Content uploaded by Frank Scrimgeour
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frank Scrimgeour
Content may be subject to copyright.
HACCP/RMP ADOPTION IN THE NEW ZEALAND MEAT INDUSTRY
Kay Cao
Dept. of Economics, Waikato Management School, New Zealand
Email: kaycao@waikato.ac.nz
and
Frank Scrimgeour
Dept. of Economics, Waikato Management School, New Zealand
Email: scrim@waikato.ac.nz
Prepared for presentation at the AARES conference, Melbourne, Australia, Feb 2004
Copyright 2004 by Kay Cao and Frank Scrimgeour
Abstract
In New Zealand, the Animal Products Act 1999 requires that all animal product
primary processing businesses must have a risk management programme (RMP)
based on the principles of Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP).
However, due to market access requirements, many primary food exporters have
voluntarily adopted HACCP systems for food safety management since the 1990s.
This paper studies the process of HACCP/RMP adoption and the transition from
voluntary HACCP to mandatory RMP in the New Zealand Meat industry. The main
issues explored are plants’ motivations, implementation problems, costs and benefits
associated with the implementation of HACCP/RMP. The paper concludes with
implications for policy design and further research.
Key words: HACCP/RMP implementation, HACCP/RMP benefits and costs, New
Zealand Meat Industry
2
1. Background
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) was established from 1 July 2002
to administer food safety legislation covering food for sale on the domestic market
and exported food. This is a merger of the responsibilities for food safety previously
held by the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(MAF). Prior to the establishment of the NZFSA, the Animal Products Act 1999 was
implemented which eventually replaced the Meat Act 1981. Significant drivers for
this reform were growing consumer concerns about food safety and changes in food
safety legislations in overseas markets. These are reflected clearly in the stated aims
of the reform: (1) to manage associated risks; and (2) to facilitate overseas market
access (NZFSA, 2002).
The Animal Products Act 1999 requires that all animal product primary processing
businesses must have a risk management programme (RMP) based on the principles
of Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP). This is phased in four
stages from July 2003 till July 2006. Most licensed red meat processors, export
seafood processors and packing houses are required to have a RMP by the end of the
first period (July 2003).
Due to market access requirements, many primary food exporters have voluntarily
adopted HACCP systems for food safety management since the 1990s. The Animal
Products Act recognises these systems by allowing a roll-over for existing MAF
approved HACCP. Moreover, a streamlined approach to RMP adoption developed in
September 2002 also facilitates the move-over from HACCP to RMP. Nevertheless,
the mandate of RMP does add in some costs to the industries in terms of both time
and money.
This paper aims to study the process of HACCP/RMP adoption in the New Zealand
Meat industry. We chose Meat industry as it is one of first industries which have to
comply with the 2003 deadline. Also, being an export-oriented industry, the Meat
industry provides a typical case of the transition from voluntary HACCP to mandatory
RMP. The main issues addressed in this study include plants’ motivations,
implementation problems, costs and benefits associated with the implementation of
HACCP/RMP. Moreover, differences in the implementation experience for different
plant sizes are analysed.
2. Literature Review
Since the emergence of HACCP as a food safety management system and especially
after the mandate of HACCP implementation in some significant markets such as the
USA, there have been studies considering the implementation process and the
impacts, as well as costs and benefits of this implementation on food businesses.
Significant studies using survey as an approach to analyse the process of HACCP
implementation such as those of Martin and Anderson (2000), Colatore and Caswell
(2000), Mortlock et al (2000), Buchweitz and Salay (2000), Nganje and Mozzocco
(2000), Siebert et al (2000), and Henson et al (2000) have revealed the international
experiences regarding the adoption of HACCP. Our study employed a similar
approach to the above-mentioned studies, in which a survey is conducted to gather
3
information regarding firms’ experiences with the process of HACCP
implementation. The unique feature in the case of New Zealand food firms (especially
New Zealand meat companies) is that they have both experiences with the voluntary
adoption of HACCP and mandatory adoption of RMP. Therefore, in designing this
study it is important to consider the complexity of the adoption process. Moreover,
recent study on the impacts of HACCP such as that of Cao et al (2004) has helped to
shape the framework of this study.
