment tools evolved, however, most of them do not yet provide an assessment of the deeper layer of culture. Continuous observations and action research combined with other methods may support in gaining insights into the deeper layers underlying the prevailing FS-culture.
View
... The food safety climate is mainly understood as the organizational attitude, awareness, knowledge, learning and training in food hygiene, communication and trust. The food safety climate is increasingly recognized as an intrinsic environment of an organization that is recognized by the employees involved in food safety [81]. Because the food safety climate within an organization is an important factor in generating a hygienic work environment and providing safe food, the relevant research is meaningful for the determination of the factors needed to establish a food safety climate in hotel kitchens. ...
The Effect of Food Sustainability and the Food Safety Climate on the Job Stress, Job Satisfaction and Job Commitment of Kitchen Staff
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2021
Background: The food safety climate within an organization represents the job environment that affects the safe management of food and reveals the characteristics of employees. This study aimed to help establish a food safety climate in hotel kitchens that would reduce job stress and increase job satisfaction and employee engagement. Methods: This study was conducted with 570 chefs in 12 five-star hotels in South Korea using a questionnaire-based survey. A total of 570 questionnaires were distributed; 504 usable responses were used in the empirical analysis. Results: The results of this study are summarized as follows. First, among the food safety climate factors perceived by hotel chefs, leadership, resources and communication affect job stress. Second, all five factors of the food safety climate affect the job satisfaction of hotel chefs. Among these factors, leadership, responsibility and communication have positive effects on job satisfaction, while risk awareness and resources have negative effects. Third, the leadership and resources of the food safety climate have positive effects on job commitment. (4) Conclusions: This study has useful recommendations for the service industry, especially the hotel industry, for better human resource management, emphasizing food sustainability in kitchen staff job performance enhancement.
View
... The moderating role of employee commitment on handwashing frequency Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) defines commitment as "a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to a target" and is not contingent on positive attitudes as drivers of behavior. Commitment was an indicator of food safety climate in several assessments (Ball et al., 2010;De Boeck et al., 2015;Fatimah et al., 2014a;Neal et al., 2012;Reynolds et al., 2017). Employee commitment can be thought of as the combination of how likely a worker considers a goal, such as adhering to HW guidelines, to be attainable and the importance they assign to that goal (Latham, 2012). ...
Exploring the influence of food safety climate indicators on handwashing practices of restaurant food handlers
Article
  • Jul 2018
  • Int J Hospit Manag
Recent models have conceptualized food safety climate as a subcomponent of food safety culture that consists of the shared values and perceptions of employees. The present study sought to understand how food safety climate indicators including commitment, role overload, and contingent rewards affect handwashing frequency of restaurant food handlers (n = 124). Managerial commitment was the only variable significantly correlated with handwashing frequency r(120) =.313, p <.001. A multiple regression model showed managerial commitment was a significant predictor of handwashing frequency, F(1,117) = 12.70, p <.001, R² =.098. Role overload moderated the relationship between goal level and handwashing frequency, but only when role overload was low, b =.530, (115) t = 2.02, p =.046, suggesting the presence of competing subcultures. Managers should prioritize a food safety culture and structure jobs in such a way that promotes food safety behavior execution.
View
... infrastructure, equipment, tools), values and behaviour (e.g. Yiannas, 2009;Ball, Wilcock, & Colwell, 2010;Ungku Fatimah et al., 2014b;De Boeck et al., 2015). These elements are interdependent (Taylor, 2011;Wright et al., 2012). ...
Determinants for conducting food safety culture research
Article
  • Aug 2016
  • TRENDS FOOD SCI TECH
Background Foodborne outbreaks continue to occur regardless of existing food safety measures indicating the shortcomings of these measures to assure food safety. This has led to the recognition of food safety culture as a key contributory factor to the food safety performance of food establishments. Scope and approach The aim of this paper is to identify determinants for conducting food safety culture research, using the systems approach as the underlying philosophy to guide the structured reconsideration of national, organisational and safety culture literature, in view of food safety. Key findings and conclusions Food safety culture is complex and many interlinking factors are at play. The analysis of ‘culture’ literature showed that food safety culture research should acknowledge the impact of national culture, specify hierarchical level(s) (strategic, tactical, and operational), establish underlying mechanisms, and consider the company's food risks and context characteristics. Major elements to be considered in food safety culture research include organisational and administrative characteristics (i.e. food safety vision, communication, commitment, leadership, training), technical facilities/resources (i.e. food hygiene/safety tools, equipment, & facilities), employee characteristics (i.e. attitudes, knowledge, perceptions and risk awareness), group characteristics, crucial FSMS characteristics, and actual food safety performance. Methodological requirements for food safety culture research include use of the systems approach, measurable indicators, classification systems for differentiated assessment, and use of multiple methods to enhance research validity. The identified food safety culture research determinants provide an underpinned and transparent starting point to the common understanding and research of food safety culture.