3. Survey design
The survey questionnaire consists of 5 sections1. Section 1 asks about the process of
RMP implementation such as the amount of time spent on plan design and
implementation, how the RMP was developed, and time since a completed RMP has
been in place. Section 2 asks about the process of HACCP implementation. Section 3
considers motivations in adopting HACCP/RMP, difficulties faced, and expected
benefits of having HACCP/RMP. Section 4 considers the costs associated with
implementing and operating HACCP/RMP. Section 5 gathers other plant
characteristics such as activities, age, products, size (in terms of number of
employees), volume of production, export markets and the adoption of other
quality/safety management systems than HACCP/RMP.
The questionnaire was tested through visiting to 2 plant sites and meeting with
industry representatives. The complete questionnaire were sent in July 2003 to all
members of the New Zealand Meat industry (excluding those visited for pre-test), i.e.
88 plants as listed in New Zealand Contacts in Agriculture 2002. Follow-up mails
were sent to non-respondents in October 2003. Total usable responses is 42, this
represents a valid response rate of 48%.
4. Descriptive statistics
Among respondents, 61% are large plants which employ more than 100 fulltime
equivalent employees (FTEs). Twelve percent (12%) of respondents are small plants
(employing less than 20 FTEs) and 27% are medium2.
About 47% of respondents are young plants which have been operating for less than
20 years. Of these young plants, more than 60% are small and medium plants (SMEs).
About a quarter of all respondents have been operating for more or less a hundred
years, most of them are large plants. Figure 1 shows the distribution of plant age.
Sixty six percent (66%) of respondents are doing both slaughtering and processing.
Among these, 76% are large, 24% are medium, none are small plants. See Figure 2 for
more details about plant activities.
1 A copy of the questionnaire is available from the authors on request
2 Classified according to Statistics New Zealand’s standards
4
Figure 1. Plant Age Figure 2. Plant Activities
Figure 3. Plant products
Twenty four percent (24%) of respondents handle just one animal type; 29% handle 3
animal types; and about 33% handle more than 4 animal types. Overall, the average
number of products for SMEs is 2.6 and for large plants is 3 (summarised in Table 1).
Eighty six percent (86%) of respondents export their products. Most of them are large
and medium plants. Small plants in general only serve the local market.
All plants have at least some forms of quality management systems (QMS). The most
common form is a combination of Sanitary Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs),
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), and Industry Codes of Practice (ICP) (29%).
Overall, about 14% have more than 5 QMSs, 76% have SSOPs and GMP in their
QMSs; and about 26% have all ISO9000, SSOPs, GMP, and ICP.
In general, SMEs are younger plants, have less complicated production process (i.e
less activities and number of products), less QMSs and smaller size of export markets.
These features will certainly have effects on the process of HACCP/RMP
implementation and the associated costs and benefits. Therefore, in the following
sections, we focus on plant size while analysing the implementation process of
HACCP/RMP.
5. HACCP/RMP implementation
As noted earlier, HACCP has been voluntary adopted by many members of the Meat
Industry since the 1990s. In 1999, after the legislation change from the Meat Act 1981
to the Animal Products Act 1999, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA)
Slaughter 9.76%
Proc ess 12.20%
slaughter/process 65.85%
slaughter/process/other 7.32%
slaughter/other 2.44%
process/other 2.44%
1 animal type 23.81%
2 anim al types 14.29%
3 animal types 28.57%
4 animal types 16.67%
5 animal types 14.29%
6 animal types 2.38%
Under 10 yrs 18.42%
11-20 yrs 28.95%
21-30 yrs 18.42%
31-40 yrs 7.89%
41-50 yrs 2.63%
>50 yrs 23.68%
5
started to mandate the implementation of Risk Management Program (RMP) which
basically developed from HACCP principles. The current situation reflects the
transition period from voluntary HACCP to mandatory RMP. As a result, some plants
have both HACCP and RMP, some either have HACCP or RMP, and some have none
of these programs.
As at September 2003, 90% of respondents have HACCP system in place. Most of
plants that do not have HACCP are small and medium plants serving the local
markets. Most HACCP plans were developed by plants’ employees (87%), just 13%
were developed by joint coordination with external consultants. Small and medium
plants (SMEs) lagged behind in adopting HACCP, just 81% SMEs have HACCP
while the rate of large plants is 96%.
Eighty three percent (83%) of respondents have a registered RMP in place. Again,
small and medium plants are far behind in implementing RMP, just 62.5% of SMEs
have completed RMP, while the rate of large plant adoption is still very high – 96%.
Seventy nine percent (79%) of respondents have both HACCP and RMP while 5%
have no HACCP and are developing RMP. Seventeen percent (17%) have either
HACCP or RMP.
Figures 4-7 illustrate the amount of time plants spent on designing and implementing
HACCP and RMP, and also the period that those systems have been in place. Average
time spent on developing HACCP is 5 months; for RMP, it is 8.5 months. In general,
SMEs spent less time on developing HACCP/RMP than large plants, perhaps because
of their less complicated production process. However, SMEs are slower than large
plants in adopting HACCP/RMP (e.g. time RMP in place is 6.8 months vs. 8 months
for large plants; and 4.3 years vs. 5.3 years with HACCP). This reflects that SMEs
have less incentive to adopt HACCP/RMP.
Summaries of plants’ descriptive statistics and HACCP/RMP implementation process
are presented in Table 1.
Figure 4. Time spent to implement RMP
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
<3mths 4-6mths 7-
12mths
>12mths
Percentage of repondents
Figure 6. Time spent to implement HACCP
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
<3mths 4-6mths 7-12mths
Percentage of respondents
6
Figure 5. Time RMP in place
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
<3 mths
< 6mths
7-12mths
13-18mths
19-24 mths
Cummulative percentage of
respondents
Table 1. Summaries of plants’ statistics and HACCP/RMP implementation process
(Mean score)
Statistics Large
plants
SMEs Total
Plant age 51.26 years 23.19 years 40.50 years
Activities (both Slaughtering&Processing) 91.67% 43.75% 65.85%
Average no. of products 3.00 2.68 2.90
Average no. of QMSs 3.64 2.75 3.29
Exporting plants 100% 71% 86%
Plants having RMP 96% 62.5% 83%
Plants having HACCP 96% 81.25% 90%
Plants developing RMP 4% 37.5% 17%
Plants having no HACCP 4% 18.75% 10%
Time spent developing RMP 9.12 mths 7.77 mths 8.59 mths
Time since RMP in place 8.07 mths 6.87 mths 7.8 mths
Time spent developing HACCP 6.05 mths 4.36 mths 5.15 mths
Time since HACCP in place 5.39 years 4.3 years 5.05 years
Hired consultants to design HACCP 8% 23% 13%
Hired consultants to design RMP 12.5% 35.71% 20%
5. Motivations
We presented respondents with a list of motivations in adopting HACCP/RMP which
have been suggested from the existing international literature (e.g. Henson et al, 2000;
Cao et al, 2004). Respondents were asked to rank the importance of each motivation
Figure 7. Time HACCP in place
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
< 3 yrs
3 yrs
4 yrs
5yrs
6-10yrs
11-13 yrs
Cummulative percentage of
respondents
7
on a 7-point scale. Alternatively, respondents can give a zero rank if they do not think
the suggested item is a motivation. Mean score and percentage of rank zero for each
motivation are reported in Table 2. In general, the three highest ranked motivations
are: (1) to meet legal requirement; (2) to access new overseas markets; and (3) to meet
the needs of major customers. According to Cao et al (2004), motivations can be
categorised into external and internal factors. External factors are those requirements
from customers or regulations or recommendations from industry associations.