View
... In the reference literature, there is a fairly extensive collection of publications on food safety culture and its elements. Based on the review of reference literature and assumptions therein [1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15], the following six elements of food safety culture are to be specified: priorities and attitudes of employees (1); awareness and knowledge about the occurrence of food safety hazards (2); confidence in the food safety management system implemented in the organization (3); employees' responsibility and commitment (4); competence and training on food safety (5); and management involvement and its role (6). It should be added that in the reference literature there is considerably less information about methods and examples of food safety culture measurement and assessment . ...
OCENA KULTURY BEZPIECZE Ń STWA Ż YWNO Ś CI NA PRZYK Ł ADZIE DWÓCH ZAK Ł ADÓW
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2015
S t r e s z c z e n i e Food safety is the most significant issue for any entity that operates in the food chain; it is also a prerequisite for entering the market and, in most of the countries, it is guaranteed by law. Advanced solutions in medicine, food science, technology and production processes, implementing the HACCP system and good practices are very useful, though they are not able to prevent food safety hazards, in particular the human factor-dependent risks. Such factors as inappropriate behaviour of employees, failure to follow set practices, procedures, norms or values are deemed to be proof of lacking food safety culture. The objective of the article is to present a methodology to measure and assess food safety culture and to explain it using the example of two medium-sized food manufacturing companies in Poland. The methodology applied includes 15 aspects of food safety culture that were categorized into 6 elements. That methodology made it possible to identify both the level of particular elements of food safety culture and the its overall level that was rated as excelling on the basis of the survey performed. The methodology at issue can be recommended for applications by other organizations in the food industry.
View
Food safety culture in food companies amid the Lebanese economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic
Article
  • Sep 2023
The challenges to food safety in Lebanon are many and have worsened due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Lebanese economic crisis. Against a backdrop of loosely enforced food laws and regulations, a cross-sectional study was carried out in 23 Lebanese food companies on 204 participants using a validated online food safety culture self-assessment tool consisting of 28 indicators. Food safety motivation, burnout/job stress and conscientiousness and their impact on food safety culture were also investigated. Overall, the perceived food safety culture was “good” with a mean value of 119.1 over 140 (equivalent to 4.3/5). A young workforce, the female gender, a science background, and a university degree were associated with a higher food safety culture. The food safety culture score was also perceived higher among participants who attended food safety trainings, and among those working at the managerial level and in the quality department. In addition, the results showed that the food safety culture was significantly better in companies exporting their goods than companies with no international market exposure (121.6 vs 118.1). Moreover, Food safety motivation (mean score 4.1/5) and conscientiousness (3.5/5) were moderately associated with a positive food safety culture. However, the low burnout/job stress scores (2.8/5) may exhibit a negative impact on the food safety culture and could be related to several consequences caused by the Lebanese economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. Further studies are to be conducted to understand better the causal effects relationship.
View
An empirical investigation of food safety culture in onsite foodservice operations
Article
  • Dec 2014
  • FOOD CONTROL
Limited studies have explored employees' perceptions of food safety culture in onsite foodservices, despite the growing recognition of the impact of improving food safety practices. A cross-sectional paper-based survey was conducted with nonsupervisory employees (n = 582) from health care and school foodservice operations (n = 51) in three Midwest states to assess food safety culture using an instrument developed and validated in this specific context. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which employees' perceptions of food safety culture differ based on demographic variables and operation characteristics (management system, size, and type of operation). Employees' perceptions of food safety culture were evaluated on factors of management and coworkers support, communication, self-commitment, environment support, work pressure, and risk judgment. Areas of strength and potential improvement were identified; significant differences found in employees' perceptions can guide development of interventions that support safe food handling practices in onsite foodservices.