Internal factors are the motivations to improve product quality and safety, to reduce
wastage, or to improve the control of the production process. Survey results show that
respondents in general ranked external motivations higher than internal ones. The
motivations ranked zero by the most respondents are reducing product wastage and
improving efficiency/profitability.
The analysis of motivations of different plant size reveals that in general SMEs are
not much different from large plants. The three highest ranked motivations remain the
same, just the orders are different. For example, ‘access new overseas markets’ was
ranked higher by SMEs than by large plants (6.08 vs. 5.38). This could be due to the
fact that large plants already have accesses to overseas market while many SMEs are
attempting to do so. More results for SMEs and large plants are reported in Tables 6-7
(See Appendix).
Table 2. Plants’ motivations in adopting HACCP/RMP
Motivation Mean score % rank 0
Meet legal requirements 6.70 0.00
Access new overseas markets 5.68 15.00
Meet the needs of major customers 5.67 2.50
Recommended by MAF/Industry Association 4.85 15.00
Improve product quality 4.57 12.50
Generally regarded as Board or CEO country wide policy 4.57 25.00
Attract new customers for products 4.52 17.50
Generally regarded as good practice 4.46 12.50
Improve control of production process 4.25 10.00
Needed for plant to be third party accredited 4.25 20.00
Improve efficiency/profitability of plants 4.13 42.50
Reduce need for quality audits by customers 4.12 37.50
Reduce customer complaints 3.64 30.00
Reduce product wastage 3.59 45.00
6. Costs
The pre-test survey suggested that plants often do not have a detailed record for costs
associated with the implementation of HACCP/RMP. In fact, survey results showed
8
that 93% of respondents do not keep a separate record for implementation costs.
Therefore, to have a feel about HACCP/RMP costs, we asked respondents to rank a
list of costs according to their importance in the total implementation cost. For
example, respondents were asked to give rank 1 for the largest cost, rank 2 for the
second largest and further. They were also asked to rank zero for the cost items that
have not been incurred. Mean score for each cost item and the percentage of ranking
one and zero are reported in Table 3.
The ranking of costs indicates that: (1) for implementation, design and development
costs seem to be the largest proportion; and (2) for operating costs, verification seems
to be the largest proportion. Ranking of implementation costs seems to agree with the
international experience (see for example the study of Henson et al (2000) about
HACCP adoption in the UK dairy industry), which found design and development
costs have the biggest weight especially in terms of staff time in documenting
systems. However, while the international experience seems to point to record
keeping as a highest proportion of operating costs, it was not indicated as such in this
survey. The lack of recorded data in terms of costs associated makes it impossible to
analyse the differences.
Both SMEs and large plants did not experience large costs spent on staff training or
new investment due to HACCP/RMP implementation. In fact, 63% of respondents
indicated that they have not experienced new investment in equipments or new
building. Verification costs ranked the first in operating costs as many respondents
have highlighted the fact that the verifying process is time consuming. The ranking
orders are quite similar for SMEs and large plants. Nevertheless, SMEs did
experienced the burden of record-keeping tasks (ranked second in operating costs).
More results for SMEs and large plants are presented in Tables 8-9 (See Appendix).
The analysis of costs associated with HACCP/RMP has to be taken with cautions.
Firstly, respondents did experience costs associated with HACCP for quite a long time
(average 4-5 years). However, as most of them do not have a separate record for
HACCP costs, recalling the amount spent maybe a difficult task. Secondly, RMP is a
new requirement with average time life of 7 months (Table 1). Therefore, viewing its
costs is not easy either, especially with operating costs. A longitudinal approach to
conducting survey maybe able to shed further lights on costs incurred with the
condition that plants have a record for RMP costs.
Table 3. HACCP/RMP costs
Implementation costs Mean Rank % rank 1 % rank 0
Design and development costs 1.60 57.14 0.00
Evaluation/Register costs 1.79 42.86 2.86
Training costs 2.50 20.00 14.29
Equipment purchases, new building 2.92 2.86 62.86
9
Operating costs Mean Rank % rank 1 % rank 0
Verification 1.32 68.57 2.86
Sampling/Testing 2.07 31.43 14.29
Record-keeping 2.39 17.14 11.43
Recurred training costs 3.07 17.14 22.86
7. Benefits
Respondents were presented with a list of benefits which have been suggested by
existing literature (Henson et al, 2000; Nganje and Mazzocco, 2000; and Cao et al,
2004). They were then asked to rank each benefit on a 7-point scale according to its
importance relative to the overall benefit of HACCP/RMP. They were also asked to
give a rank zero for the items that they did not observe as benefits. Mean score and
percentage rank zero for each suggested benefit are reported in Table 4.
In general, ‘to increase the ability to access new overseas market’ was ranked the
highest (5.9 out of 7). SMEs even view this benefit more important than large plants
(6.18 vs. 5.68, Table 10 Appendix). This shows that for SMEs adopting quality/safety
management systems like HACCP/RMP is a very important means to gain access to
overseas markets. ‘To reduce product microbial counts’ is also highly ranked
(overally 5.5 out of 7). This shows HACCP/RMP is perceived to increase the safety of
products which was observed by both SMEs and large plants. ‘To increase product
prices’ was ranked the lowest, however ‘to increase sales’ was highly ranked. This
once again shows the importance of gaining markets access as a result of
HACCP/RMP implementation.
Although all benefits were ranked high (lowest score is 4.1), many benefits were
ranked zero by a large proportion of respondents. This is particularly true for potential
internal benefits such as ‘reduced production costs’ (52% rank zero), ‘increasing
efficiency in the use of inputs’ (47%), and ‘reduced product rework’ (40%). These
results imply that while some plants enjoyed the benefits of HACCP/RMP as a
business management tool (beside safety/quality assurance), others had none of these
benefits. This can be explained partly by the ways in which businesses implement and
operate HACCP/RMP. It is argued that if HACCP/RMP being properly implemented
and operated they can improve the overall management system (Nganje and
Mazzocco, 2000). Some of the important factors in developing an effective
HACCP/RMP program are: (1) management and employment training and education;
(2) operator control; (3) team work; (4) effective communication between
management and workers; and (5) constancy of purpose by management (op cit).
10
Table 4. HACCP/RMP benefits
Benefit Mean score % rank 0
Increased ability to access new overseas markets 5.90 22.50
Reduced product microbial counts 5.50 45.00
Increased ability to attract new customers 5.35 22.50
Increased ability to retain existing customers 5.21 15.00
Increase sales 4.95 47.50
Reduced production costs 4.95 52.50
Increased control over operating process 4.89 32.50
Increased product shelf life 4.86 47.50
Reduced product rework 4.58 40.00
Increased efficiency in the use of inputs 4.55 50.00
Increased product prices 4.10 47.50
8. Implementation Problems
The analysis of problems associated with HACCP/RMP implementation was
conducted in a similar way as with motivations and benefits analysis. Results are
reported in Table 5. Overall, the highest ranked problem is recouping costs of
implementing HACCP/RMP (mean score of 5.09 out of 7). This indicates that
businesses are most concerned about the costs associated with the implementation.
Other high ranked problems are the lack of flexibility in introducing new products.
Indeed, some respondents highlighted the problems that processes cannot be changed
until a RMP amendment is approved. Costs in terms of time spent are also a concern.
SMEs in general are more concerned about the costs of HACCP/RMP than large
plants (mean score 5.43 vs. 4.8). They are also concerned about their size of business,
especially in terms of resources (staff, time, budget) available for the implementation
tasks. ‘Lack of expertise in HACCP/RMP implementation ‘ is reported by both SMEs
and large plants. This suggests that NZFSA may need to provide further assistance to
plants in the implementation process. Both SMEs and large plants have not
experienced much change in their production processes or the number of their
products due to the implementation. More results for SMEs and large plants are
presented in Tables 12-13 Appendix.