View
Background Factors Affecting the Implementation of Food Safety Management Systems
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2010
Why don't workers follow Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) guidelines? Socio-psychological models have been used to describe factors that influence the implementation of food safety management systems (FSMSs) in food processing facilities. The theory of planned behavior posits that perceived control over one's own behavior, one's attitude and the influence of others are antecedents of behavioral intention and/or behavior. The objectives of this study were to identify background factors that influence food safety behaviors of production workers in small and medium sized meat processing facilities and examine how these factors are applicable to the theory of planned behavior. Using a qualitative approach, the researchers conducted 13 in-depth interviews at five meat plants and two focus group interviews with representatives of government and industry agencies. These interviews generated 219 single-spaced pages of verbatim transcripts, which were analyzed by use of NVivo 7 software. Ten themes found in the data relate to elements in the theory of planned behavior that were demonstrated to be applicable to a meat processing establishment. Confirmation of factors having the strongest influence on production workers in meat plants may assist in developing targeted interventions that improve the implementation of FSMSs in the meat and other food processing sectors.
View
Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2005
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a complex, multi-step process. The goal of this paper is to collect, in one article, information that will allow researchers and practitioners to understand the various choices available through popular software packages, and to make decisions about "best practices" in exploratory factor analysis. In particular, this paper provides practical information on making decisions regarding (a) extraction, (b) rotation
View
Factors influencing workers to follow food safety management systems in meat plants in Ontario, Canada
Article
Full-text available
Small and medium sized food businesses have been slow to adopt food safety management systems (FSMSs) such as good manufacturing practices and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). This study identifies factors influencing workers in their implementation of food safety practices in small and medium meat processing establishments in Ontario, Canada. A qualitative approach was used to explore in-plant factors that influence the implementation of FSMSs. Thirteen in-depth interviews in five meat plants and two focus group interviews were conducted. These generated 219 pages of verbatim transcripts which were analysed using NVivo 7 software. Main themes identified in the data related to production systems, organisational characteristics and employee characteristics. A socio-psychological model based on the theory of planned behaviour is proposed to describe how these themes and underlying sub-themes relate to FSMS implementation. Addressing the various factors that influence production workers is expected to enhance FSMS implementation and increase food safety.
View
Do businesses get the food poisoning they deserve?: The importance of food safety culture
Article
  • Apr 2010
  • BRIT FOOD J
Purpose – Food poisoning remains a major public health problem and 2009 has seen major outbreaks with both financial and social implications. The aim of this paper is to examine whether a business gets the food poisoning it deserves and to assess the role of management including food safety culture in outbreaks. Design/methodology/approach – Factors influencing the likelihood of a business causing food poisoning are considered and discussed using four categories or variables. These are then applied in a case study of an E coli O157 outbreak. Findings – The risk of a business causing food poisoning depends on the types of foods produced, the people consuming the food and where the business sources its raw materials. These need to be considered in relation to the hygiene behaviour of the food handlers employed. Food safety does not happen by accident and to produce safe food consistently, especially on a large scale, requires management. Management includes the systems that are used and the organizational food safety culture of compliance with those systems. Food poisoning will never be totally prevented; however, to a considerable extent, a business does get the food poisoning it deserves. Originality/value – This paper presents a novel approach to understanding the risk of a business causing food poisoning and will be of use to investigators, food safety inspectors, educators and industry.
View
Validation of factors identified as influencing employee adherence to practices in food safety systems: A meat industry perspective, Final Report for OMAFRA Competitive Research Program. (Guelph, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
  • Jan 2010
  • A Wilcock
Wilcock, A. 2010. Validation of factors identified as influencing employee adherence to practices in food safety systems: A meat industry perspective, Final Report for OMAFRA Competitive Research Program. (Guelph, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Research and Innovation Branch).
Food safety culture: Creating a behavior-based food safety management system
  • Jan 2009
  • F Yiannas
Yiannas, F. 2009. Food safety culture: Creating a behavior-based food safety management system. Springer-Verlag, New York.