11
Table 5. Implementation Problems
Problem Mean score % rank 0
Recouping costs of implementing HACCP/RMP 5.09 12.50
Reduced flexibility to introduce new products 4.54 12.50
Reduced staff time available for other tasks 4.50 15.00
Reduced flexibility of production process 4.24 15.00
Lack of expertise in HACCP/RMP implementation 3.60 37.50
Need to retrain supervisory/managerial staff 3.42 5.00
Need to retrain production staff 3.42 10.00
Attitude/motivation of supervisory/managerial staff 3.42 17.50
Attitude/motivation of production staff 3.21 15.00
Reduced flexibility of production staff 3.00 25.00
Need to modify production process 2.36 30.00
Have to cut down number of products 2.26 52.50
We are too small for HACCP/RMP 2.25 70.00
9. Concluding remarks
Using information gathered through a survey of the members of the New Zealand
Meat Industry, this study has explored the experiences of businesses with the
implementation process of HACCP/RMP. Impacts of the implementation on
businesses, especially benefits and costs, have been assessed qualitatively. The
followings are the significant points conveyed by the study:
(1) The implementation process: Ninety percent (90%) of respondents had
HACCP in place for an average time of 5 years before the mandate of RMP. Most of
the adoptions were voluntary through customer requirements or market access
requirements. This leads to questions about the purposes of mandatory RMP as it is
not clear whether it adds benefits that are yet already achieved via HACCP. Many
respondents have voiced their opinion that RMP is in fact a waste of time and money.
On the other hand, judging the costs and benefits of RMP is not easy as it is newly
implemented. Nevertheless, NZFSA should consider this fact and have an effective
communication strategy to businesses.
Small and medium plants on average took less time to develop HACCP/RMP than
large plants, perhaps due to their less complicated production processes. However,
they lagged behind both in the adoption of HACCP and RMP. This reflects their lack
of incentives as well as their difficulties in terms of resources available for the
implementation tasks.
(2) Plants’ motivations: External factors such as meeting legal requirements,
customer requirements, and gaining market access are ranked higher than internal
factors such as increasing production efficiency or control of production process. This
12
implies respondents in general have known of HACCP/RMP as a marketing
advantage but not as a business management tool.
(3) Costs: The fact that most plants did not keep a separate record for costs
associated with HACCP/RMP implementation has limited further analysis on the
impacts of these programs (for example, impacts on production cost, profit, and
production efficiency). Among cost items, HACCP/RMP plan design, evaluation, and
verification costs were believed to be high proportions of total costs. Plants observed
less spend in record-keeping and equipment purchases.
(4) Benefits: Gaining market access was highly ranked among other benefits.
Also, the benefit of reduction in product microbial count was frequently cited. This
shows HACCP/RMP was perceived to deliver the two main objectives of the
legislation, i.e to manage risks and to facilitate market access. Another interesting
feature is that while many plants reported the benefits of HACCP/RMP as a
management tool (increasing efficiency and control of production process), many
others have seen none of these. This points to the importance of factors that lead to an
effective implementation of HACCP/RMP such as staff training and education, team
work, and communication between management staff and workers.
(5) Implementation problems: Respondents were highly concerned about the costs
of the implementation, especially with small and medium plants. Costs in terms of
reducing staff time available for other tasks and reducing the flexibility of the
production process are also a concern. Respondents also indicated the lack of
expertise in HACCP/RMP implementation, which suggests that NZFSA may need to
provide further assistance to plants.
As our study was conducted when RMP had not long been implemented (average 7.8
months, Table 1), a longitudinal approach to conducting survey maybe able to shed
further light on the benefits and costs of the implementation. It will also be better if
plants record their HACCP/RMP costs. Our suggestions for policy design are that (1)
NZFSA should have a better communication strategy to businesses, especially about
the benefits of RMP in terms of the uniformity of food safety management practises
of NZ food businesses and the generic marketing advantage of the New Zealand
brand; and (2) There should be further assistance to businesses, particularly SMEs.
Also, education maybe needed in terms of the management practices to deliver an
effective implementation of RMP.
13
References
Buchweitz and Salay (2000). Analysis of implementation and costs of HACCP system
in foodservice industry in the county of Campinas, Brazil. In L. J. Unnevehr
(Ed.), The economics of HACCP: costs and benefits (pp.335-346). St. Paul,
Minnesota, USA: Eagan Press.
Cao, K., Maurer, O., Scrimgeour, F., and Dake, C. (2004). The economics of HACCP:
a literature review. Forthcoming in Australian Agribusiness Perspectives.
Colatore, C. and Caswell J. A. (2000). The cost of HACCP implementation in the
seafood industry: a case study of breaded fish. In L. J. Unnevehr (Ed.), The
economics of HACCP: costs and benefits (pp.45-68). St. Paul, Minnesota, USA:
Eagan Press.
Henson, S., Holt, G., and Northen, J. (2000). Costs and benefits of implementing
HACCP in the UK dairy processing sector. In L. J. Unnevehr (Ed.), The
economics of HACCP: costs and benefits (pp.336-347). St. Paul, Minnesota,
USA: Eagan Press.
Mortlock, Peters, and Griffith (2000). Applying HACCP to small retailers and
caterers: a cost benefit approach. In L. J. Unnevehr (Ed.), The economics of
HACCP: costs and benefits (pp.301-314). St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: Eagan
Press.
Martin, S. and Anderson D. (2000). HACCP adoption in the US food industry. In L.
J. Unnevehr (Ed.), The economics of HACCP: costs and benefits (pp.15-28). St.
Paul, Minnesota, USA: Eagan Press.
Nganje and Mazzocco (2000). Economic Efficiency Analysis of HACCP in the US red
meat industry. In L. J. Unnevehr (Ed.), The economics of HACCP: costs and
benefits (pp.241-266). St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: Eagan Press.
NZFSA (2004). Web site http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz
Sielbert, Nayga Jr., and Hooker, N. (2000). Dimensions of food safety risk mitigation
strategies adopted by meat processors: the case of HACCP. Paper presented at
the World Food and Agribusiness Forum, IAMA, Chicago.
14
Appendix
(Size analysis)
1. Motivations
Table 6. SMEs’ motivations
Motivation Mean score % rank 0
Meet legal requirements 6.60 0.00
Access new overseas markets 6.08 20.00
Meet the needs of major customers 5.27 0.00
Recommended by MAF/Industry Association 5.00 6.67
Improve product quality 4.69 13.33
Attract new customers for products 4.50 6.67
Generally regarded as Board or CEO country wide policy 4.50 33.33
Generally regarded as good practice 4.43 6.67
Improve control of production process 4.31 13.33
Improve efficiency/profitability of plants 4.00 46.67
Reduce need for quality audits by customers 4.00 33.33
Needed for plant to be third party accredited 3.73 26.67
Reduce product wastage 3.25 46.67
Reduce customer complaints 3.20 33.33
Table 7. Large plants’ motivations
Motivation Mean score % rank 0
Meet legal requirements 6.75 0.00
Meet the needs of major customers 5.87 4.17
Access new overseas markets 5.38 12.50
Recommended by MAF/Industry Association 4.75 16.67
Generally regarded as Board or CEO country wide policy 4.47 20.83
Needed for plant to be third party accredited 4.40 16.67
Attract new customers for products 4.39 25.00
Improve product quality 4.38 12.50
Generally regarded as good practice 4.35 16.67
Reduce need for quality audits by customers 4.20 37.50
Improve control of production process 4.09 8.33
Improve efficiency/profitability of plants 4.00 41.67
Reduce customer complaints 3.71 29.17
Reduce product wastage 3.54 45.83
15
2. Costs
Table 8. SMEs’ costs
Implementation costs Mean Rank % rank 1 % rank 0
Design and development costs 1.40 60.00 0.00
Evaluation/Register costs 1.64 40.00 6.67
Training costs 2.23 13.33 13.33
Equipment purchases, new building 2.43 6.67 53.33
Operating costs Mean Rank % rank 1 % rank 0
Verification 1.21 60.00 6.67
Sampling/Testing 2.31 13.33 13.33
Record-keeping 1.83 26.67 20.00
Recurred training costs 2.64 20.00 26.67
Table 9. Large plants’ costs
Implementation costs Mean Rank % rank 1 % rank 0
Design and development costs 1.46 45.83 0.00
Evaluation/Register costs 1.58 37.50 0.00
Training costs 2.19 20.83 12.50
Equipment purchases, new building 2.10 0.00 58.33
Operating costs Mean Rank % rank 1 % rank 0
Verification 1.17 62.50 0.00
Sampling/Testing 1.52 37.50 12.50
Record-keeping 2.26 8.33 4.17
Recurred training costs 2.70 12.50 16.67
16
3. Benefits
Table 10. SMEs’ benefits
Benefit Mean score % rank 0
Increased ability to access new overseas markets 6.18 26.67
Increased ability to attract new customers 5.09 26.67
Increased ability to retain existing customers 5.08 20.00
Reduced product microbial counts 4.90 33.33
Increase sales 4.88 46.67
Reduced production costs 4.78 40.00
Increased control over operating process 4.33 20.00
Reduced product rework 4.22 40.00
Increased product shelf life 4.13 46.67
Increased efficiency in the use of inputs 3.78 40.00
Increased product prices 3.11 40.00
Table 11. Large plants’ benefits
Benefit Mean score % rank 0
Reduced product microbial counts 5.91 54.17
Increased ability to access new overseas markets 5.68 20.83
Increased ability to attract new customers 5.42 20.83
Increased efficiency in the use of inputs 5.30 58.33
Reduced production costs 5.22 62.50
Increased control over operating process 5.21 41.67
Increased ability to retain existing customers 5.19 12.50
Increased product shelf life 5.17 50.00
Increase sales 5.08 50.00
Increased product prices 4.91 54.17
Reduced product rework 4.86 41.67
17
4. Problems
Table 12. SMEs’ problems
Problem Mean score % rank 0
Recouping costs of implementing HACCP/RMP 5.43 6.67
Reduced staff time available for other tasks 4.73 26.67
Reduced flexibility to introduce new products 4.38 13.33
Reduced flexibility of production process 4.00 13.33
Need to retrain production staff 3.62 13.33
Lack of expertise in HACCP/RMP implementation 3.40 33.33
We are too small for HACCP/RMP 3.33 60.00
Attitude/motivation of production staff 3.17 20.00
Need to retrain supervisory/managerial staff 3.13 0.00
Reduced flexibility of production staff 3.00 33.33
Attitude/motivation of supervisory/managerial staff 2.92 20.00
Need to modify production process 2.36 26.67
Have to cut down number of products 2.25 46.67
Table 13. Large plants’ problems
Problem Mean score % rank 0
Recouping costs of implementing HACCP/RMP 4.80 16.67
Reduced flexibility to introduce new products 4.64 8.33
Reduced flexibility of production process 4.38 12.50
Reduced staff time available for other tasks 4.27 8.33
Lack of expertise in HACCP/RMP implementation 3.64 41.67
Attitude/motivation of supervisory/managerial staff 3.55 16.67
Need to retrain supervisory/managerial staff 3.45 8.33
Need to retrain production staff 3.23 8.33
Attitude/motivation of production staff 3.14 12.50
Reduced flexibility of production staff 3.00 16.67
Have to cut down number of products 2.27 54.17
Need to modify production process 2.19 33.33
We are too small for HACCP/RMP 1.17 75.00
